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.

Again, you're still just encouraging batteries and punishing armies that balance between two factions. If it was a choice between "It MUST be your solution" or "We stick with the current ruleset with no changes" I might be inclined to go with your system, but there's absolutely no reason why we have to go with a mediocre system that punishes a bunch of playstyles when we could just create a rule that only fixes problems and doesn't punish reasonable playstyles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again;

restrict CP to be used for the army in the detachment which generated it.

so if you're being fluffy and have a balance of 2 different armies which you want to synergise, you get (for example) 5 CP generated by army "A" and 6 generated by army "B".

the 5 can only be spent on stratagems in army A's codex.
the 6 can only be spent on stratagems in army B's codex.

so take the loyal 32, and get those CP, but spend them boosting a knight you shan't.

this would punish people abusing soup, but wouldn't have as much of an effect on people who are using allied detachments to plug holes in their list, rather than just to generate CP.

If you give everyone the same amount of CP then you're rendering this game more stale than it already is, and if it were a loaf of bread, it's already in danger of becoming a competitive alternative to concrete.

keep CP tied to an army list, but make people think about whether they want to have 5 more CP, but can only spend it on the new army, when they could instead spread their main force into a bigger detachment and gain 2CP to spend on anyone.

 some bloke wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again;

restrict CP to be used for the army in the detachment which generated it.

so if you're being fluffy and have a balance of 2 different armies which you want to synergise, you get (for example) 5 CP generated by army "A" and 6 generated by army "B".

the 5 can only be spent on stratagems in army A's codex.
the 6 can only be spent on stratagems in army B's codex.

so take the loyal 32, and get those CP, but spend them boosting a knight you shan't.

this would punish people abusing soup, but wouldn't have as much of an effect on people who are using allied detachments to plug holes in their list, rather than just to generate CP.

If you give everyone the same amount of CP then you're rendering this game more stale than it already is, and if it were a loaf of bread, it's already in danger of becoming a competitive alternative to concrete.

keep CP tied to an army list, but make people think about whether they want to have 5 more CP, but can only spend it on the new army, when they could instead spread their main force into a bigger detachment and gain 2CP to spend on anyone.

I would say a lot of people could be more persuaded about this if CP weren't so hamstrung by having a good troop choices.

Part of the issue is that the most typical situation of Imperial Guard being used alongside other forces to boost strategic options for marines, for example, is entirely how things go in the lore. I don’t think CP use should be limited to the the detachment that contributed them.

At the same time some have mentioned getting fixed increments of CP based on the number of points being played. I don’t think that should be the case either. It should remain something that drives decision making.

I’d propose CP are generated as they presently are, but where the game size determines the max number CP you can have.

Edit:
To expand on what I was saying... Say the game size 2000 pts / 100PL were to have a CP limit of 18. Someone somehow takes a Brigade and a Battalion giving them 17CP... even if they took another Brigade, they only get 1 more CP. Or a 1500pt game had a CP limit of 13CP, taking a Brigade and a Battalion, they'd only get 13 CP and the other 4 would just be lost.

Generally I think the CP limit should be much smaller than either of my examples. I think in 2000 pts games, around 12CP should probably be the max. That gives people incentive to build out a brigade, which is the scale the rules generally intend, taking the other detachments for non-cp flexibility. People wanting to play many smaller detachments can still get all those extra CP.

The only alternative to a max CP cap, is to either limit the number of stratagems per turn that can be used, or limit the number of times stratagems can be used per game. A limit to the number of times a stratagem can be used in a game could be a soft limit, where it just becomes progressively more expensive. However I think given GW effort to make the game streamlined a max limit of CP at the start of the game is the best route, whatever the basis for the max limit may be.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Part of the issue is that the most typical situation of Imperial Guard being used alongside other forces to boost strategic options for marines is entirely how things go in the lore. I don’t think CP use should be limited to the the detatchment that contributed them.

At the same time some have mentioned as getting fixed increments of CP based on the number of points being played. I don’t think that should be the case either.

I’d propose CP are generated as they present are, but where the game size determines the max number CP you can have.

This is true, but the fluff has imperial guard deployed to give marines cannon fodder, numbers, and the large array of battle tanks. The strategic options are opened because the marines don't have decent tanks and lots of chaff.

