Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 00:55:26
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
In codexes we have been seeing mechanics to give chances to get back more command points. I originally thought that these mechanics were going to be selectively given to help armies who do not have the ability to get as many CPs as other factions due to unit costs. I was hopeful it was going balance games out and make them more fair since strategems are so powerful. However, my views all changed when the new AM codex came out when they were given the best CP regen relics/traits in the game. In addition, the AM already had almost double the number of CPs as other armies. In effect, with the new relic/trait they have around 20 CPs per game or 4 per turn.
So the question is it fair that some armies have access to so many CPs when others don’t only because troop costs?
I think the system needs adjusted. CPs and strategems are so powerful already powerful armies like AM shouldn’t have access to the most CPs so I have come up with some ideas to help balance this out. All current detachment CP bonuses would be removed since they favor particular armies with cheaper units.
1) All armies begin with 3 CPs (no change)
2) Armies with ALL detachments are battleforged using the same regiment, chapter, or other keyword gain +3 CPs. i.e. Blood Angel, Death Guard, Cadian, Salamanders, etc. (this helps buff mono fluffy list and doesn’t help soup armies)
3) If you have no lords of war gain +1 CP
4) If none of the total points for your HQs, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or Lords of War category selections cost more than 25% of your army gain +2 CPs (creates variation instead of spam)
5) If no more than two of the HQs, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, Flyers, Lords of War are chosen in a list gain +2 CP (encourages variation)
6) If you have less points than your opponent then gain +2 CPs (will make list building interesting)
7) If more than 25% of your points are spent on troops gain +2 CPs
Total possible CPs = 15pts
What ideas do you have and how would you change the system in chapter approved?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/09 00:55:56
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 01:02:09
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant
|
Simple, I think they should put a cap on CP points. No changes to any existing codexes or rules, no book erratas. Just have all CP for armies cap at something like 10 or something like that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 01:33:42
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Swift Swooping Hawk
|
OP, I do not wish to spend that much time calculating how many CP I get. I'd rather have a hard cap like vaklor4 suggests.
I would get behind some sort of restriction for "soup" armies, mostly because huge datasheet pools make the game impossible to balance. Too many models have the keyword "Imperium" for them to really be an army. That said, I don't know if CP is the way to do that.
|
Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 01:55:08
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
A cap of 10 and not starting with any if you have a soup list could work I guess. It wouldn’t be as interesting as some of the ideas I proposed which gives a maximum of 15.
It still seems odd that they gave the faction (AM) with the most CPs the method to get the most back. I am curious why they didn’t give the DG Tallyman the ability to regain a CP if you roll more that 7 instead of exactly a 7.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 01:58:31
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
|
Max 6 regardless of source
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 02:00:51
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel
|
I would like it if rhe automatic +3 for being battleforged was changed to one army, one faction only. So only if you are say playing admech as mars only, not mars with stygies dragoons and electro priests and such. Any allies would remove those points.
|
warhammer 40k mmo. If I can drive an ork trukk into the back of a space marine dread and explode in a fireball of epic, I can die happy!
8k points
3k points
3k points
Admech 2.5k points
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 02:09:01
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot
|
Maybe GW shouldn't have given IG the most bonkers abilities, units, and points reductions all in one codex...
|
6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts
"We're on an express elevator to hell - goin' down!"
"Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn..." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 02:09:46
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer
|
I could get behind a cap of 10 (or 8).
However, I don't think there should be ANY ability that allows CPs to be returned to a player after they are used. They're meant to be a limited resource, based on army size, and shouldn't be just free extra points - that's back into the bad design paradigm of 7E's formations.
|
It never ends well |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 02:37:38
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant
|
Actually, maybe 12 would be better?
I say 12 because battle forged gives 3, and a Brigade gives 9. That way, taking the biggest detachment and use a battleforged Brigade at that, gives you the maximum cap.
Otherwise, nobody would ever take a battleforged brigade, there would be absolutely no point.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 02:54:36
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Simple...regenerating or gaining CP should have been a big deal. Read: one model or unit in the game, etc...and make it rare as hell. This is GW design though - dole out everything in massive quantities and make nothing feel special.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 03:09:39
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Stormonu wrote:I could get behind a cap of 10 (or 8).
However, I don't think there should be ANY ability that allows CPs to be returned to a player after they are used. They're meant to be a limited resource, based on army size, and shouldn't be just free extra points - that's back into the bad design paradigm of 7E's formations.
