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.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


What offends people is a custodes army (10,000 year old masters of war) needing to take IG batallions (25 year old newbs) to get "command points".

Then just give Custodes a way to have the CP they need without IG! And ban IG from having infinite CP. 5CPs for 200 points is not a huge deal, infinite CP for 200 points is.

That is what this is system is.

I assure you. Custodes will not even bother with a gaurd batallion if they already start with CP. Also - I just had a thought. What if regenerated command points could not be regenerated again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Seconded. This is a great way to handle it, much more than a clunky rework of the entire CP system/8th edition.

That just kills allies and in addition does not solve the problem of elite armies without access to cheap hq and troops not being able to generate command points. A rework is required - CP is unfairly generated across armies.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What if regenerated command points could not be regenerated again?

I feel like that may be harder to track than just capping total CPs for the game.
For example, if you started with 16CPs, you could potentially regen another 16. That's pretty much what happens now. It is rare for an army to more than double there starting CPs, possible but rare
I'd rather see CPs generated mid-game to be hard capped at a certain level, so total cap = 1CP per 100pts

For example, if you are playing 2K, you cannot generate more than 20CPs in the whole game, including those you started with.
So if you started with 14CPs, you can only ever generate 6 more before you are done.

-

Formations should just reward based on the amount of points spent in them.

Example:

Brigade - +1 cp per 200 points.
Battalion - +1 cp per 300 points
other - +1 cp per 400 points

Also limit the non-base force org portion of these detachments so you can't take expensive heavies in a battalion to get your CP up. 0-2 heavies in a battalion, for example.

Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

Then all you'll see are spearheads and vanguards. The detachment/force org structure would have to be massively redesigned.

And, all abilities that allow you to generate CP on top of that (by rolling, or flat from characters) would have to be removed.

 Marmatag wrote:
Formations should just reward based on the amount of points spent in them.

Example:

Brigade - +1 cp per 200 points.
Battalion - +1 cp per 300 points
other - +1 cp per 400 points

Also limit the non-base force org portion of these detachments so you can't take expensive heavies in a battalion to get your CP up. 0-2 heavies in a battalion, for example.

That seems like a little bit too much math going on pregame. This version is much more simple and more or less establishes the same thing. It rewards taking brigade and batallion and punishes everything else. Its also a lot easier for your opponent to understand where your CP are coming from. Nor does it require a rework of the detachments FOC (not opposed to this) I just think simpler is better. (I'm sure those aren't the actual values you would use ether - those seem real weak.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

Then all you'll see are spearheads and vanguards. The detachment/force org structure would have to be massively redesigned.

And, all abilities that allow you to generate CP on top of that (by rolling, or flat from characters) would have to be removed.

Yeah exactly -

FOC is important.
HS is the most powerful slot. Unlocking these slots should require troops or command points. This is my logic.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

I think there's value in forcing people to take a good percentage of chaff in the game. It helps reduce skew in general and makes sure even in a bad matchup, you're not left feeling incapable of killing anything. Knights are probably the one place where this breaks down and honestly, I think in some ways it was better when they had to take Guard to fuel their stuff. The codex reliance on strategems and relics though gives us a "first knight, best knight" problem that makes this kind of irrelevant though.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
Why not “everyone gets 15 Command points” and be done with it?

Remove the “x detachment gives x CP” and faq all the CP regeneration tools to instead just give 1+ Command points.

I think there's value in forcing people to take a good percentage of chaff in the game. It helps reduce skew in general and makes sure even in a bad matchup, you're not left feeling incapable of killing anything. Knights are probably the one place where this breaks down and honestly, I think in some ways it was better when they had to take Guard to fuel their stuff. The codex reliance on strategems and relics though gives us a "first knight, best knight" problem that makes this kind of irrelevant though.

The argument that it's good that IK need to take some infantry in their army so you have something to shoot bolters at is extremely weak IMO. More or less you get about the same value out of shooting the knight even wounding on a 6 . It's just hard for people to math that out.

40 lasgun shots averages 1 wound on an imperial knight. For about 18 points of damage when shooting at a 450 point knight. Which is about the same return shooting at gaurdsmen in cover.

