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.

I like the Patrol, Battalion, Brigade, Vanguard, Outrider, Spearhead and Flyer detachments
They all fill very broad roles that allow armies construction around theme.
The Auxiliary detachment is also a good idea to sacrifice CPs to allow flexibility in list building.

The detachments that could use some work are the Supreme Command, and both Super Heavy detachments.
Seriously, why are there 2 for detachments just for Lord of War?

I propose that both Super Heavy detachments be combined into the following:
1-3 Lords of War. +1CP for each LoW. Done. Easy

I also think the Supreme Command detachment should be removed entirely. If you want more HQs, either pay the CPs and use an Auxiliary detachment, or take a Patrol with 1 Troop
Alternatively, we could keep the SC, but make it require 1 Elite and give no CPs at all.

Thoughts?

-

That makes sense and doesn't hamper Knight lists as bad.

I don't like that. IMHO the supreme command is nice, and I wouldn't penalize it with the mandatory tax troop. On the other hand I feel like fielding LoWs should cost CPs not the opposite. I'd make the LoW detachment -1CP not +1 CP.

If you don't want to penalize the knights army just allow them to declare one knight as an HQ and the other three as elites, heavy supports, FA or troops.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't like that. IMHO the supreme command is nice, and I wouldn't penalize it with the mandatory tax troop. On the other hand I feel like fielding LoWs should cost CPs not the opposite. I'd make the LoW detachment -1CP not +1 CP.

If you don't want to penalize the knights army just allow them to declare one knight as an HQ and the other three as elites, heavy supports, FA or troops.

Except no Lords Of War are causing trouble besides the Primarchs, which is an issue with them NOT the unit slot. So that doesn't actually make sense on your end.

I don't mind merging the SH detachments, but I would actually prefer if the Battalion detachment got a slot for a LoW, and the Brigade for 2.
I don't really understand why these detachments can't include LoWs, especially when the Supreme Command has a slot.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't like that. IMHO the supreme command is nice, and I wouldn't penalize it with the mandatory tax troop. On the other hand I feel like fielding LoWs should cost CPs not the opposite. I'd make the LoW detachment -1CP not +1 CP.

If you don't want to penalize the knights army just allow them to declare one knight as an HQ and the other three as elites, heavy supports, FA or troops.

Except spamming HQs is a massive problem that needs fixing but Girlyman and maybe Morty are the only LoW that are in anyway competitive.

Spamming HQs is not the problem. Spamming overpowered/undercosted stuff is.

Some armies have their HQs that are mostly a tax, other ones have troops that are mostly a tax. Nerf the overpowered HQs and the supreme command won't cause any trouble. The supreme command detachment doesn't cause any trouble with orks, SW, necrons, drukhari, SM, SoB, Ad Mech, etc...., which means there's an issue with some specific profiles, not the detachment itself. I own 3 large armies and I play a forth one and I've never used the supreme command detachment yet, not in a single game. IMHO bringing 3 HQs plus other 1-2 or even more in the other detachments is already a huge tax generally speaking.

The LoW thing is more about the unit design, I can't stand those models in games under 3000 points because IMHO they don't belong to standard games. I acknowledge that this is entirely personal, I simply prefer a game in which bringing more standard units is more rewarding than replacing them with a single huge superhero or huge vehicle.

LoW are generally not as competitive, or at the very least are expensive enough that they are hard to abuse.
They also are expensive enough that an army with several LoW cannot get nearly as many CPs. Ergo, having a single LoW detachment that allows up to 3 LoW that give +1CP for each makes perfect sense.

The Supreme Command detachment can easily be removed as the majority of detachments allow for several HQs and thus the SC is redundant and just another way to get CPs, which should have a tax/payment.

We could allow Battalions to have 2-4 HQ and the others to have 1-3. That would remove the need for the Command detachment entirely.

And I say this as a player who can take a list with 10+ Eldar Autachs if I wanted to.

-

 Blackie wrote:
Spamming HQs is not the problem. Spamming overpowered/undercosted stuff is.

Some armies have their HQs that are mostly a tax, other ones have troops that are mostly a tax. Nerf the overpowered HQs and the supreme command won't cause any trouble. The supreme command detachment doesn't cause any trouble with orks, SW, necrons, drukhari, SM, SoB, Ad Mech, etc...., which means there's an issue with some specific profiles, not the detachment itself. I own 3 large armies and I play a forth one and I've never used the supreme command detachment yet, not in a single game. IMHO bringing 3 HQs plus other 1-2 or even more in the other detachments is already a huge tax generally speaking.