Guardsmen weren't deployed in the fluff to allow marines to use their stratagems more frequently. the commander will command what he does, whether there are 32 guardsmen standing on an objective feeling sorry for themselves or not.

The big issue with CP is that it rewards you for taking more detachments than the enemy, not for making a better list. You used to think "this will crack their transports, this will mow down infantry, this will get my troops there safely, then I can use this other army to take out fliers".
Now, allying is "I'll use this core of units, which will work well if they use every stratagem for every turn. Now I need to get X CP for a cheap as possible..."

stratagems are not strategy. overcharging a unit every turn using something which was initially balanced to be a "once or twice a game" thing, fuelled by a bunch of dudes whose only purpose is to stand there and generate CP, is not a good basis for a meta. it's like when you did 5 a side football at school, and you were only picked so the 3 good players had enough people to be called a "team". you never got the ball. I sat down for most of the match, in the end.

 some bloke wrote:

The big issue with CP is that it rewards you for taking more detachments than the enemy, not for making a better list. You used to think "this will crack their transports, this will mow down infantry, this will get my troops there safely, then I can use this other army to take out fliers".
Now, allying is "I'll use this core of units, which will work well if they use every stratagem for every turn. Now I need to get X CP for a cheap as possible..."

That's why I proposed tying Command Point to army composition (dividing it up by Power Level), instead of detachments.

are you saying that we tie the amount of CP to the power level of the army?

This could work - in casual games where people pick lists based on power level, both sides would be equal. but this will shift the issue into "who can get the most power level for the least points", and you will end up with units who have a high power level based on all their upgrades, brought in in-upgraded to add CP to the list.

Whereas, if you build your list around an army that works, or 2 armies which work together, then they get their CP separately, you encourage the alliances and cool lists, but you eliminate the "loyal 32" issue, because they would have to use their CP on their own guys, not on a knight.


Alternatively, mix it up entirely. Remove CP generation from the lists, and add it to the missions. "each player starts with X CP". Then, gain CP by fulfilling the mission objectives. Spend your CP on stratagems. and whoever has the most CP at the end wins.

so each use of CP is a gamble - if you spend 1 CP, you might gain 2, so do it. if you spend 2 CP, you might deny the opponent 3 CP. if you use this stratagem now, you will have less CP than the enemy.

if the CP is tied to the mission itself, it will become a lot less integral to the armies themselves. Stratagems will become bonuses instead of battleplans.

As long as each game has a basic level of CP for the starting quantity (which could be defined by army size) you can assume having, say, 5CP at the start of any game (some might be more, but none less).

 some bloke wrote:
...

This is true, but the fluff has imperial guard deployed to give marines cannon fodder, numbers, and the large array of battle tanks. The strategic options are opened because the marines don't have decent tanks and lots of chaff.

Guardsmen weren't deployed in the fluff to allow marines to use their stratagems more frequently. the commander will command what he does, whether there are 32 guardsmen standing on an objective feeling sorry for themselves or not.

Stratagems represent the ability of a force to better coordinate. Having a block of guardsmen/fodder and their tanks allow space marines to do that. You look to some of the novelizations, its a common occurrence that some group of guardsmen get asked to hold a point as long as possible while the space marines go and do something else... the stratagems represent that something else.

Otherwise what you're points really argue is whether command points and stratagems should even exist. I think they've just become something bigger than they were meant to be.

 some bloke wrote:

The big issue with CP is that it rewards you for taking more detachments than the enemy, not for making a better list. You used to think "this will crack their transports, this will mow down infantry, this will get my troops there safely, then I can use this other army to take out fliers".
Now, allying is "I'll use this core of units, which will work well if they use every stratagem for every turn. Now I need to get X CP for a cheap as possible..."

stratagems are not strategy. overcharging a unit every turn using something which was initially balanced to be a "once or twice a game" thing, fueled by a bunch of dudes whose only purpose is to stand there and generate CP, is not a good basis for a meta. it's like when you did 5 a side football at school, and you were only picked so the 3 good players had enough people to be called a "team". you never got the ball. I sat down for most of the match, in the end.

I agree, that's why as long as CP and stratagems remain in the game they should be more limited than they are. I like your analogy, it represents what CP and Stratagem have become... when, to continue your analogy, the system was intended and should be used like calling time outs, where the coach gives everyone a little bit of direction to change up the approach being taken and but is something that is limited in the number of times it can be done.

