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.

I think Battalions and Brigade NEEEED to go back to "factor settings" per the printed BRB. So Battalions are 3CPs, Brigaded 9CPs.

Now you make Battle Forged grant 5CPs and if all units in your ARMY share 2 or more Faction Keywords, that doubles to 10CPs.
So you get rewarded more for not "souping", but it doesn't outright invalidate allies.
It also doesn't favor armies that can spam cheap Battalions or Brigades

Done and Done.

-

 Galef wrote:
I think Battalions and Brigade NEEEED to go back to "factor settings" per the printed BRB. So Battalions are 3CPs, Brigaded 9CPs.

Now you make Battle Forged grant 5CPs and if all units in your ARMY share 2 or more Faction Keywords, that doubles to 10CPs.
So you get rewarded more for not "souping", but it doesn't outright invalidate allies.
It also doesn't favor armies that can spam cheap Battalions or Brigades

Done and Done.

-

Again, breaks for certain factions. As an example, several Necrons units don't have the <Dynasty> Faction Keyword. Take a unit of Triarch Praetorians, or one of several named HQs and the best you can do is 1 shared Faction Keyword.

Why not just base it on Warlord? If your Warlord is a Blood Angel, then all non-Blood Angel Detachments generate half CPs, rounding down. So, a Battalion would give only +2CP and most others would give +0CP (half, rounded down). You'd need to list out which Faction Keywords counted, but they'd basically be the different Codexes. You can still soup as much as you want, but you trade the unit flexibility for a reduced number of CPs.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think Battalions and Brigade NEEEED to go back to "factor settings" per the printed BRB. So Battalions are 3CPs, Brigaded 9CPs.

Now you make Battle Forged grant 5CPs and if all units in your ARMY share 2 or more Faction Keywords, that doubles to 10CPs.
So you get rewarded more for not "souping", but it doesn't outright invalidate allies.
It also doesn't favor armies that can spam cheap Battalions or Brigades

Done and Done.

-

Again, breaks for certain factions. As an example, several Necrons units don't have the <Dynasty> Faction Keyword. Take a unit of Triarch Praetorians, or one of several named HQs and the best you can do is 1 shared Faction Keyword.

Why not just base it on Warlord? If your Warlord is a Blood Angel, then all non-Blood Angel Detachments generate half CPs, rounding down. So, a Battalion would give only +2CP and most others would give +0CP (half, rounded down). You'd need to list out which Faction Keywords counted, but they'd basically be the different Codexes. You can still soup as much as you want, but you trade the unit flexibility for a reduced number of CPs.

Good points. I think a combo of both would be good, however.

Battalions go back to 3CPs, Brigaded 9CPs per original BRB release. BF grants 5CPs
Detachments in which all units share 2 or more Faction Keywords as the army's Warlord grant double CPs

So you'd put those odd-ball units in different detachments so that you main force would get more CPs

Thoughts?

-

I would focus on most specific keyword only, with obvious army list exceptions like MT, officio prefectus, triarch, etc.

So, only keywords like <Chapter>, <Dynasty>, etc counts towards it - in other words, if you cannot claim the benefits of CT and equivalents, you cannot claim CP from battleforged.

A drukhari list will not be granted battleforged CP if it has one <Wych Cult>, one <Kabal>, and one <Haemonculus Coven> in their army composition.

If you choose to combine WHITE SCAR and ULTRAMARINES in one detachment, they cannot count towards having detachment of something, as the said detachment is not eligible for a CT for either chapter.

Doing "match-two-to-win" is unnecessary complexity to solve the problem IMO.

Why would you even nerf Dark Eldar like that? Worst suggestion by far.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tau, <SEPT>. That's all they got.

Necron, <DYNASTY>. Same.

Also Triarch Preatorians and Stalkers ca't get Dynasty Keywords, so any list that includes them can only share Necron.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tau, <SEPT>. That's all they got.

Necron, <DYNASTY>. Same.

Also Triarch Preatorians and Stalkers ca't get Dynasty Keywords, so any list that includes them can only share Necron.

Canoptek unitsnalso have <CANOPTEK> as a faction keyword.
All we need is a Canoptek HQ, and we could make a full list, barring troops.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why would you even nerf Dark Eldar like that? Worst suggestion by far.

1. DE has the best stratagems in game
2. DE has few of the best synergy involving troop FOC (Raider + kabalites).

DE has no problem gaining tactical advantages with taking troops as their core, and double dips on the CP gain?