The LoW thing is more about the unit design, I can't stand those models in games under 3000 points because IMHO they don't belong to standard games. I acknowledge that this is entirely personal, I simply prefer a game in which bringing more standard units is more rewarding than replacing them with a single huge superhero or huge vehicle.

This isn't about your personal preferences. This is about balance.

Out of all the Lords Of War, how many of them would you still bring if they gave a -1CP? The answer is almost none of them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Spamming HQs is not the problem. Spamming overpowered/undercosted stuff is.

Some armies have their HQs that are mostly a tax, other ones have troops that are mostly a tax. Nerf the overpowered HQs and the supreme command won't cause any trouble. The supreme command detachment doesn't cause any trouble with orks, SW, necrons, drukhari, SM, SoB, Ad Mech, etc...., which means there's an issue with some specific profiles, not the detachment itself. I own 3 large armies and I play a forth one and I've never used the supreme command detachment yet, not in a single game. IMHO bringing 3 HQs plus other 1-2 or even more in the other detachments is already a huge tax generally speaking.

The LoW thing is more about the unit design, I can't stand those models in games under 3000 points because IMHO they don't belong to standard games. I acknowledge that this is entirely personal, I simply prefer a game in which bringing more standard units is more rewarding than replacing them with a single huge superhero or huge vehicle.

This isn't about your personal preferences. This is about balance.

Out of all the Lords Of War, how many of them would you still bring if they gave a -1CP? The answer is almost none of them.

Which, I believe, is his goal. He doesn't like seeing them.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Spamming HQs is not the problem. Spamming overpowered/undercosted stuff is.

Some armies have their HQs that are mostly a tax, other ones have troops that are mostly a tax. Nerf the overpowered HQs and the supreme command won't cause any trouble. The supreme command detachment doesn't cause any trouble with orks, SW, necrons, drukhari, SM, SoB, Ad Mech, etc...., which means there's an issue with some specific profiles, not the detachment itself. I own 3 large armies and I play a forth one and I've never used the supreme command detachment yet, not in a single game. IMHO bringing 3 HQs plus other 1-2 or even more in the other detachments is already a huge tax generally speaking.

The LoW thing is more about the unit design, I can't stand those models in games under 3000 points because IMHO they don't belong to standard games. I acknowledge that this is entirely personal, I simply prefer a game in which bringing more standard units is more rewarding than replacing them with a single huge superhero or huge vehicle.

This isn't about your personal preferences. This is about balance.

Out of all the Lords Of War, how many of them would you still bring if they gave a -1CP? The answer is almost none of them.

Which, I believe, is his goal. He doesn't like seeing them.

Which doesn't matter when we are talking about balance.

 Blackie wrote:
Spamming HQs is not the problem. Spamming overpowered/undercosted stuff is.

Some armies have their HQs that are mostly a tax, other ones have troops that are mostly a tax. Nerf the overpowered HQs and the supreme command won't cause any trouble. The supreme command detachment doesn't cause any trouble with orks, SW, necrons, drukhari, SM, SoB, Ad Mech, etc...., which means there's an issue with some specific profiles, not the detachment itself. I own 3 large armies and I play a forth one and I've never used the supreme command detachment yet, not in a single game. IMHO bringing 3 HQs plus other 1-2 or even more in the other detachments is already a huge tax generally speaking.

The LoW thing is more about the unit design, I can't stand those models in games under 3000 points because IMHO they don't belong to standard games. I acknowledge that this is entirely personal, I simply prefer a game in which bringing more standard units is more rewarding than replacing them with a single huge superhero or huge vehicle.

And I believe you should be restricted to how many HQs you can bring: I like games where infantry fight it out, big tanks fight it out and then (around turn 4-5) the HQs that have gone unscathed till now fight it out. A duel between a Daemon Prince and a Hive Tyrant loses something when there's 8 more of each on the side lines waiting to jump in; you don't have this problem with Super Heavies due to their high cost restricting their spamability.

Not only does the Supreme Command detachment allow for spamming broken units but it is also takes some of the fun out of the game for me.

Unpopular opinion, there should just be a cap on command points, formations should come back but with a point cost like they originally had and they don't give access to free equipment or vehicles.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Spamming HQs is not the problem. Spamming overpowered/undercosted stuff is.

Some armies have their HQs that are mostly a tax, other ones have troops that are mostly a tax. Nerf the overpowered HQs and the supreme command won't cause any trouble. The supreme command detachment doesn't cause any trouble with orks, SW, necrons, drukhari, SM, SoB, Ad Mech, etc...., which means there's an issue with some specific profiles, not the detachment itself. I own 3 large armies and I play a forth one and I've never used the supreme command detachment yet, not in a single game. IMHO bringing 3 HQs plus other 1-2 or even more in the other detachments is already a huge tax generally speaking.