The problem with stratagems is that many of them were intended to be once per game occurrences, that have been allowed to be overused because they made CP too easy to get and too plentiful. A block of guardsmen in many armies isn't the problem, heck its probably the first time in all of 40k history that the most plentiful military force in the Imperium is actually getting represented on the table top that way.

A hypothetical CP limit should be relatively easy to hit. For example setting the CP limit to equal what you get for fielding a brigade being the hard limit. A person focused on one force will get the max CP pretty easily, and people that want to play a mixed force work there way up to the cap detachment by detachment. IF its too easy for everyone to hit the limit with many little detachments, the number of CP granted by the other detachments should drop.

The downside to this approach is that GW made the mistake of giving certain armies the ability to regenerate CP and that disproportionately disadvantages armies with low number of CP or everyone else if a CP limit were imposed.

The more involved solution if they didn't want to fix the CP supply side, is to simply errata into the stratagems a limit to how many times different stratagems can be used.

Why not just cloister CP to the detachment that generated it?

15 CP generated by Ig can only be spent on IG,

your knight gets no benefit from the IG added CP.

dreadlybrew wrote:
Why not just cloister CP to the detachment that generated it?

15 CP generated by Ig can only be spent on IG,

your knight gets no benefit from the IG added CP.

The argument is that its 'too much bookkeeping and slows down the game', which I find absurd.

 skchsan wrote:

dreadlybrew wrote:
Why not just cloister CP to the detachment that generated it?

15 CP generated by Ig can only be spent on IG,

your knight gets no benefit from the IG added CP.

The argument is that its 'too much bookkeeping and slows down the game', which I find absurd.

The issue isn't the shared CP though, because imbalances come from units themselves being too powerful.

Space Marines have more units than several codices. However, it doesn't matter if they gain any CP from an allied 32, because almost all the units need to be reworked.

The issue isn't the shared CP though, because imbalances come from units themselves being too powerful.

Space Marines have more units than several codices. However, it doesn't matter if they gain any CP from an allied 32, because almost all the units need to be reworked.

Pretty sure you might find yourself just fighting a lot more guard lists.

I cant find a reason why it might be considered hard book keeping. GSC has to halv brood brothers... heck just halve the CP you get from not your warlords army.

IG being imbalanced is a whole other bag of tricks i guess.

dreadlybrew wrote:
Why not just cloister CP to the detachment that generated it?

15 CP generated by Ig can only be spent on IG,

your knight gets no benefit from the IG added CP.

I think it's easily argued that the tactical flexibility of bringing certain forces intended to extend other detachments. I used the example before but how often in the novels has a group of Guardsmen been left to hold a position to the death, just so a small group of Space Marines can go off and do something more important? -Stratagems represent doing those more important things. And this example shows exactly how a group of Imperial Guard would convey the tactical flexibility and the opportunity to use that to better effect.

 aka_mythos wrote:

dreadlybrew wrote:
Why not just cloister CP to the detachment that generated it?

15 CP generated by Ig can only be spent on IG,

your knight gets no benefit from the IG added CP.

I think it's easily argued that the tactical flexibility of bringing certain forces intended to extend other detachments. I used the example before but how often in the novels has a group of Guardsmen been left to hold a position to the death, just so a small group of Space Marines can go off and do something more important? -Stratagems represent doing those more important things. And this example shows exactly how a group of Imperial Guard would convey the tactical flexibility and the opportunity to use that to better effect.

So guardsmen need to die so that knights can shoot better... Sounds more Ynnari...

No, cheap CP batteries and farms need to die a horrible death. Period. There really is no point in defending it.

This post is about proposing a meaning way of incorporating allies that ISN'T CP generation.

 skchsan wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

dreadlybrew wrote:
Why not just cloister CP to the detachment that generated it?

15 CP generated by Ig can only be spent on IG,

your knight gets no benefit from the IG added CP.

I think it's easily argued that the tactical flexibility of bringing certain forces intended to extend other detachments. I used the example before but how often in the novels has a group of Guardsmen been left to hold a position to the death, just so a small group of Space Marines can go off and do something more important? -Stratagems represent doing those more important things. And this example shows exactly how a group of Imperial Guard would convey the tactical flexibility and the opportunity to use that to better effect.

