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:

Asmodios wrote:

Pure SM won quite a few more tournaments then pure guard. I mean your saying this once again in another thread with all evidence supporting CP sharing being an issue instead of pure guard

Early in the edition via Guilliman parking lot. The fact is that it is unfair for Guard to have much more CP than other the factions. That Guard players are upset that other factions can 'borrow' this broken mechanic of theirs is just them being greedy, and wanting to keep this OP stuff for themselves. Have you looked at the new formations and how CP intensive some of them are? Existence of these things just increase the disparity of haves and have-nots on the CP department.

I don't think guard players are mad about the fact that CP can be shared is simply the people in these threads that cant see CP sharing as the issue and then call these "guard" armies. The existence of CP sharing is what keeps GW from being able to balance other armies CP cost. If you knew knights for example couldn't get 15 CP from guard then you could significantly reduce the cost of knight strategems without ever breaking them

Asmodios wrote:

I don't think guard players are mad about the fact that CP can be shared is simply the people in these threads that cant see CP sharing as the issue and then call these "guard" armies. The existence of CP sharing is what keeps GW from being able to balance other armies CP cost. If you knew knights for example couldn't get 15 CP from guard then you could significantly reduce the cost of knight strategems without ever breaking them

But that is just pointless. Why not instead of fix the CP disparity between the armies? Then you don't need to try to juggle this 'CPs of some armies are more valuable than others.' It really isn't so (marine stratagems are not better than IG ones) but even if it were, it would be pointless. If Knights have only the third of the CP IG has but their stratagems are three times stronger, then why not instead give them the same amount of CP and make the Knight stratagems cost three times more?

 Crimson wrote:
If Knights have only the third of the CP IG has but their stratagems are three times stronger, then why not instead give them the same amount of CP and make the Knight stratagems cost three times more?

Why does it matter then? Why are you so concerned about the CP number if you're arguing for a change that has the same effect as the current mechanic? One almost suspects that your goal is to nerf IG and give elite armies an IG-size CP pool and hope that GW doesn't follow through on fully nerfing the stratagems.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why does it matter then? Why are you so concerned about the CP number if you're arguing for a change that has the same effect as the current mechanic? One almost suspects that your goal is to nerf IG and give elite armies an IG-size CP pool and hope that GW doesn't follow through on fully nerfing the stratagems.

Barbecue I don't want soup to be gimped to uselessness. Also, most elite armies do not have better stratagems. There are couple of outliers here and there, but there is not such overall trend. Furthermore, it is really counter-intuitive for the players if CPs are different 'worth' depending on the faction.

 Crimson wrote:
Barbecue I don't want soup to be gimped to uselessness.

Then you are wrong.

Also, most elite armies do not have better stratagems.

They inherently do because they are elite armies. For example, "rotate ion shields" gives +1 save to a powerful LoW, the IG equivalent gives +1 save to a 50 point infantry unit. Each CP spent on RIS is adding far more power to your army than CP spent on the IG buff, because it is applying that buff to more points worth of unit. What you are asking for is for elite armies to have the same CP pool as horde armies, but also to have superior per-CP power.

Furthermore, it is really counter-intuitive for the players if CPs are different 'worth' depending on the faction.

That's how it is now and nobody has trouble understanding it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then you are wrong.

No. You're confused again. I am not wrong, I am disagreeing with you.

They inherently do because they are elite armies. For example, "rotate ion shields" gives +1 save to a powerful LoW, the IG equivalent gives +1 save to a 50 point infantry unit. Each CP spent on RIS is adding far more power to your army than CP spent on the IG buff, because it is applying that buff to more points worth of unit. What you are asking for is for elite armies to have the same CP pool as horde armies, but also to have superior per-CP power.

Whilst argument can be made that that specific stratagem is too good and/or cheap, your overall line of reasoning doesn't hold. IG has their own superheavies which can benefit from their stratagems.

That's how it is now and nobody has trouble understanding it.

*Looks at the Space Marine stratagems, then at the IG stratagems.* That definitely isn't how it is!

