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.
Ice_can wrote: Can you explain how you have 600-700 points left in your marines plus castellan list with 13 CP as thats 2 battalion plus a Castellan?
2 Smash Captains and 3 scout squads are 423 points, 2 Lieutenants and 3 Scouts are 293 points and a Castellan is 604. Which is a total of 1320 points and 13 starting CP. You can of course get this cheaper by using an Admech battalion, but I though I’d use the bad Marines as an example.
To all people saying that Infantry Squads are fine because they are a defensive unit and should be durable because thats IG quirck... do you now that Poxwalkers, the cheap chaff unit of the "Durable" God of Chaos, without armor (So ignore AP) and without any shooting attack... are less efficient agaisnt anti-infantry fire than Infantry Squads?
Even when you consider morale, something Poxwalkers ignore.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
Why ambush can be used only once? It's deployment so unless strategem says otherwise can be spammed.
Oh and jury rigging very strong...No movement, whopping 1 hull point. Whee.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
Why ambush can be used only once? It's deployment so unless strategem says otherwise can be spammed.
Oh and jury rigging very strong...No movement, whopping 1 hull point. Whee.
For some reason I had Ambush in my head as having a “1 use only” restriction. My bad, if it’s not the case.
That said, if you want to use Ambush multiple times in a game, sure, go ahead. With my suggestion of only being able to farm CP back via Grand Strategist, using Ambush multiple times on multiple Infantry squads and a couple of vehicles, it’s going to eat up the starting CP figure pretty quickly.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
I posted the values earlier but Grand Strategists and Kurov's turn that battalion from providing 5CP to 10CP in an avarage game.
So devide 180 points by 10 CP and its 18 points for each CP even without the regen they still pay on the lowest end.
Outflank Can be used on 1 LoW or on an entire squadron(another thing other factions don't generally have acess to)
Jurry rigging is out of phase so technically unlimited uses per turn.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
I posted the values earlier but Grand Strategists and Kurov's turn that battalion from providing 5CP to 10CP in an avarage game.
So devide 180 points by 10 CP and its 18 points for each CP even without the regen they still pay on the lowest end.
Outflank Can be used on 1 LoW or on an entire squadron(another thing other factions don't generally have acess to)
Jurry rigging is out of phase so technically unlimited uses per turn.
Isn’t the “start of the turn” the start of the movement phase? As such Jury Rigging would be in a phase? Just going off the battle primer turn breakdown.
Spoiler:
Warhammer 40,000 is played in a series of battle rounds. During each battle round, both players have a turn. The same player always takes the first turn in each battle round – the mission you are playing will tell you which player this is. Each turn consists of a series of phases, which must be resolved in order. The phases are as follows:
1.Movement phase Move any units that are capable of doing so.
2.Psychic phase Psykers can use powerful mental abilities.
3.Shooting phase Your units may shoot enemy units.
4.Charge phase Your units may move into close combat against enemy units.
5.Fight phase Both players’ units pile in and attack with melee weapons.
6.Morale phase Test the courage of depleted units.
Once a player’s turn has ended, their opponent then starts their turn. Once both players have completed a turn, the battle round has been completed and the next one begins, and so on, until the battle is concluded.
Once the game begins there isn’t a “step” between start of your turn and the start of the movement phase, so surely it’ll follow the standard restrictions?
How many times are you expecting to roll for Aquilla in a standard game? 9?
It also goes to show that the issue isn’t with the points cost of the Guard, rather their ability to farm CP.
When looking at a pure Guard army, is the amount of stratagems said army is able to use, seriously a problem?
For me, the problem lies with other codices being able to benefit from the CP regeneration of the Guard, not the fact that when looking at a basic minimum battalion the Guard have superior cost per CP after regeneration figures.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 12:50:27
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
I have to agree with this one. Smashcaptains and IKs would not work that well with LIMITED (as intended) number of CPs (which is guaranteed by the nerf of both Kurov's Aquila/Veritas Vitae and Grand Strategist WL).
We could then argue that Guard brings too many CPs to the table for their cost, but nevertheless they would still burn all their CPs in 2 turns if they were to play that list without the aid of the aforementioned Relics/WL.
Ice_can wrote: The Renegade are paying 37 points per CP to guards 18 points per CP.
You keep bringing up this 18 point value.
Firstly - I must be missing something. 180pts of guardsmen and captains gives you 5 CP and recycles 1.66 - so 27pts per CP,... ?
Secondly - for this number to be valid your entire army must consist of un-upgraded guardsmen and company commanders.
When looked at over 2000 points, then, yes, the figures don’t work. But, if we are looking at things from a battalion only point of view, then, they do.
As for the 18 figure, it appears to be taking into account expected CP regeneration. For example, Grand Strategist would expect to turn the 5 CP into 7CP. In addition to that, the Aquilla will provide the user with an additional 3CP over a battle (expected to roll for it 9 times over a battle). Overall, it’d give you an expected usage of 10 CP for the cost of 180 points. (One could argue when looking at battalion v battalion, you’d only expect to roll for Aquilla maybe 2.5 times on average, which would greatly change the figure)
As you say, it only works when looking at battalion vs battalion though, and also ignores the viability of said particular battalions.
Kdash wrote: When looked at over 2000 points, then, yes, the figures don’t work.
When looked at over any amount of points the figures don't work.
The one thing all the soup lists have in common are expensive, powerful units to use those command points - when you exclude those units from the cost it becomes rather meaningless IMO, especially as all of the 'comparative' rates are including the cost of the more powerful units those armies are fielding.