I agree with this statement. It wouldnt be a big deal if every army could do that
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 03:55:01
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
That would invalidate the Brigade.
I think a cap of 10 would be reasonable.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/09 03:55:29
5250 pts
3850 pts
Deathwatch: 1500 pts
Imperial Knights: 375 pts
30K 2500 pts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 04:06:11
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
The real issue is the ease that Guard can get them, while their Strategems not costing enough to reflect that.
With the other 5 Codices, the Strategems are costed for the most part appropriately based off how many you're likely to get for the army. Nobody is complaining about Strategems there, yet we get this thread happening for whatever reason.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 04:26:50
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I think the issue isn't that they can be regenerated but that it's easy for guard to get so many to start with. 1 platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads = 1 troop slot for generating command points. You must take a full squad of a fast attack option before taking a second of said same thing (so if you have 3 sentinals they have to be taken in a single squad instead of 3 squads of 1 for command point generation).
Something like that would tone down how many points a guard player would get, down to a level like others have, and would solve a lot of the current issues. Guard are supposed to be fluffy and powerful through numbers and tanks but also strict and rigid in their deployment.
Or just make it so issuing a command costs a command point. That would make a big difference and fix a LOT of problems as well. Sure guard get 15 points to your 6. But they will burn through 6 points in a turn through basic play.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 04:45:01
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
If you go 2nd gain 3 command points.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 05:41:45
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
There should be pros and cons to everything, including not having a lot of units and including going all Elite or Heavy and not taking troops.
Kill point missions already give armies with lots of units a hard time.
I think they should only cap the Command points if they also Cap the Kill Points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually that is a good idea!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/09 05:42:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 06:01:56
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Boosting Space Marine Biker
|
Cut brigade down to 3CP, Battalion down to 2.
I love the idea of +CP for going second.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 06:10:56
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought
|
NickMcMahon wrote:There should be pros and cons to everything, including not having a lot of units and including going all Elite or Heavy and not taking troops.
Kill point missions already give armies with lots of units a hard time.
I think they should only cap the Command points if they also Cap the Kill Points.
But that's really not going to work in the slightest, is it? Most games aren't Kill Points. In fact, 5/6ths of games are not Kill Points.
The current disadvantage for having lots of units is that you are less likely to go first. It's a reasonable disadvantage, most of the time - You get a few more Command Points, and get a little less of an opportunity for an alpha strike.
The problem with certain armies is that they have ways to get lots of Command Points and either still have few drops (Ultramarines, who get 3 CPs just for bringing their most powerful model who they were bringing anyways), or else just have such a powerful army with so many command points that they couldn't care less about getting first turn (Guard).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 07:36:23
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle
|
I dont mind some armies having alot of command points and the ability to regain them. Infact its the only way id use certain stratagems is if i had a way of getting them back.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 08:12:28
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought
|
I don't think Games Workshop should change Command Points. I think they should fix the units that have broken access to them.
Command Points, by themselves, are just fine.
Space Marines having a character who gives +3 Command Points, and another character who can instead give +2 Command Points if you prefer, and a Warlord Trait that basically gives you 1/3rd more points. (Meaning that, for a basic Imperial army that uses Guilliman (Their most powerful and effective model to begin with,) they get what amounts to 8 base Command Points, not counting everything that they get from any detachments.)
Or, Imperial Guard having access to big detachments is fine, but adding those big detachments to a Warlord Trait that increases Command Points by a third and a Relic that increases your Command Points by a third of whatever your opponent has.
Take your pick. Both of those are ridiculously powerful. Command Points themselves are fine.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 10:46:38
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
broxus wrote:In codexes we have been seeing mechanics to give chances to get back more command points. I originally thought that these mechanics were going to be selectively given to help armies who do not have the ability to get as many CPs as other factions due to unit costs. I was hopeful it was going balance games out and make them more fair since strategems are so powerful. However, my views all changed when the new AM codex came out when they were given the best CP regen relics/traits in the game. In addition, the AM already had almost double the number of CPs as other armies. In effect, with the new relic/trait they have around 20 CPs per game or 4 per turn.
So the question is it fair that some armies have access to so many CPs when others don’t only because troop costs?
I think the system needs adjusted. CPs and strategems are so powerful already powerful armies like AM shouldn’t have access to the most CPs so I have come up with some ideas to help balance this out. All current detachment CP bonuses would be removed since they favor particular armies with cheaper units.