Someone probably already brought this up, but it is very possible to spam Drukhari Kabalites and Venoms without losing any command points by your system. Per GW, there's no limit on Troops or Transports. So, this is completely possible. Zoom in, shoot, zoom out over and over.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
Someone probably already brought this up, but it is very possible to spam Drukhari Kabalites and Venoms without losing any command points by your system. Per GW, there's no limit on Troops or Transports. So, this is completely possible. Zoom in, shoot, zoom out over and over.

SG

Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are. It's even nastier if they are 10 man in raiders - with 2 blasters/shredders and splinter cannon plus splinter racks ignoring cover rerolling 1's from inside the transports. LOL.

This system is to allow armies to have a fair command point generation system that doesn't favor 1 army over another. Nothing short of point changes will fix DE.

Keeping the base CP as you suggest. Why not limit allies to 1 brigade with the following special rules:
1) All the units must have the same army key word;
2) Unless all the allies have the same faction key word they do not gain any special rules or abilities other than what is on their data sheet;
3) -1 CP for each different faction key word in the allied brigade (minimum of -1 CP);
4)There is no minimum requirement to this brigade (so you don't have to have 2 HQs etc) but it does enforce the unit type maximums.
5) Add 3 LoW slots to the brigade.

Anyway just a quick thought.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are.

Citation needed.

Kabalites are *maybe* 1pt undercosted, though I've yet to be convinced. They're barely better than guardsmen in terms of survivability, and their basic weapons are barely better than Lasguns, and lack any of the Orders/buffs that make lasguns a threat.

Venoms are fairly cheap, but they can only transport 5 guys and (especially for a transport that was once a gun-platform) their shooting is abysmal. Their one bonus is that they're more resilient to single-shot, high-AP anti-tank guns (e.g. Lascannons) than many other transports. But this comes at the expense of being much more vulnerable to lighter weapons like Autocannons and Heavy Bolters.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Keeping the base CP as you suggest. Why not limit allies to 1 brigade with the following special rules:
1) All the units must have the same army key word;
2) Unless all the allies have the same faction key word they do not gain any special rules or abilities other than what is on their data sheet;
3) -1 CP for each different faction key word in the allied brigade (minimum of -1 CP);
4)There is no minimum requirement to this brigade (so you don't have to have 2 HQs etc) but it does enforce the unit type maximums.
5) Add 3 LoW slots to the brigade.

Anyway just a quick thought.

What Exactly is the aim of this. Right off the top of my head I see a problem. 3 ravagers and a void raven bomber - for the cost of -1 cp to go with my eldar. Without even an HQ tax. Not feeling it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are.

Citation needed.

Kabalites are *maybe* 1pt undercosted, though I've yet to be convinced. They're barely better than guardsmen in terms of survivability, and their basic weapons are barely better than Lasguns, and lack any of the Orders/buffs that make lasguns a threat.

Venoms are fairly cheap, but they can only transport 5 guys and (especially for a transport that was once a gun-platform) their shooting is abysmal. Their one bonus is that they're more resilient to single-shot, high-AP anti-tank guns (e.g. Lascannons) than many other transports. But this comes at the expense of being much more vulnerable to lighter weapons like Autocannons and Heavy Bolters.

1 point undercosted is significant when you only cost 6 points. Access to reoll 1's ignore cover inside a transport they do far more damage than infantry do per point against a host of targets...absolutely insane when they are shooting at things like...carnifex or hive tyrants or custode jet bikers. Really though - all that I would really be okay with if they cost 7 points. The true OP of warriors is 2 specials per 10 + a heavy + a sucubus blast pistol. They are basically IG vetrens that can go in an open topped transport reroll 1's from the inside and they have 6+ FNP if their vehcail dies - that count as troops - that cost as much as an IG vetren.

People please remember this is a suggestion to fix 1 issue.
The game as it is has a number of issues but trying to fix everything at once will result in choas.

If one thing is a problem you try and find the simplest solution to that problem.

Let's try and not derail this with discussion of which units are or arn't undercosted.

Ice_can wrote:
People please remember this is a suggestion to fix 1 issue.
The game as it is has a number of issues but trying to fix everything at once will result in choas.