So guardsmen need to die so that knights can shoot better... Sounds more Ynnari...

No, cheap CP batteries and farms need to die a horrible death. Period. There really is no point in defending it.

Don't be obtuse. The point in defending it is because of what the rule represents. If this were chess, these rules would be akin to how you can castle a king, trading places between it and a rook, it is a specific sort of synergy intended to keep the game from becoming too predictable.

The CP, represent the tactical flexibility brought to an army by the presence of that supplemental force. I've given a clear narrative example of the sort of flexibility it represent. CP and many of the stratagems represent synergistic advantages. The CP and stratagems, in your Guardmen/Knight example would represent the few moments the IG buy the Knight so it can get a better target locks, or more fully charge it's weapons, or venting excess reactor heat... whatever. Without the guardsmen there the Knight has to keep moving or pull that "trigger" a moment early. This is what it's suppose to represented.

Absent that the rules become representative of an armies ability to play by numbers.

The problem with this isn't an existential problem with CP and Stratagems, its the volume of CP and the frequency of Stratagem use. We had this edition for half a year before they FAQ'd the extra CP into the game and the only problem with the mechanic then were those few abilities that were allowing players to regenerate CP as it threw the mechanic out of balance.

I think had 8th edition not included Stratagems and CP, it would have been too simplified and too predictable of an edition. I think for better or worse it is a defining cornerstone of this edition. Eliminating it means you should write a whole new edition.

I think Stratagems and CP should be curtailed, but not eliminated. I think there should be a cap on the maximum amount of CP an army has at the start and all game. I also think most Stratagems should become one time use per game, either explicitly or by virtue of the max number of CP an army can get relative to the cost of the Stratagem. I think regenerating CP should be rare, and even if you can you're capped by the game maximum.

I think whatever the hypothetical max number of CP are in the game, the largest detachment you can choose to build your army around should give you that max. That's how few CP I'm generally thinking. Someone building an army from many smaller detachments, yes they can get to that max with smaller detachments, yes certain factions will have an easier time, and yes certain factions will always max out their CP.

 skchsan wrote:

This post is about proposing a meaning way of incorporating allies that ISN'T CP generation.

What are you talking about the original thread post literally proposes alternative schemes to allow allies to generate CP? If anything the original post is proposing meaningful ways to retain allies generating CP, without it getting out of hand.

Allies were far more meaningful last edition with the way characters and benefits operated.

Could you imagine Azrael giving current Conscripts Fearless and a 4++?

Your analogy of guardsmen holding a point so the marines can do their thing directly translates into the game without the stratagems - guard are cheap and can hold objectives, marines are expensive, so you take some guard to free up your marines.

allies should be taken for their own benefit, they should add the tactical flexibility of a different playstyle and a different set of strengths and weaknesses, used to plug holes in your main army's list. If the weakness your army suffers from is a lack of CP, then I would be inclined to think that the problem is the principles on which the list was built, and not the fact that you ran out of CP to fuel your awesome plan.

To use your analogy of chess, it's as if you replace some pawns with checkers, but that somehow allows you to now castle your king multiple times. the advantage is checkers move diagonally and pawns straight ahead, this increases your flexibility.

if CP isn't shared between the 2 armies, you still end up with the same amount of CP, but it means that if half your army is guard and half is marines, you have to use those two halves, not just using one and fuelling it with the other.

if you wanted an overhaul afterwards, you could have some stratagems which specify that they can be used with an allies CP, if it makes sense for them to do so. or have a stratagem at the start of the game which allows you to give 2 CP to an allied detachment, at the cost of 1CP. so allies could fuel knights, but at 2/3 the rate they do now.

Spending 1 CP to give an allied army 2CP seems a bit off. Did you mean spend 3CP to give 2CP?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Spending 1 CP to give an allied army 2CP seems a bit off. Did you mean spend 3CP to give 2CP?

essentially it's sacrificing 1 CP to move 2 to a different army, so yes, pay 3CP to add 2 CP to the other detachment, which is probably less complex to understand than pay 1Cp to move 2CP from one army to the other, and has the same effect.

 some bloke wrote:
Your analogy of guardsmen holding a point so the marines can do their thing directly translates into the game without the stratagems - guard are cheap and can hold objectives, marines are expensive, so you take some guard to free up your marines.

allies should be taken for their own benefit, they should add the tactical flexibility of a different playstyle and a different set of strengths and weaknesses, used to plug holes in your main army's list. If the weakness your army suffers from is a lack of CP, then I would be inclined to think that the problem is the principles on which the list was built, and not the fact that you ran out of CP to fuel your awesome plan.