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

I don't think guard players are mad about the fact that CP can be shared is simply the people in these threads that cant see CP sharing as the issue and then call these "guard" armies. The existence of CP sharing is what keeps GW from being able to balance other armies CP cost. If you knew knights for example couldn't get 15 CP from guard then you could significantly reduce the cost of knight strategems without ever breaking them

But that is just pointless. Why not instead of fix the CP disparity between the armies? Then you don't need to try to juggle this 'CPs of some armies are more valuable than others.' It really isn't so (marine stratagems are not better than IG ones) but even if it were, it would be pointless. If Knights have only the third of the CP IG has but their stratagems are three times stronger, then why not instead give them the same amount of CP and make the Knight stratagems cost three times more?

If you give a flat CP to all armies you will need to adjust the CP cost of almost all strategems in the game at this point. It also completely removes the "tax" on certain detachments. Someone running 3 supreme command detachments would have the same amount as a brigade. It's more work imo for a worse fix. Simply reducing sharing between then balancing strategem cost at least leaves some reason to take larger detachments.

Which is why any "flat CP" proposal that is worthwhile makes detachment COST CP instead of granting it. A brigade would cost 0CP, a Battalion would cost -1 or -2, etc.

Asmodios wrote:

If you give a flat CP to all armies you will need to adjust the CP cost of almost all strategems in the game at this point. It also completely removes the "tax" on certain detachments. Someone running 3 supreme command detachments would have the same amount as a brigade. It's more work imo for a worse fix. Simply reducing sharing between then balancing strategem cost at least leaves some reason to take larger detachments.

I am not necessarily suggesting completely flat CP, but the disparity is far too great now. Did you see my suggestion about returning the battalion and brigade to their original CP levels and bumbing the battleforged bonus? I think that would be a good start. Also, whilst in theory I might agree with the idea of 'tax units' currently it doesn't really hold. Some factions have insanely good troops and HQs whilst other factions have way worse choices for those slots. 'Tax' doesn't work if it really is a tax for some factions but not for others.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

If you give a flat CP to all armies you will need to adjust the CP cost of almost all strategems in the game at this point. It also completely removes the "tax" on certain detachments. Someone running 3 supreme command detachments would have the same amount as a brigade. It's more work imo for a worse fix. Simply reducing sharing between then balancing strategem cost at least leaves some reason to take larger detachments.

I am not necessarily suggesting completely flat CP, but the disparity is far too great now. Did you see my suggestion about returning the battalion and brigade to their original CP levels and bumbing the battleforged bonus? I think that would be a good start. Also, whilst in theory I might agree with the idea of 'tax units' currently it doesn't really hold. Some factions have insanely good troops and HQs whilst other factions have way worse choices for those slots. 'Tax' doesn't work if it really is a tax for some factions but not for others.

Returning the old cost to brigades doesn't do much (even though it's better than the change). The only way to balance the straight cheeper cost of some armies brigades/battalions would be to have different armies generate different amounts but this is just another far too complicated change. I still say just a drawback for soup (soup grants tactical flexibility but reduces army cohesion so you get to choose between more units but they don't work as well together. So cherrypicking codexes but not CP sharing). Then simply begin to balance CP cost which will be much easier without cross-contamination between codexes

Your largest of the 3 detachments - points wise - is the one that determines your faction, and only detachments with this keyword generate CP.

The idea of making it your warlord's detachment won't stop people from bringing the minimum IG brigade and totally playing around it.

 Marmatag wrote:
Your largest of the 3 detachments - points wise - is the one that determines your faction, and only detachments with this keyword generate CP.

So...

IG Brigade + IG Battalion = 20 CPs. (Lost nothing)

IG Brigade + Knight Superheavy Aux = 15 CPs. (Lost nothing)

SoB Batallion + BT Battalion = 8 CPs. (Lost 5 CPs)

Yeah, sound totally fair, the last combination was the on which totally needed a nerf!

Super-Quick fix: You're only allowed one Battalion OR Brigade.