We need to either reign in CP generation from batt/brigade or follow the suggestion regarding revamping battleforged CP bonus is my opinion.

Currently armies with strong troop choice = competitive because the troops pull their own weight in point efficiency AND buff their other FOC through CP to spend on stratagems.

Either ALL troops become taxes or be balanced via CP-effectiveness curve.

The three have ALWAYS worked together. It's completely unnecessary and you know it. If anything it's just hating on the army for the sake of hating on it.

To avoid the "this unit has no keyword" issues, we could simply state that if a detachment only contains one keyword, then it gains the benefits.

so if a Necron army is all one dynasty with one non-dynasty unit, then it still only has one dynasty and so gains benefits.

If a necron army is all one dynasty and then takes a character from another dynasty, it doesn't get the benefits.

This might need a little bit of tweaking to remove some keywords from characters to stop them from becoming entirely unused. or just scrap this silly "Keyword" system and just say units from the same codex.

Otherwise, giving extra benefits to the "true battleforged" lists and slightly reduced benefits to soup would be a good option.

The root of the aim here is for a mixed army not to be at a disadvantage, but for the best CP generation to be from a themed army, not from a mixed one.

Then people can still take a mixed bag, gain less CP but have the flexibility of multiple armies, or can take a themed list from the same codex and gain more CP, sacrificing the flexibility of multiple armies.

Ergo, the knights fuelled by guard soup will disappear, but people won't be funnelled into pure-army games. Though pure army games were how it all started, and I daresay they were much more fun than the usual "and I've taken a minimal tau force so I can include a riptide, because my army was balanced by not having one" system we all loved through 7th.

There is literally no fix for EVERY situation, so we need to stop picking out those 1-2 examples that don't get the bonus of a potential fix and say that fix just doesn't work at all.

I truly feel that my suggestion (Detachments that share 2 or more Keywords with your WL get double CPs) If the best overall, with very, very few execptions.

Heck, this fix even works for Dark Eldar with their funky Partrol detachment nonsense as even Wyches, Kabals and Coven units have AELDARI and DRUHKARI as keywords and thus would share those with any WL you pick.
Required TWO shared keywords prevents IMPERIUM, AELDARI, CHAOS, etc from being the only requirement, thus adding 1 extra layer of "unification" to an army. 99% of army lists can do this, so why dismiss the fix for the 1%?

What my suggestion stops is Imperial/CWE armies taking cheap Guard/DE Battalions as CP batteries.
Combined with returning Battalions to only 3CPs and every faction should get more CPs but sticking to an army.
Imperials still get to take various Marines as they would all share IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES, but that is hardly broken as Marines needs all the help they can get.

For Necron Triarch units, just put them in their own detachment like Assassins and Fallen units already have to do. It's not that big a deal

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The three have ALWAYS worked together. It's completely unnecessary and you know it. If anything it's just hating on the army for the sake of hating on it.

So under your premises, it's ok for DE to run three different subfactions and get bonuses but not when an ultramarine, white scar and salamanders come together as a single army? Because DE has ALWAYS played so and SM hasn't?

It's not about "hating on the army for the sake of hating on it," but rather proposing some kind of consistency. Why is it that DE are the ONLY ones that get a special detachmental bonuses for taking three patrols? Its not about whether the said patrol detachment based army is going to be competitive or not. It has 0 precedence and 0 conformity to rest of the game. Why is it that DE are the ONLY race with a stratagem to null others' stratagems? Why are they the ONLY army that has anti-fall back mechanism? Why are DE the only race that can actually take three battalions and STILL be competitive? Well you see, it's not a problem of DE being broken because NONE of the things I've listed above are actually broken and simply what's unique about DE - it's the fact that the CP-stratagem-troop choice imbalance between the codex that causing this problem.

CP based on the force organization slot is a flawed system that needs to be overhauled come 8.5th Edition. 8th ed was going towards a good direction in terms of opening up different builds, but they went back and made troops much more important again.