To use your analogy of chess, it's as if you replace some pawns with checkers, but that somehow allows you to now castle your king multiple times. the advantage is checkers move diagonally and pawns straight ahead, this increases your flexibility.

if CP isn't shared between the 2 armies, you still end up with the same amount of CP, but it means that if half your army is guard and half is marines, you have to use those two halves, not just using one and fuelling it with the other.

if you wanted an overhaul afterwards, you could have some stratagems which specify that they can be used with an allies CP, if it makes sense for them to do so. or have a stratagem at the start of the game which allows you to give 2 CP to an allied detachment, at the cost of 1CP. so allies could fuel knights, but at 2/3 the rate they do now.

Except, as I brought up, the issue is broken units using said Strategems.

Marines have more units than some codices put together. So answer this question:
Does it matter that the Loyal 32 contribute any CP to them?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Your analogy of guardsmen holding a point so the marines can do their thing directly translates into the game without the stratagems - guard are cheap and can hold objectives, marines are expensive, so you take some guard to free up your marines.

allies should be taken for their own benefit, they should add the tactical flexibility of a different playstyle and a different set of strengths and weaknesses, used to plug holes in your main army's list. If the weakness your army suffers from is a lack of CP, then I would be inclined to think that the problem is the principles on which the list was built, and not the fact that you ran out of CP to fuel your awesome plan.

To use your analogy of chess, it's as if you replace some pawns with checkers, but that somehow allows you to now castle your king multiple times. the advantage is checkers move diagonally and pawns straight ahead, this increases your flexibility.

if CP isn't shared between the 2 armies, you still end up with the same amount of CP, but it means that if half your army is guard and half is marines, you have to use those two halves, not just using one and fuelling it with the other.

if you wanted an overhaul afterwards, you could have some stratagems which specify that they can be used with an allies CP, if it makes sense for them to do so. or have a stratagem at the start of the game which allows you to give 2 CP to an allied detachment, at the cost of 1CP. so allies could fuel knights, but at 2/3 the rate they do now.

Except, as I brought up, the issue is broken units using said Strategems.

Marines have more units than some codices put together. So answer this question:
Does it matter that the Loyal 32 contribute any CP to them?

This isn't about any specific army, though the loyal 32 are a very common CP generator.

Just because marines aren't the most competitive, doesn't mean that they should be relying on stealing extra CP from guardsmen which are added for the sole purpose of generating CP. Whether marines are ready to stand on their own without stealing their allies lollipops is beside the point. The big issue is powerful units getting access to their stratagems more often than they were balanced to do. As people said, stratagems were meant to be once or twice per game, but with a few cheap allies, now that the knight is surrounded by even less of their own army, it can perform stratagems more often.

Answer me honestly: would anyone take the loyal 32 (that is, on their own, no russes or anything, just the 32) if the CP they generated could only be spent on stratagems from the Astra Militarum codex? I doubt it. yes, they hold objectives, but if those CP were tied to the Astra Militarum codex, then most people would take a few more units from that army to make use of the stratagems. and by spending those extra points, they would have less points for another loyal 32, and so the amount of CP abuse would decrease.

is it such a bad thing that people should justify bringing an allied army by its own value, and not just how cheaply it can pump CP into their "actual" army? it wasn't rare to see 2 vs 1 games in the past, with 2 players allied against another, with both halves of one team operating independently but with the same goal. How much would it suck if you played a doubles game and your opponent spent all your CP on themselves?

1 CP per 10 PL no rounding seems like a fair system, but it doesn't address the soup situation.

The amount of CP different codices can field and generate varies considerably.

When creating stratagems for a faction, that factions ability to field and generate stratagems is very likely taken into account, i.e. a force of imperial knights will have very few CP, so each stratagem doesn't need to have a high price tag, even though it does boost a significant part of the army.

By fielding the loyal 32 or similar - fluff excuses or not - any such in-codex considerations about the balacing of stratagems are completely blown out of the water.

I cant blame any players for finding this failure in rule design and being shameless enough to exploit it - it all depends on the meta you play in.