With a few exceptions, that would cap CPs at 3 Battleforged + 5 Battalion + 2 Specialist Detachments for a total of 10CP. If Armies wanted more, then they'd have to pull their fingers out and make a Brigade. Alternatively, up the Battleforged bonus if it causes a genuine dearth.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
Super-Quick fix: You're only allowed one Battalion OR Brigade.

With a few exceptions, that would cap CPs at 3 Battleforged + 5 Battalion + 2 Specialist Detachments for a total of 10CP. If Armies wanted more, then they'd have to pull their fingers out and make a Brigade. Alternatively, up the Battleforged bonus if it causes a genuine dearth.

That's... actually not a bad idea in theory. However a lot of armies, such as Orks, would basically be made unusable as they RELY on stratagems to have a snowballs chance to win.

I just read the thread title and decided to post without reading anything in the thread. Pretty sure I am not missing anything though its probably just three pages of "SOUP BAD NERF PLEASE" countered by "NO NERF MEH SOUPS". Did I hit the nail on the head?

 bullyboy wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nah having 15-18 CPs is fine. What is not fine is to give those CPs to a superhero that can't have more than just a few without allies.

Just force the loyal 32 to use their own 5 CPs.

Could you highlight why you think 15-18 CP is fine, just curious.

Because orks are terrible otherwise, that's why. The entire codex is overpriced, especially now with CA, and ALL the most effective units they've got work mostly only by relying on a lot of stratagems.

Not everyone has superheroes or are ynnari.

A few thoughts:

I'm strongly opposed to the "faction locking" suggestions I keep seeing, and my heart rate goes up whenever such suggestions seem to be the most common ones in threads like these.

Different factions generate CP with different levels of efficiency. Locking CP to a given faction may punish those IG + Knight lists you've learned to hate, but it also catches less optimized lists in the crossfire. Harlequins and Deathwatch would burn through their CP so fast that they may as well not have any to begin with. And that feels like it serves spite more than good game design if we assume that stratagems are intended to be a major part of every army.

Ideally, I'd like to see all armies have access to equally efficient CP generation regardless of what units happen to be in their army. Tying CP to how many troops and HQs you've taken seems narrow-minded and problematic. Such a concept inevitably rewards armies with better/cheaper troops and HQs and promotes the idea that it's okay to design troops to not be worth their points because they'll theoretically make back that points inefficiency through CP generation.

If we can assume players are intended to play the game using stratagems, then theoretically a player should be assumed to be doing between X and Y amount of cool stratagem stuff over the course of a game. The amount of cool stratagem stuff can be roughly measured in CP. So rather than having 6 CP in one army and 15 in another, we should be looking for mechanics that give both players the same amount of CP (whatever that exact number is).

If all units in the game are designed well enough to be worth their points, and if the exact amount of CP both players get is divorced from the units they're fielding, then you can stop worrying this whole model efficiency-to-CP exchange rate that seems to be one of the main perceived problems with "soup." If guardsmen are worth their points and knights are worth their points and your necrons are worth their points and strats cost the right amount of CP and we both have the same amount of CP, then there's no problem.

So my ideal solution is probably just to give both players X CP based on the points level of the game being played (so that X can scale up to give fuel to all armies involved) and to price/design things with a uniform understanding of what points and CP are actually worth. Baking CP into the assumed cost of cheaps (both efficient and inefficient) and designing the stratagems of some armies to be more cost effective than others (presumably as a response to the disparate ease with which some factions generate CP) is just asking for a balance headache.

Let players field the models they want. Price and design things properly so that an army full of troops isn't assumed to be worse or better than an army full of specialists.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Harlequins and Deathwatch would burn through their CP so fast that they may as well not have any to begin with.

Only if you insist on playing soup. If you play a full Harlequin/Deathwatch army you have plenty of CP because all of your detachments share a faction. And TBH, if you're playing a small Harlequin/Deathwatch detachment in a soup list why should they have enough CP to use a lot of stratagems? They're a tiny part of your army, they should only have a tiny part of your stratagem use.