1) All armies begin with 3 CPs (no change)
2) Armies with ALL detachments are battleforged using the same regiment, chapter, or other keyword gain +3 CPs. i.e. Blood Angel, Death Guard, Cadian, Salamanders, etc. (this helps buff mono fluffy list and doesn’t help soup armies)
3) If you have no lords of war gain +1 CP
4) If none of the total points for your HQs, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or Lords of War category selections cost more than 25% of your army gain +2 CPs (creates variation instead of spam)
5) If no more than two of the HQs, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, Flyers, Lords of War are chosen in a list gain +2 CP (encourages variation)
6) If you have less points than your opponent then gain +2 CPs (will make list building interesting)
7) If more than 25% of your points are spent on troops gain +2 CPs
Total possible CPs = 15pts
What ideas do you have and how would you change the system in chapter approved?
Other than number 6, which is just kind of asinine and bound to create some weird situation where you could have more command points than your opponent by having one less, I could live with these, then again it just heavily favors IG because I'm going to do all of this stuff anyways.
Honestly I can't think of a single way to make it where CP's rewards building a traditional 5th ed style force org where it doesn't just heavily favor IG, or at least infantry IG. We just have so many cheap filler type units that we will always be able to fill any slot we wish and there's really nothing anyone can do to stop it. Slot limits doesn't work either except ironically against our troops now since we can buy almost any vehicle we care about in squadrons for a single slot. Lorewise this makes sense, IG is traditionally going to be one of the larger organizations on the field and should have more strategic level resources to represent that. It's mainly a problem because we have ways to regenerate CP's and just have a brutally efficient codex with a ton of great strategems right now. If IG sucked I highly doubt anyone would even notice that we get 20cps a game.
Basically it only becomes a problem if the army in question can actually use their points effectively, which IG can most certainly do since in my opinion we have the best selection of strategems in the game, almost all of them have a decent use in certain situations. This is different than say if Admech had 20 CP's for all their armies, since most of their strategems suck with a few key exceptions.
|
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 11:01:11
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It seems to me that the easiest changes that would have the biggest effect would just be about moving away from counting units and towards counting points or power. The current detachment system is more-or-less fine outside of Imperial Soup, though yes it would be nice if there was a reason to take a mono-faction army. The main problem is just that, now, you get CP based on how cheap your units are.
So why not just do everything as-is but change detachments so that they work off of points or power rather than slots? For example, maybe convert at a rate of 1 slot to 100 points. A Battalion is 200-300 points of HQ and 300-600 points of Troops, and so on. Or fiddle with this so that you need fewer HQ points than a constant rate of conversion would give you, but you get the idea.
Other people have brought up the possibility of a CP cap. A cap at 12 seems unlikely to do much good as-is because you're not actually going to show up with much more than this even as Guard. You're going to show up with 12 and then expect to spend ~20 because of your warlord trait and relic.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 11:25:20
Subject: Re:How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade
|
Only award CP's for battleforged, character bonus CP's and those given by your Warlord's detachment. Nothing for your extra detachments.
|
A ton of armies and a terrain habit...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 12:17:08
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Combat Jumping Rasyat
East of England
|
This is a Guard problem, not a game problem. They can unlock very high numbers of CPs too easily, and they have two means of gaining extra CPs on top of their natural advantage. I think the most elegant solution would be to introduce a rule to alter the way Guard use CPs, and leave the game as is - CPs have been one of the best features of the new ediiton, no need to go messing with the golden recipe... (PS Krieg player here.)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 13:50:55
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
If Chapter Approved adds some more generic Strategems to the armies without Codexes, there would be less of a divide.
I also think every army should have a way to get those CPs back... Looking at you UM and IG!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 13:52:34
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Increase the cost of all guard stratagems by 1.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 14:11:55
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Wicked Warp Spider
|
Nightlord1987 wrote:If Chapter Approved adds some more generic Strategems to the armies without Codexes, there would be less of a divide.
I also think every army should have a way to get those CPs back... Looking at you UM and IG!
Quite the opposite. It would make the differences between the haves and the have-nots even bigger.
The solution is to don't write stupid rules. If an army can deploy 2 brigades, probably there is no need of more CP mechanics.