As I've suggested, you either:
1. keep the CP that detachments come with (still bump back down battalion and brigade to 3 and 9) and give more restrictive conditions for claiming battleforged CP (which also gets a hefty boost).
2. Reduce/remove the CP gain from detachmental choices, and implement the CP rewards for how many times detachments share specific keywords, and retain the normal battleforged base CP (base Battleforged CP + CP based on how many detachments share specific keyword)

 skchsan wrote:
2. Reduce/remove the CP gain from detachmental choices, and implement the CP rewards for how many times detachments share specific keywords, and retain the normal battleforged base CP (base Battleforged CP + CP based on how many detachments share specific keyword)

I agree with this in theory, but you really cannot give bonuses for more then 2 shared Keywords, as there are whole Xenos books that cannot feasibly get 3 or more shared keywords. And the ones that can right now are conveniently the armies that are able to abuse "soup", so you might actually make the problem WORSE (or rather just a literal move to equally bad) by rewarding 3+ shared keyword detachments.

All that needs to be done is giving the bonus if a detachment shares 2 or more keywords with your WL. The allows 99% of lists to get the bonus, while at the same time, immediately addressing Guard + Marines + Knights soup or CWE + Drukari + Ynnari soup. Those 2 "soups", plus maybe Chaos soup, are really the big offenders. None of those "soups" can claim to share 2 or more keyword with the army WL.
So you'd still allow soup, but non-soup would get more CPs

-

 Galef wrote:
For Necron Triarch units, just put them in their own detachment like Assassins and Fallen units already have to do. It's not that big a deal.

They're overpriced now. If I was forced to take three units and a tax HQ in a Vanguard OR lose a CP for an Aux, they'd be even worse to take. I would say your idea is definitely a big deal and would almost guarantee nobody ever runs these units. That's not a good solution.

I actually like how Kill Team handles CP. You get 1 per turn and then another if your leader is still alive. 40k could definitely do something like this...

* Start the game with 1CP + 1CP/500pts. So, a 2000pt army would start with 5CP. A 1000pt army would start with 3CP. These CP can be used for pre-game stuff or saved for later in the game.
* Gain 1CP at the start of your turn.
* Gain another 2CP at the start of your turn if your Warlord is still alive.

Number would need tweaking, but it wouldn't matter how many Detachment you have or whether or not you're running soup. The majority of your strategic capability is tied to your Warlord being present, alive and in charge of your army. If he dies, your flow of CP drops from 3/turn to 1/turn. I think this makes thematic sense and also gives players a reason to take out an opponent's command structure.

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The three have ALWAYS worked together. It's completely unnecessary and you know it. If anything it's just hating on the army for the sake of hating on it.

So under your premises, it's ok for DE to run three different subfactions and get bonuses but not when an ultramarine, white scar and salamanders come together as a single army? Because DE has ALWAYS played so and SM hasn't?

It's not about "hating on the army for the sake of hating on it," but rather proposing some kind of consistency. Why is it that DE are the ONLY ones that get a special detachmental bonuses for taking three patrols? Its not about whether the said patrol detachment based army is going to be competitive or not. It has 0 precedence and 0 conformity to rest of the game. Why is it that DE are the ONLY race with a stratagem to null others' stratagems? Why are they the ONLY army that has anti-fall back mechanism? Why are DE the only race that can actually take three battalions and STILL be competitive? Well you see, it's not a problem of DE being broken because NONE of the things I've listed above are actually broken and simply what's unique about DE - it's the fact that the CP-stratagem-troop choice imbalance between the codex that causing this problem.

CP based on the force organization slot is a flawed system that needs to be overhauled come 8.5th Edition. 8th ed was going towards a good direction in terms of opening up different builds, but they went back and made troops much more important again.

As I've suggested, you either:
1. keep the CP that detachments come with (still bump back down battalion and brigade to 3 and 9) and give more restrictive conditions for claiming battleforged CP (which also gets a hefty boost).
2. Reduce/remove the CP gain from detachmental choices, and implement the CP rewards for how many times detachments share specific keywords, and retain the normal battleforged base CP (base Battleforged CP + CP based on how many detachments share specific keyword)

Dark Eldar take separate detachments and Space Marines do the same. It really isn't an issue.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:
For Necron Triarch units, just put them in their own detachment like Assassins and Fallen units already have to do. It's not that big a deal.

They're overpriced now. If I was forced to take three units and a tax HQ in a Vanguard OR lose a CP for an Aux, they'd be even worse to take.

Chaos/Imperium Fallen say hello

And besides, I am not saying putting them in your main Battalion wouldn't give you CPs at all, you just wouldn't get double CPs.