The proper fix for this problem would be to lock CP to the faction that generated them, similar to mana colours in Magic the Gathering.

 skchsan wrote:
1 CP per 10 PL no rounding seems like a fair system, but it doesn't address the soup situation.

If you do this, you'll see a lot of ork nobs out there. the basic unit is cheap on points and expensive on PL, due to the amount of power klaws etc they can potentially take. Loyal 32 will be replaced by the belligerent 30.

Locking the CP to the faction that created it would not need any such overhaul, it would only affect people who are abusing the system to pump CP into one half of their army. People who play 2 armies in synergy, both of which are using their own stratagems, will be mostly unaffected. The bookkeeping argument is a bit of a straw-clutch, this is a game where people regularly keep track of how many wounds are on a huge amoun tof vehicles and monsters, do keep track of "army A has 5 CP and army B has 8CP" is hardly a stretch.

Aside from the massive amount of bookkeeping needed to have 2-3 numbers of CP on the go instead of 1, are there really any reasons for not doing this other than "but it ruins my overcharged army with cheap guard CP support"?

 some bloke wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Your analogy of guardsmen holding a point so the marines can do their thing directly translates into the game without the stratagems - guard are cheap and can hold objectives, marines are expensive, so you take some guard to free up your marines.

allies should be taken for their own benefit, they should add the tactical flexibility of a different playstyle and a different set of strengths and weaknesses, used to plug holes in your main army's list. If the weakness your army suffers from is a lack of CP, then I would be inclined to think that the problem is the principles on which the list was built, and not the fact that you ran out of CP to fuel your awesome plan.

To use your analogy of chess, it's as if you replace some pawns with checkers, but that somehow allows you to now castle your king multiple times. the advantage is checkers move diagonally and pawns straight ahead, this increases your flexibility.

if CP isn't shared between the 2 armies, you still end up with the same amount of CP, but it means that if half your army is guard and half is marines, you have to use those two halves, not just using one and fuelling it with the other.

if you wanted an overhaul afterwards, you could have some stratagems which specify that they can be used with an allies CP, if it makes sense for them to do so. or have a stratagem at the start of the game which allows you to give 2 CP to an allied detachment, at the cost of 1CP. so allies could fuel knights, but at 2/3 the rate they do now.

Except, as I brought up, the issue is broken units using said Strategems.

Marines have more units than some codices put together. So answer this question:
Does it matter that the Loyal 32 contribute any CP to them?

This isn't about any specific army, though the loyal 32 are a very common CP generator.

Just because marines aren't the most competitive, doesn't mean that they should be relying on stealing extra CP from guardsmen which are added for the sole purpose of generating CP. Whether marines are ready to stand on their own without stealing their allies lollipops is beside the point. The big issue is powerful units getting access to their stratagems more often than they were balanced to do. As people said, stratagems were meant to be once or twice per game, but with a few cheap allies, now that the knight is surrounded by even less of their own army, it can perform stratagems more often.

Answer me honestly: would anyone take the loyal 32 (that is, on their own, no russes or anything, just the 32) if the CP they generated could only be spent on stratagems from the Astra Militarum codex? I doubt it. yes, they hold objectives, but if those CP were tied to the Astra Militarum codex, then most people would take a few more units from that army to make use of the stratagems. and by spending those extra points, they would have less points for another loyal 32, and so the amount of CP abuse would decrease.

is it such a bad thing that people should justify bringing an allied army by its own value, and not just how cheaply it can pump CP into their "actual" army? it wasn't rare to see 2 vs 1 games in the past, with 2 players allied against another, with both halves of one team operating independently but with the same goal. How much would it suck if you played a doubles game and your opponent spent all your CP on themselves?

You missed the grand point it seems. Okay.

The point is, when a unit is absurd when that many CP is put into it, if any, it doesn't matter how many armies you can ally with and leach off their CP pool. Castellans are still broken even in a pure Knights army. Therefore, it doesn't matter how they get any extra CP.

If you tone down the problem units and buff the crap ones, that's already an incentive to not ally in the first place. As bad as 7th was handled, nobody can deny pure armies actually worked.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Your analogy of guardsmen holding a point so the marines can do their thing directly translates into the game without the stratagems - guard are cheap and can hold objectives, marines are expensive, so you take some guard to free up your marines.

allies should be taken for their own benefit, they should add the tactical flexibility of a different playstyle and a different set of strengths and weaknesses, used to plug holes in your main army's list. If the weakness your army suffers from is a lack of CP, then I would be inclined to think that the problem is the principles on which the list was built, and not the fact that you ran out of CP to fuel your awesome plan.