The aquilla is just number-fudging, and to some extent the warlord trait as well. They are powerful abilities but should not be presented baked into a value to exaggerate an already poor comparison.
I do love how there was such clamor to get the top 25, then when we have them, "That list is bad - it's so easy to do better" whenever something we disagree with pops up.
Something I just realized. If I field a Death Guard Tallyman, it can only bring back CP for DEATH GUARD stratagems I use. Why can grand strategist bring back CP for other armies' stratagems?
In general I see no issue with imperial guardsmen screening space marines or knights. The main issue seems to be the amount of CP you get on top of those efficient objective-holders - and it's not even about those 5 CP it's about 5CP plus one third of your enemy's CP plus multiplying all your CP with Grand Stategist.
Assuming Alex Ing faces the first placed list, just the minimal AM battalion yields 16-17 CP on average (5 + 3 stolen + 8-9 regenerated), for just about 200 points. There is no question to whether this needs to be nerfed and paying 300 points won't be a nerf to anyone but those trying to field an actual guard army.
Limiting Grand Strategist to Guard stratagems only is probably a good start.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 13:51:34
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Earth127 wrote: limit X to not work with soup in general is a good idea.
Man the most frustrating part of all this is AoS is doing it better atm.
This is interesting to me, since I think that 40k would work a lot better with that type of ally system in place. The problem is that they can't really implement it into the game at this point, since there's too much that would need to be changed. Hopefully factions that don't have the choice for allies don't end up being left in a bad state with the current system, as these results are indicating.
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply:
- Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction.
- Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total).
- Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one.
- If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems.
- If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems.
etc.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply: - Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction. - Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total). - Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one. - If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems. - If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems. etc.
This could work, but I would allow the subfactions to still use the generated CPs to use the BRB stratagems
I am also adamant that Battalions should go back to only 3CPs and Battle Forged should give more by default. Something like 2-3CPs per 500pts. Every faction can be Battle Forged, so that is where the bulk of CPs should come from. Limiting Strats, relics and detachment generated CPs to the WL's faction works well after this.
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 15:03:37
Ice_can wrote: The Renegade are paying 37 points per CP to guards 18 points per CP.
You keep bringing up this 18 point value.
Firstly - I must be missing something. 180pts of guardsmen and captains gives you 5 CP and recycles 1.66 - so 27pts per CP,... ?
Secondly - for this number to be valid your entire army must consist of un-upgraded guardsmen and company commanders.
I posted with and without maximum faction reg figures earlier guard come out as lowest point per CP bar index rouges and heritcs so far, and the difference is 2 points per CP for no warlord, triats or strategums.
As to the 18
5cp for battalion, spend 3 get 1 back GS leaving 3 spend those get another back GS again. Steal 2 from the enemy via Kurov's you now have 3 to spend and get 1 back with GS for a grand total of 10CP assuming the enemy only allowed you to steel 2 CP. Which would likely be way higher.
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply:
- Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction.
- Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total).
- Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one.
- If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems.
- If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems.
etc.
Removes Allies from the game in one hit. And destroys SoS and Assasins who can not generate CP without allies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 14:49:58
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
Then we have the -1 to hit haves and the -1 to hit have nots. The lists without -1 to hit can't get over the IG bar to ride the rollercoaster. IG needs more viable counters than to hit penalties.
All they really have to do is fix the crazy CP stuff to fix a lot of it.
Stratagem wombo combos will still be a thing, but I don't think there is any chance of them only allowing strategems from one faction, as much as that would probably help things
Maybe a more realistic change would be to allow mono faction armies to use their strategems twice per phase instead of once. It would be powerful, but only about as powerful as having the best strategems from 2-3 books? Just thinking out loud here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 15:15:00
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
I think the issue is attaching CPs to the detachments that an army can fill. It really shouldn't have such a large disparity between factions in how many command points they could have, and it makes the allies system a bit more abusable.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
It's an easy trap to fall into, pieing each other. I brought up (obviously in my own mind) a very reasonable take on tackling the issue on the previous page and it went totally ignored.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 15:21:03
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Not "lets ban allies"
but there should be a downside. If there is no downside to allies then mono codex will always struggle and it will be almost impossible to balance xeno books without access to allies
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
Im a guard player and im 100% for getting rid of CP regeneration.... I think the entire game shouldn't have it but im willing to lead the way
Edit: but i do hope you realize that CP regeneration alone will not get rid of the need to soup and also will still leave soup the obvious choice 100% of the time. There needs to be some sort of a downside to souping or some sort of a bonus to playing mono
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 15:23:07
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
I don 't think Kurov's is the issue. TS have the same relic and it's not causing huge waves. Limiting Grand Strategist and similar abilities to <My Faction> stratagems only and it would half the impact of the CP battery for some armies.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I am also adamant that Battalions should go back to only 3CPs and Battle Forged should give more by default. Something like 2-3CPs per 500pts. Every faction can be Battle Forged, so that is where the bulk of CPs should come from.
Limiting Strats, relics and detachment generated CPs to the WL's faction works well after this.
Honestly, I think the whole CP system needs a complete redesign.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
As opposed to all the people desperate to hold onto their broken ally armies whilst insisting that mono-factions suffer the consequences?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply:
- Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction.
- Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total).
- Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one.
- If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems.
- If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems.
etc.
I think you mean Factions, not subfactions.
Factions are Space Marines, Guard, Necrons, etc
Subfactuins are <CHAPTER>, <REGIMENT>, <DYNASTY>
60PL 
12PL