If one thing is a problem you try and find the simplest solution to that problem.

Let's try and not derail this with discussion of which units are or arn't undercosted.

Thank you Ice. I agree - lets keep it on topic. A command point fix will not fix broken units. It will allow armies to play without allies if they don't want to. Which is good.

 Xenomancers wrote:
HS is the most powerful slot. Unlocking these slots should require troops or command points. This is my logic.

*Looks at the Custodes codex*

*Sees Vertus Praetors in Fast Attack*

*Looks at Heavy Support, sees only a Land Raider*

Come again?

Also, on Deathstars...

What do you call a blob of Bullgryns with Slabshields and Mauls, around a Vexila Defensor with a Primaris Psyker nearby, getting a 2+ Invuln save?

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Spamming troops in transports is fine provided they are both not under-costed. In this case they both are.

Citation needed.

Kabalites are *maybe* 1pt undercosted, though I've yet to be convinced. They're barely better than guardsmen in terms of survivability, and their basic weapons are barely better than Lasguns, and lack any of the Orders/buffs that make lasguns a threat.

Venoms are fairly cheap, but they can only transport 5 guys and (especially for a transport that was once a gun-platform) their shooting is abysmal. Their one bonus is that they're more resilient to single-shot, high-AP anti-tank guns (e.g. Lascannons) than many other transports. But this comes at the expense of being much more vulnerable to lighter weapons like Autocannons and Heavy Bolters.

All credibility is destroyed, Venoms are fantastic.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Keeping the base CP as you suggest. Why not limit allies to 1 brigade with the following special rules:
1) All the units must have the same army key word;
2) Unless all the allies have the same faction key word they do not gain any special rules or abilities other than what is on their data sheet;
3) -1 CP for each different faction key word in the allied brigade (minimum of -1 CP);
4)There is no minimum requirement to this brigade (so you don't have to have 2 HQs etc) but it does enforce the unit type maximums.
5) Add 3 LoW slots to the brigade.

Anyway just a quick thought.

What Exactly is the aim of this. Right off the top of my head I see a problem. 3 ravagers and a void raven bomber - for the cost of -1 cp to go with my eldar. Without even an HQ tax. Not feeling it.

It would allow allies but limit the amount of types of units. It would reduce the amount of soup to maybe 1 or 2 other key words but not neccessarily keep people from using more. It would also be the only place for a person to put allies so if they took a main force from faction 1 and wanted allies from factions 2 and 3 they could do that at the cost of 2 CPs and not getting any of the normal benefits.
If you wanted you could require 1 HQ for each faction word used and that would put a hard cap of no more than 3 allies but I was thinking about factions that don't have HQs yet like Sisters of Silence.
In any event it's just a suggestion.

Seems fine I would suggest having the +3 only apply to mono faction builds as currently there is no incentive for taking a mono faction and this also buffs all xeno builds such as tau, orks, Necrons ect right out of the gate

Also just remove CP regeneration from the game altogether. CP is such an amazingly strong tool giving some factions the ability to gain more throughout the game and not others is just impossible to balance.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
HS is the most powerful slot. Unlocking these slots should require troops or command points. This is my logic.

*Looks at the Custodes codex*

*Sees Vertus Praetors in Fast Attack*

*Looks at Heavy Support, sees only a Land Raider*

Come again?

Also, on Deathstars...

What do you call a blob of Bullgryns with Slabshields and Mauls, around a Vexila Defensor with a Primaris Psyker nearby, getting a 2+ Invuln save?

FA/ HS - makes no difference - they are all taxed the same way under this system.

Bait for my 3 storm surges? Death hex? Jinx? Drain? Infernal gateway? Smite? Bait for my witches? Bait for my wracks? Bait for my voidravens. It's not like a 7th eddition deathstar which was indestructable. 3 void ravens will reduce almost any deathstar unit in a single turn.

Every wound takes a mortal on a 3+ against 3 void ravens. And they didn't even have to shoot you with their 6d3 str 8 ap-3 d3 damagers and 3d6 reroll wound missles - those can shoot your custodies bikers instead.

So what about:

1) Choose a faction keyword, excluding those mentioned in the 'Battle Brothers' beta rule.