To use your analogy of chess, it's as if you replace some pawns with checkers, but that somehow allows you to now castle your king multiple times. the advantage is checkers move diagonally and pawns straight ahead, this increases your flexibility.

if CP isn't shared between the 2 armies, you still end up with the same amount of CP, but it means that if half your army is guard and half is marines, you have to use those two halves, not just using one and fuelling it with the other.

if you wanted an overhaul afterwards, you could have some stratagems which specify that they can be used with an allies CP, if it makes sense for them to do so. or have a stratagem at the start of the game which allows you to give 2 CP to an allied detachment, at the cost of 1CP. so allies could fuel knights, but at 2/3 the rate they do now.

Except, as I brought up, the issue is broken units using said Strategems.

Marines have more units than some codices put together. So answer this question:
Does it matter that the Loyal 32 contribute any CP to them?

This isn't about any specific army, though the loyal 32 are a very common CP generator.

Just because marines aren't the most competitive, doesn't mean that they should be relying on stealing extra CP from guardsmen which are added for the sole purpose of generating CP. Whether marines are ready to stand on their own without stealing their allies lollipops is beside the point. The big issue is powerful units getting access to their stratagems more often than they were balanced to do. As people said, stratagems were meant to be once or twice per game, but with a few cheap allies, now that the knight is surrounded by even less of their own army, it can perform stratagems more often.

Answer me honestly: would anyone take the loyal 32 (that is, on their own, no russes or anything, just the 32) if the CP they generated could only be spent on stratagems from the Astra Militarum codex? I doubt it. yes, they hold objectives, but if those CP were tied to the Astra Militarum codex, then most people would take a few more units from that army to make use of the stratagems. and by spending those extra points, they would have less points for another loyal 32, and so the amount of CP abuse would decrease.

is it such a bad thing that people should justify bringing an allied army by its own value, and not just how cheaply it can pump CP into their "actual" army? it wasn't rare to see 2 vs 1 games in the past, with 2 players allied against another, with both halves of one team operating independently but with the same goal. How much would it suck if you played a doubles game and your opponent spent all your CP on themselves?

You missed the grand point it seems. Okay.

The point is, when a unit is absurd when that many CP is put into it, if any, it doesn't matter how many armies you can ally with and leach off their CP pool. Castellans are still broken even in a pure Knights army. Therefore, it doesn't matter how they get any extra CP.

If you tone down the problem units and buff the crap ones, that's already an incentive to not ally in the first place. As bad as 7th was handled, nobody can deny pure armies actually worked.

Well I'm going to take the LVO winners opinion over yours and he disagreed, they need toned down when spamming strategums but not nerfing mono knights.
It's impossible to really balance codex's with no downside allies, unfortunately GW seams to be pushing this as their facoured playstyle look at both AoS and the fact that after this long they still haven't addressed and cross codex interactions just flat nerfed codex's regardless see Codex roid marines.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Your analogy of guardsmen holding a point so the marines can do their thing directly translates into the game without the stratagems - guard are cheap and can hold objectives, marines are expensive, so you take some guard to free up your marines.

allies should be taken for their own benefit, they should add the tactical flexibility of a different playstyle and a different set of strengths and weaknesses, used to plug holes in your main army's list. If the weakness your army suffers from is a lack of CP, then I would be inclined to think that the problem is the principles on which the list was built, and not the fact that you ran out of CP to fuel your awesome plan.

To use your analogy of chess, it's as if you replace some pawns with checkers, but that somehow allows you to now castle your king multiple times. the advantage is checkers move diagonally and pawns straight ahead, this increases your flexibility.

if CP isn't shared between the 2 armies, you still end up with the same amount of CP, but it means that if half your army is guard and half is marines, you have to use those two halves, not just using one and fuelling it with the other.

if you wanted an overhaul afterwards, you could have some stratagems which specify that they can be used with an allies CP, if it makes sense for them to do so. or have a stratagem at the start of the game which allows you to give 2 CP to an allied detachment, at the cost of 1CP. so allies could fuel knights, but at 2/3 the rate they do now.