But I think assigning CPs per 500pts and per turn is a good alternative too. It completely throws out using detachments as a means to generate CPs.
That has it's own pros and cons too, but it is certainly more "even". Detachments are primarily to build your army, not just to get the most CPs

-

Fallen have the issue of having lost Infiltration and can't use Rhinos. Otherwise they're only a point more than the basic Marines for an extra attack and LD.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fallen have the issue of having lost Infiltration and can't use Rhinos. Otherwise they're only a point more than the basic Marines for an extra attack and LD.

Right, they are pretty garbage. But they share the same "don't have X keywords" problem that Necron Triarchs have if we try to "fix" soup and CP abuse by giving bonuses for sharing more keywords
No fix will fix every problem in a game with the kind of variety 40K has

-

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fallen have the issue of having lost Infiltration and can't use Rhinos. Otherwise they're only a point more than the basic Marines for an extra attack and LD.

Right, they are pretty garbage. But they share the same "don't have X keywords" problem that Necron Triarchs have if we try to "fix" soup and CP abuse by giving bonuses for sharing more keywords
No fix will fix every problem in a game with the kind of variety 40K has

-

Untrue. Just divorce CP generation from army composition. My method doesn't care what your army looks like. Everyone has the same access to CP. Lose your Warlord and you take a hit to CP generation. You'd need to figure out how much to start with and how much to generate each turn to keep the game balanced, but it should be the same for everyone.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fallen have the issue of having lost Infiltration and can't use Rhinos. Otherwise they're only a point more than the basic Marines for an extra attack and LD.

Right, they are pretty garbage. But they share the same "don't have X keywords" problem that Necron Triarchs have if we try to "fix" soup and CP abuse by giving bonuses for sharing more keywords
No fix will fix every problem in a game with the kind of variety 40K has

-

Untrue. Just divorce CP generation from army composition. My method doesn't care what your army looks like. Everyone has the same access to CP. Lose your Warlord and you take a hit to CP generation. You'd need to figure out how much to start with and how much to generate each turn to keep the game balanced, but it should be the same for everyone.

Oh, I agree your fix is far closer to balanced, but it does make Battalions and Brigades completely irrelevant. Almost every detachment has Troops slots, so what possible reason would you have to take a Battalion over, say an Outrider + Vanguard? Same HQ tax, zero Troops tax, but you could still take them if you need then and way more Elite and Fast choices

The only way I could see you fix working without basically being "unbound, take whatever, who cares" armies is if the Detachment number allowed was 1, maybe 2. Now you have to pick which one you want to fill, but you would never see the Command, Flyer or Aux detachments, for example. But that would also screw over Assassins, Inq, DE and others

With so many Detachment options, something needs to be in place to encourage the bigger ones over multiple smaller ones.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fallen have the issue of having lost Infiltration and can't use Rhinos. Otherwise they're only a point more than the basic Marines for an extra attack and LD.

Right, they are pretty garbage. But they share the same "don't have X keywords" problem that Necron Triarchs have if we try to "fix" soup and CP abuse by giving bonuses for sharing more keywords
No fix will fix every problem in a game with the kind of variety 40K has

-

Untrue. Just divorce CP generation from army composition. My method doesn't care what your army looks like. Everyone has the same access to CP. Lose your Warlord and you take a hit to CP generation. You'd need to figure out how much to start with and how much to generate each turn to keep the game balanced, but it should be the same for everyone.

Oh, I agree your fix is far closer to balanced, but it does make Battalions and Brigades completely irrelevant. Almost every detachment has Troops slots, so what possible reason would you have to take a Battalion over, say an Outrider + Vanguard? Same HQ tax, zero Troops tax, but you could still take them if you need then and way more Elite and Fast choices

The only way I could see you fix working without basically being "unbound, take whatever, who cares" armies is if the Detachment number allowed was 1, maybe 2. Now you have to pick which one you want to fill, but you would never see the Command, Flyer or Aux detachments, for example. But that would also screw over Assassins, Inq, DE and others

With so many Detachment options, something needs to be in place to encourage the bigger ones over multiple smaller ones.

-

I'm not recommending ANY changes to the way armies are built now. DE can still take multiple Patrols. Assassins can still tag along in Aux Detachments. &c. &c. I'm recommending that CP generation be tied to the game size and ability to keep Warlords alive.

Also, why do we want to encourage bigger ones over multiple smaller ones?

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fallen have the issue of having lost Infiltration and can't use Rhinos. Otherwise they're only a point more than the basic Marines for an extra attack and LD.