2) CP is only generated from detachments where every unit contains that faction keyword.

3) Strategems may only be used on, and relics may only be chosen for, units with that faction keyword.

Then you can still cherry pick whatever nonsense you wanna throw together. But you are tactically penalized for netlisting the best stuff.

I just had an idea.

Using the CP system as it is and bring all the detachments back to how they were pre FAQ (so Battalions only generate +3cp), what if there where "levels" of Battle Forged?

Let me explain: BF currently gives +3CPs to start and requires 2 things:
A) all units be sorted into detachments and
B) the army as a whole share 1 Faction Keyword.

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

This could kill 2 birds with a single stone as it would reward armies that stick to a single subfaction. This may eliminate the need to shuffle around detachment bonuses as taking a cheap Guard battalion in a Marine Army would actually lose you CPs over just taking more Marines.
It evens out, essentially.

-

 Galef wrote:

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

Something like that would be good. This is actually a reasonable suggestion that doesn't make the soup unplayable, merely slightly less desirable. (Though no need to go beyond two faction keywords, you don't need extra CP for being ULTRAMARINES on top of IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

Something like that would be good. This is actually a reasonable suggestion that doesn't make the soup unplayable, merely slightly less desirable. (Though no need to go beyond two faction keywords, you don't need extra CP for being ULTRAMARINES on top of IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES.)

All of the FAQ'd keywords shouldn't count for the additional CP then as nercons only have necro, dynasty as keywords they don't have an "Imperium" equivalent. Same for Tau its just Tau, Sept.

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

But what if sharing additional Faction or Subfaction keywords granted you additional CPs?
For example, sharing only 1 keyword only gives you +3CPs for BF, but sharing 2 across all units in your army could give you +6, sharing 3 or more could add +9CPs

Something like that would be good. This is actually a reasonable suggestion that doesn't make the soup unplayable, merely slightly less desirable. (Though no need to go beyond two faction keywords, you don't need extra CP for being ULTRAMARINES on top of IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES.)

All of the FAQ'd keywords shouldn't count for the additional CP then as nercons only have necro, dynasty as keywords they don't have an "Imperium" equivalent. Same for Tau its just Tau, Sept.

It should work so that if your army is united by keyword other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI, YNNARI or TYRANIDS you get the extra CP.

Yeah, fair enough. I'd say +3CP if your army is BF, +6CP if all units in your army share 2 or more faction keywords.

It makes soup less desirable, yet still possible. Keeping Battalions at 3CP should also help the temptation to add 2 cheap battalions to Factions that don't share more than 1 keyword.

I say remove CP regeneration (or reduce it to 6+ per strategem, 5+ is pretty generous) and give some armies like Custodes and IK buffers to CP compensate.

Then change it so armies are not rewarded for full CP from secondary detachments. So if you bring in a 180pt guard battalion, you may only get 1CP as opposed to 5CP.

Maybe a bit convoluted but I am not of the belief that starting CP should all be fair.

If CP regeneration abilities have to exist at all, they should be given to expensive elite armies like Custodes and Knights. It is completely bonkers that the faction which has the easiest time filling the detachments and gaining a hefty CP total that way has the most potent CP regeneration abilities in the game.

 Crimson wrote:
If CP regeneration abilities have to exist at all, they should be given to expensive elite armies like Custodes and Knights. It is completely bonkers that the faction which has the easiest time filling the detachments and gaining a hefty CP total that way has the most potent CP regeneration abilities in the game.

Elite armies need the CP to begin with! The cheapest battalion a custodes player can field is 700+pts. To compensate they should probably start with a base +6 but that would only work if they dont have access to cheap IG battalions that generate 5CP.

IG in isolation dont have any game breaking strategems. So giving them more CP isn't the problem. But its when you give them CP and regen for people to use on other armies that becomes an issue IMO.

Neatest solution would be to just say "You can only use Stratagems associated with your Warlord's faction".

Leave the idea of "Custodians cost 700+ so should have more CP!" to the balancing of the *actual* stratagems.

For example, a 1 CP strat for Imperial Guard should be weaker than a 1 CP strat for Custards