Except, as I brought up, the issue is broken units using said Strategems.

Marines have more units than some codices put together. So answer this question:
Does it matter that the Loyal 32 contribute any CP to them?

This isn't about any specific army, though the loyal 32 are a very common CP generator.

Just because marines aren't the most competitive, doesn't mean that they should be relying on stealing extra CP from guardsmen which are added for the sole purpose of generating CP. Whether marines are ready to stand on their own without stealing their allies lollipops is beside the point. The big issue is powerful units getting access to their stratagems more often than they were balanced to do. As people said, stratagems were meant to be once or twice per game, but with a few cheap allies, now that the knight is surrounded by even less of their own army, it can perform stratagems more often.

Answer me honestly: would anyone take the loyal 32 (that is, on their own, no russes or anything, just the 32) if the CP they generated could only be spent on stratagems from the Astra Militarum codex? I doubt it. yes, they hold objectives, but if those CP were tied to the Astra Militarum codex, then most people would take a few more units from that army to make use of the stratagems. and by spending those extra points, they would have less points for another loyal 32, and so the amount of CP abuse would decrease.

is it such a bad thing that people should justify bringing an allied army by its own value, and not just how cheaply it can pump CP into their "actual" army? it wasn't rare to see 2 vs 1 games in the past, with 2 players allied against another, with both halves of one team operating independently but with the same goal. How much would it suck if you played a doubles game and your opponent spent all your CP on themselves?

You missed the grand point it seems. Okay.

The point is, when a unit is absurd when that many CP is put into it, if any, it doesn't matter how many armies you can ally with and leach off their CP pool. Castellans are still broken even in a pure Knights army. Therefore, it doesn't matter how they get any extra CP.

If you tone down the problem units and buff the crap ones, that's already an incentive to not ally in the first place. As bad as 7th was handled, nobody can deny pure armies actually worked.

Well I'm going to take the LVO winners opinion over yours and he disagreed, they need toned down when spamming strategums but not nerfing mono knights.
It's impossible to really balance codex's with no downside allies, unfortunately GW seams to be pushing this as their facoured playstyle look at both AoS and the fact that after this long they still haven't addressed and cross codex interactions just flat nerfed codex's regardless see Codex roid marines.

Nice appeal to authority so you didn't have to try and tackle my argument.
Also yeah you could balance codices like that. Literally anyone could ally with anyone in 7th, and look how often the mono coex armies won. It's because of broken units (and of course how formations were handled) that these things happened.

You can learn from history you know.

Except your wilfully ignoring that the Overpower of the unit your complaining about is not in the base unit datasheet but in the stacking of strategums. To the tune of 7 or 8 CP per turn, try and play that for more than 2 turns in pure codex knight list you won't do it, or you will but will have ruined the list to max CP and loose anyway.

You compare units under strategum etc buffs then state the unit is OP, if it's only balanced when sinking 50% of a 2k lists CP from that codex into it in a single turn, the unit would be trash tier 90% of the time, if a Castellen datasheet is so broken where are the renegade Castellen's? The balance problem is soup because the CP system isn't consistent, so codex's cant be balanced against a 2k list will have 15CP, they can currently have between 4 and 20+ CP.

Ice_can wrote:
Except your wilfully ignoring that the Overpower of the unit your complaining about is not in the base unit datasheet but in the stacking of strategums. To the tune of 7 or 8 CP per turn, try and play that for more than 2 turns in pure codex knight list you won't do it, or you will but will have ruined the list to max CP and loose anyway.

You compare units under strategum etc buffs then state the unit is OP, if it's only balanced when sinking 50% of a 2k lists CP from that codex into it in a single turn, the unit would be trash tier 90% of the time, if a Castellen datasheet is so broken where are the renegade Castellen's? The balance problem is soup because the CP system isn't consistent, so codex's cant be balanced against a 2k list will have 15CP, they can currently have between 4 and 20+ CP.

And I would argue that a Castellan getting even a 3++ or 4++ once is OP. That's why I'm saying Knights need a whole redesign.

Also you already know that the Chaos equivalent lacks a codex (since when did we count what are basically Indices?), so don't play dumb.

What about limiting 1 stratagem per phase per unit?

Would curtailing wombocombo solve the problem in any way?