Right, they are pretty garbage. But they share the same "don't have X keywords" problem that Necron Triarchs have if we try to "fix" soup and CP abuse by giving bonuses for sharing more keywords
No fix will fix every problem in a game with the kind of variety 40K has

-

Untrue. Just divorce CP generation from army composition. My method doesn't care what your army looks like. Everyone has the same access to CP. Lose your Warlord and you take a hit to CP generation. You'd need to figure out how much to start with and how much to generate each turn to keep the game balanced, but it should be the same for everyone.

Oh, I agree your fix is far closer to balanced, but it does make Battalions and Brigades completely irrelevant. Almost every detachment has Troops slots, so what possible reason would you have to take a Battalion over, say an Outrider + Vanguard? Same HQ tax, zero Troops tax, but you could still take them if you need then and way more Elite and Fast choices

The only way I could see you fix working without basically being "unbound, take whatever, who cares" armies is if the Detachment number allowed was 1, maybe 2. Now you have to pick which one you want to fill, but you would never see the Command, Flyer or Aux detachments, for example. But that would also screw over Assassins, Inq, DE and others

With so many Detachment options, something needs to be in place to encourage the bigger ones over multiple smaller ones.

-

I'm not recommending ANY changes to the way armies are built now. DE can still take multiple Patrols. Assassins can still tag along in Aux Detachments. &c. &c. I'm recommending that CP generation be tied to the game size and ability to keep Warlords alive.

Also, why do we want to encourage bigger ones over multiple smaller ones?

I am just saying that if we completely remove CPs from detachments, there is ZERO reason to even take a Battalion ever again. You can just take Outriders, Vanguards or Spearheads instead. Those also allow Troops if you want, but don't require them. If you are already taking 3 fast, elite or heavy choices, no need for a Battalion unless you want a more balanced force
The same goes for Brigades and Aux detachments. You already don't see them often, and if you can just take 2 of the above mentions detachments, you get all the slots you could want without any many requirements.
Or just spam Patrol detachments for even less requirements

I certainly like your idea, but we need to add something to make all detachments have purpose. Or not. I'd be cool with just taking Outriders and Spearheads
Maybe in Matched Play all armies should be required to start with a Battalion or Brigade (or Super Heavy detachment for Knights). That might be a good start

-

 Galef wrote:
I certainly like your idea, but we need to add something to make all detachments have purpose. Or not. I'd be cool with just taking Outriders and Spearheads

The downside to Outriders and Spearheads of course being that you HAVE TO take 3x Fast Attacks or 3x Heavy Supports. Battalions are essentially the Troops equivalent of an Outrider or Spearhead.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Dark Eldar take separate detachments and Space Marines do the same. It really isn't an issue.

You are right. In a sense, <Kabal>, <Wych Cult> and <Haemonculus Coven> are once-mutated form of keyword <Drukhari Obsessions>, to be replaced with appropriate obsession.

Then maybe the 'specific most' keyword isn't something that's desirable in my given proposal.

I'll be back with something more concrete.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I certainly like your idea, but we need to add something to make all detachments have purpose. Or not. I'd be cool with just taking Outriders and Spearheads

The downside to Outriders and Spearheads of course being that you HAVE TO take 3x Fast Attacks or 3x Heavy Supports. Battalions are essentially the Troops equivalent of an Outrider or Spearhead.

Probably just my personal bias then, because I would always max out on either Fast units, or Heavy, so I would NEVER need a Battalion. I often get the feeling that other armies do the same with Elites and Heavies. If you are already bringing those, why be required to take Troops?
Obsec is great, but I guarantee you a good number of players will forego Troops to table instead. And that's no fun.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I certainly like your idea, but we need to add something to make all detachments have purpose. Or not. I'd be cool with just taking Outriders and Spearheads

The downside to Outriders and Spearheads of course being that you HAVE TO take 3x Fast Attacks or 3x Heavy Supports. Battalions are essentially the Troops equivalent of an Outrider or Spearhead.

Probably just my personal bias then, because I would always max out on either Fast units, or Heavy, so I would NEVER need a Battalion. I often get the feeling that other armies do the same with Elites and Heavies. If you are already bringing those, why be required to take Troops?
Obsec is great, but I guarantee you a good number of players will forego Troops to table instead. And that's no fun.