It's scary how many 40k players have no idea what the CP issue is and want to just nerf already average lists and fluffy build combos (the SoB + BT was a good example)

There is only a single CP issue, which is the loyal 32 being used as a CP battery for knights/smash captain/custode bikes. That's it, there is no other big issue with how CP works. Fix 3 units and thats it.

IG are meant to have a huge amount of CP, its part of the army flavour, which is spamming out a lot of weak but situational stratagems (such as vicious traps etc). Custodes and Knights have low CP, but their stratagems are absolutely vicious in comparison and can change the direction of the game. Thinking the answer to all of this is to limit how many CP IG get shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.

This is fixed by putting in the rule that 'CP generated by a detachment can only be spent by units with the same faction keyword, excluding Imperium'

Fixed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

That's... actually not a bad idea in theory. However a lot of armies, such as Orks, would basically be made unusable as they RELY on stratagems to have a snowballs chance to win.

I would argue that Orks have enough "OK" units to make up a workable Brigade, and that we can't help (with this rule) that the Ork codex leans too much on particular stratagems.

Another option: Detachments grant 1CP per 100pts, capped at their current bonuses, e.g a Battalion needs 500pts put into it before it gives you the maximum of 5CP, with the current Loyal 32 only giving you 2CP. I prefer the "1 Troop Detachment Only" rule as being more concise, but this seems to target the issue more specifically.

Personally I’d like to see CP determined by the faction first and at a fixed amount with no link to the detachments.

In ye olde 40k each army has a strategy rating, this could easily be translated into CP, something like this

Ork: D6+ 6 CP
Space marines: 10
Imperial guard 8
Eldar: 9

Maybe not so high, but each faction would have its strategy rating which only it could use, if you ally in any force it’s -1 to each strat rating (CP), special characters that generate CP could be a pool useable by everyone in the soup, so Azrael would have 2 free floating CP that could be used by dark angels or guard. Regardless of the number of detachments you only get your factions strat rating once, so dark angels allied to dark angels would only get 10 (example), or space marines and space marines of any type.

Yeah there are flaws with this method but I’ve never playtested it to iron out any issues it could have.

The command point system is actually more broken than what it may seem at first glance. Originally, I had the though that, if you were to limit it so that only your "primary" (or Warlord's) faction could generate Command Points. However, that would just see people selecting the highest CP-generating factions as their primary. Limiting Stratagems to only your Warlord's faction would still see CP batteries being attached to elite armies.

Limiting CPs to only be used within the Detachment that generated those CPs is another idea that I hear being thrown around. However, ignoring the logistics of monitoring this, it still creates issues of armies being able to spend more CPs on generic stratagems (such as the "re-roll a die" 1 CP strat, or mission specific stratagems).

The best solution I could think of was to make faction-specific detachments that would award CPs differently to each army. However, this would take a decent amount of time and effort to design and make work, but the current system is in such a place that any proposed "fixes" end up creating a whole new and different problem, requiring yet another "fix" 2 months down the road.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Harlequins and Deathwatch would burn through their CP so fast that they may as well not have any to begin with.

Only if you insist on playing soup. If you play a full Harlequin/Deathwatch army you have plenty of CP because all of your detachments share a faction. And TBH, if you're playing a small Harlequin/Deathwatch detachment in a soup list why should they have enough CP to use a lot of stratagems? They're a tiny part of your army, they should only have a tiny part of your stratagem use.

I'd argue that harlequins, though probably more well-rounded this edition than last, aren't really meant to be a standalone army. Mechanically, they're kind of tight on options, and fluff-wise, they should absolutely be comfortable hanging out with other aeldari. I'd take a similar stance regarding GK or DW. Playing mono-faction with either should be viable, but they should also be comfortable hanging out with some admech or sisters.

To sum up, my suggestions. These aren’t intended to stack, but aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

1. No more pooling of CP resources. A Detachment can use its own, or those you get for being Battleforged. Curbs the worst excesses of Soup, without penalising those with Soup armies.

2. Remove CPs from the Detachment, award different amounts for each Codex. May be more faff than it’s worth, but it’s only a suggestion.