If a chapter is made of tactical geniuses, add 1 CP not 3. Is the usual lack of restraint GW design has, possibly related to fanboy-ism I guess.
|
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 14:19:38
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Aye, it seems the easiest solution would be some sort of mechanism to stop Guard filling slots for vastly less cost than everyone else. Some sort of platoon structure, for example…
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/09 14:28:47
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
broxus wrote:In codexes we have been seeing mechanics to give chances to get back more command points. I originally thought that these mechanics were going to be selectively given to help armies who do not have the ability to get as many CPs as other factions due to unit costs. I was hopeful it was going balance games out and make them more fair since strategems are so powerful. However, my views all changed when the new AM codex came out when they were given the best CP regen relics/traits in the game. In addition, the AM already had almost double the number of CPs as other armies. In effect, with the new relic/trait they have around 20 CPs per game or 4 per turn.
So the question is it fair that some armies have access to so many CPs when others don’t only because troop costs?
I think the system needs adjusted. CPs and strategems are so powerful already powerful armies like AM shouldn’t have access to the most CPs so I have come up with some ideas to help balance this out. All current detachment CP bonuses would be removed since they favor particular armies with cheaper units.
1) All armies begin with 3 CPs (no change)
2) Armies with ALL detachments are battleforged using the same regiment, chapter, or other keyword gain +3 CPs. i.e. Blood Angel, Death Guard, Cadian, Salamanders, etc. (this helps buff mono fluffy list and doesn’t help soup armies)
3) If you have no lords of war gain +1 CP
4) If none of the total points for your HQs, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or Lords of War category selections cost more than 25% of your army gain +2 CPs (creates variation instead of spam)
5) If no more than two of the HQs, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, Flyers, Lords of War are chosen in a list gain +2 CP (encourages variation)
6) If you have less points than your opponent then gain +2 CPs (will make list building interesting)
7) If more than 25% of your points are spent on troops gain +2 CPs
Total possible CPs = 15pts
What ideas do you have and how would you change the system in chapter approved?
2 - The problem with this one, is "mono fluffy list" is sometimes just as fluffy as "mono army, multiple sub-sub faction list". Rather than go "sub-sub" faction being the same, changing it to just the same "sub faction" - i.e Space Marines/Daemons/Drukkari etc would be better and more interesting for diversity.
3 - I think, having no LoW should be like taking the LoW detachment in 30k. Either you can't have first turn, or it's an additional +1 for the opponent on the roll off.
4 - While it stops spam, it also massively hinders some factions or in fact increases spam. For example, Guard are cheap in everything but tanks really. As a result you can easily end up with 300 or 400 points of troops with this idea, which is like 8-10 infantry squads.
5 - Same issue as above for some factions. Some factions do not have the variety (or even competitive variety) in order to change out some slots. For example, some sub-sub factions or even whole sub factions only have 1 or 2 units for some slots - especially the more elite armies which already struggle to get CP.
6 - kinda pointless as 99% of the time you'll always be within 0-10 points of each other so its hardly a disadvantage.
7 - 25% of points on troops for Guard is 13 infantry squads (130 models...) or 84 orks or 63 tau fire warriors etc etc. I don't even want to know the answer for Tryanids, conscripts or Ork Grots instead of Boyz.
CP themselves currently aren't the problem, it's just that - at this stage - Guard can get the most and do the most with them. It won't seem so obnoxious once other horde armies start getting all their stratagems. For example, a Tyranid army can get 12+ CP relatively easy, but they only have 3 basic stratagems to use them on (2 if you consider auto pass morale is useless because of synapse)
Getting an extra CP for going 2nd also, isn't the best idea, considering in many tournament objective based games it is generally considered best (a lot of the time) to go 2nd in order to have the last turn. Also, you could have people simply winning the roll to go first and electing to go 2nd just to get an extra CP even if they don't need it - more about CP denial.
Rather than cap it at 12 (as then you'd have to also look at reducing the benefits for other armies as well, i'd suggest maybe only getting the CP benefits from either 1 of your detachments or 2, instead of all 3. This means that a double brigade + vanguard will get you 9 Cp total, rather than 10, or potentially just 6 CP. Better way to balance it across the game rather than attempting to just target horde based armies.
I also think that all CP re-generation should be on a 6+ instead of the 5+'s we are seeing and that characters should give no more than 2 CP, and only in special cases.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/10 18:28:04
Subject: How should GW change Command Points?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
|
|
 |
 |
|