-

I tend to play Troops heavy Necron lists. I'm not generally worried about being tabled! Although, I do tend to use enough Fast Attack choices to fill an Outrider. My "standard" is a Battalion + Outrider.

Fair enough. But imagine if you didn't need the Battalion and an Outrider + Patrol could fill all the slots you needed. That would be 1 less HQ required, therefore more points to spend on more Troops or Fast attack.
Not saying you wouldn't want your current 3 HQs, but it adds that layer to list building that makes is fairly different than right now with CPs

Maybe we remove CPs from most detachments, but Battalions still grant +1CP and Brigades +3? The rest being generated by Batte Forged 5CPs and +2CPs per 500pts of an army?
That way you still want the bigger detachments, but they hardly make a huge dent if you'd rather use Outriders

-

 Galef wrote:
Fair enough. But imagine if you didn't need the Battalion and an Outrider + Patrol could fill all the slots you needed. That would be 1 less HQ required, therefore more points to spend on more Troops or Fast attack.
Not saying you wouldn't want your current 3 HQs, but it adds that layer to list building that makes is fairly different than right now with CPs

Maybe we remove CPs from most detachments, but Battalions still grant +1CP and Brigades +3? The rest being generated by Batte Forged 5CPs and +2CPs per 500pts of an army?
That way you still want the bigger detachments, but they hardly make a huge dent if you'd rather use Outriders

-

That seems like a reasonable compromise.

So, as a for instance, and assuming Battleforge...
Start with 1CP + 1CP per 500pts in the agreed upon army size.
Add +2CP for each Battalion, +5CP for each Brigade. (Didn't seem like +1/+3 was enough)
Gain +1CP at the start of each of your turns.
Gain an additional +2CP at the start of each of your turns if your Warlord is alive.

An army with only Outriders/Vanguard/Etc would start with 5CP at 2000 points and generate 3 per turn until its Warlord is dead.
An army with a Battalion and an Outrider would start with 7CP at 2000 points and generate 3 per turn until its Warlord is dead.
An army with only Vanguard/Outrider/Aux and the +2 Relics strategem would start with 2CP at 2000 points and generate 3 per turn until its Warlord is dead.

So, Battalions/Brigades would have a slight advantage, but not the huge advantage they have now. Also, the decision to take extra Relics or an Aux Detachment would be felt more at the start of the game. Now, I'd say it's felt more towards the end, from a CP standpoint.

Yep, that sounds darn near perfect.

I would even be happy with the very simple change to BF that it provide +3CPs at the start of each of your player turns if your WL is alive
With Battalions and Brigades going back down to 3/9CPs respectively, as well.

-

 Kriswall wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Fair enough. But imagine if you didn't need the Battalion and an Outrider + Patrol could fill all the slots you needed. That would be 1 less HQ required, therefore more points to spend on more Troops or Fast attack.
Not saying you wouldn't want your current 3 HQs, but it adds that layer to list building that makes is fairly different than right now with CPs

Maybe we remove CPs from most detachments, but Battalions still grant +1CP and Brigades +3? The rest being generated by Batte Forged 5CPs and +2CPs per 500pts of an army?
That way you still want the bigger detachments, but they hardly make a huge dent if you'd rather use Outriders

-

That seems like a reasonable compromise.

So, as a for instance, and assuming Battleforge...
Start with 1CP + 1CP per 500pts in the agreed upon army size.
Add +2CP for each Battalion, +5CP for each Brigade. (Didn't seem like +1/+3 was enough)
Gain +1CP at the start of each of your turns.
Gain an additional +2CP at the start of each of your turns if your Warlord is alive.

An army with only Outriders/Vanguard/Etc would start with 5CP at 2000 points and generate 3 per turn until its Warlord is dead.
An army with a Battalion and an Outrider would start with 7CP at 2000 points and generate 3 per turn until its Warlord is dead.
An army with only Vanguard/Outrider/Aux and the +2 Relics strategem would start with 2CP at 2000 points and generate 3 per turn until its Warlord is dead.

So, Battalions/Brigades would have a slight advantage, but not the huge advantage they have now. Also, the decision to take extra Relics or an Aux Detachment would be felt more at the start of the game. Now, I'd say it's felt more towards the end, from a CP standpoint.

What about other sized games?
500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 1,500, and 1750 are all very common points to play.
I know lots folks who only play 1,000 and lower due to space issues.
Lots of tournies are switching to 1750, I've heard of a few going as low as 1,500.