3. Hybrid of 40k and AoS versions. Lower amount of native CPs when you start, but can earn additional throughout the game. This helps present Alpha Strike nonsense, whilst allowing smaller Detachments to power themselves through cunning play, rather than just depending on cheapo Battery Batallions.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Harlequins and Deathwatch would burn through their CP so fast that they may as well not have any to begin with.

Only if you insist on playing soup. If you play a full Harlequin/Deathwatch army you have plenty of CP because all of your detachments share a faction. And TBH, if you're playing a small Harlequin/Deathwatch detachment in a soup list why should they have enough CP to use a lot of stratagems? They're a tiny part of your army, they should only have a tiny part of your stratagem use.

I'd argue that harlequins, though probably more well-rounded this edition than last, aren't really meant to be a standalone army. Mechanically, they're kind of tight on options, and fluff-wise, they should absolutely be comfortable hanging out with other aeldari. I'd take a similar stance regarding GK or DW. Playing mono-faction with either should be viable, but they should also be comfortable hanging out with some admech or sisters.

The representation of them being "comfortable hanging out with other aeldari" is represented in how they share keywords.

Guardsmen are just as comfortable hanging out with Marines, Sisters, and other Imperial forces. Why do they not get the same fluffy treatment?

 Crimson wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

I'd like to see players get rewarded for filling the slots in their primary detachment by gaining more CP for doing so. Something to the effect of +1 CP for every Troops slot taken beyond the compulsory 3, and then +1 CP for filling out each category in the detachment. So, +1 CP for taking the 3rd HQ slot, +3 CP for filling the Troops slots, +1 CP for filling the Elites slots, +1 CP for filling the Fast Attack slots, +1 CP for filling the Heavy Support slots, and +1 CP for filling the Flyer slots. That would make a fully fleshed out battalion generate 13 CP - just 1 more than a brigade generates, for the same spread of units.

Yes, the Imperial Guard definitely needs even greater advantage for CP generation than they already have!

This is a slippery slope fallacy. It seems every suggestion for fixing CP (short of maybe removing it altogether, which won't happen let's be real here) is "Guard will get a buff". At what point does worrying about one faction become lesser compared to fixing all the others? As long as soup is allowed, Guard will always be a problem for CP generation.

Wayniac wrote:

This is a slippery slope fallacy. It seems every suggestion for fixing CP (short of maybe removing it altogether, which won't happen let's be real here) is "Guard will get a buff". At what point does worrying about one faction become lesser compared to fixing all the others? As long as soup is allowed, Guard will always be a problem for CP generation.

No. The real problem is that the Guard is able to generate CP way better than other faction. Fix that, it is the core of the problem.

I think there's also a side consideration that doesn't get talks about a lot: the stratagems. The ideal should be them being situational, something that gives you an advantage at the right time. But when you have stratagems like "Shoot/melee twice", there's no reason to not use them every turn. blunt the necessity of stratagems and that would make CP maximizing less desirable.

 Crimson wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

This is a slippery slope fallacy. It seems every suggestion for fixing CP (short of maybe removing it altogether, which won't happen let's be real here) is "Guard will get a buff". At what point does worrying about one faction become lesser compared to fixing all the others? As long as soup is allowed, Guard will always be a problem for CP generation.

No. The real problem is that the Guard is able to generate CP way better than other faction. Fix that, it is the core of the problem.

And how do you fix that without fething CP in general? Guard's problem is their troops are dirt cheap and you can spam Battalions to get CP. Either you limit being able to take Battalion/Brigade, or you nerf guard over and over and over again.

Wayniac wrote:

And how do you fix that without fething CP in general? Guard's problem is their troops are dirt cheap and you can spam Battalions to get CP. Either you limit being able to take Battalion/Brigade, or you nerf guard over and over and over again.Bri

I've said it many times: lower the CP battalion and brigade provide, increase the battleforged CP. It doesn't completely annihilate the advantage of cheap troops, but lessens it. There are probably better fixes, but those require more extensive redesign of the system, and thus are more unlikely to be actually implemented.