The LoW thing is more about the unit design, I can't stand those models in games under 3000 points because IMHO they don't belong to standard games. I acknowledge that this is entirely personal, I simply prefer a game in which bringing more standard units is more rewarding than replacing them with a single huge superhero or huge vehicle.

This isn't about your personal preferences. This is about balance.

Out of all the Lords Of War, how many of them would you still bring if they gave a -1CP? The answer is almost none of them.

Which, I believe, is his goal. He doesn't like seeing them.

Which doesn't matter when we are talking about balance.

it's not a matter of balance the nerf of the supreme command detachment either because the majority of the factions doesn't even use it. It's not a problem of the unit slot, but simply there are some overpowered and undercosted HQs that a few armies manage to spam. Just nerf those specific HQs if you want balance. Make the hive tyrants 50 points more expensive and you won't see 7-8 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Spamming HQs is not the problem. Spamming overpowered/undercosted stuff is.

Some armies have their HQs that are mostly a tax, other ones have troops that are mostly a tax. Nerf the overpowered HQs and the supreme command won't cause any trouble. The supreme command detachment doesn't cause any trouble with orks, SW, necrons, drukhari, SM, SoB, Ad Mech, etc...., which means there's an issue with some specific profiles, not the detachment itself. I own 3 large armies and I play a forth one and I've never used the supreme command detachment yet, not in a single game. IMHO bringing 3 HQs plus other 1-2 or even more in the other detachments is already a huge tax generally speaking.

The LoW thing is more about the unit design, I can't stand those models in games under 3000 points because IMHO they don't belong to standard games. I acknowledge that this is entirely personal, I simply prefer a game in which bringing more standard units is more rewarding than replacing them with a single huge superhero or huge vehicle.

And I believe you should be restricted to how many HQs you can bring: I like games where infantry fight it out, big tanks fight it out and then (around turn 4-5) the HQs that have gone unscathed till now fight it out.

I 100% agree but a battallion plus a supreme command is 5 HQs. It doesn't seem an exaggeration to me. Especially with armies that can easily field a large amount of models.

I think the LoW ones are kind of fine as it is – they're essentially a mechanism to allow you to ally in the big stuff, or to do an all-big-stuff army.

I don't understand what purpose the Supreme Command serves though, other than to allow people to beard out and spam HQs without any tax. But I'm one of those people who likes their armies set up in keeping with the fluff, so the idea of multiple SM Captains running around in the same army freaks me out, even if they're in a "proper" detachment.

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the LoW ones are kind of fine as it is – they're essentially a mechanism to allow you to ally in the big stuff, or to do an all-big-stuff army.

But why do we need 2 for that? We currently have one that give 3-5 LoW for 3CPs and a single LoW detachment that gives none.
Both of those can be combined into a single 1-3 LoW detachment that gives +1CP per LoW. That is more flexible and does what both the current detachments do, but better.

If you want to add 1 LoW, you can. If you want to do a whole army of LoW, you still can, but you get more CPs for it (but still WAAAYY less CPs than a "normal" army)

And as for the Supreme Command, you can just give Partols, Vanguards, Spearheads and Outrider detachments 1-3 HQ slots and Battalions can get 2-4 slots for HQ.
That allows everyone to take an appropriate amount of HQs without giving them a free CP for no reason. Your "command bonus" is having more leaders that give out more buffs, you shouldn't get extra stratagems for that.

Or, ya know, we leave all those other detachments as is, remove the Supreme Command entirely and give the Auxiliary detachment a reason to exist

-

The amount of CP's granted by Brigade & Battalion should be readjusted. These two formations highly penalize armies with no decent troop choices while exponentially rewarding those with.

Battalion should grant +2CP, and maybe reduce the HQ requirements to 1.
Brigade should only grant +7CP, as this is a sum of 5 smaller detachments (2x Battalion, 1x Vanguard, 1x Outrider, 1x Spearhead) with reduced HQ tax.

They should also introduce stratagems that cost 0 CP's. Stratagems are essentially the special rules that certain units had prior to 8th ed, but now requires an "activation point." Most stratagems are not worth spending the CP, and currently, CP's are only being spent on a handful of the stratagems available. If we retain the matched play rule of a single stratagem being restricted to one-use per turn/phase, we can potentially promote a healthier, more varied army composition rather than min-maxing the most efficient-per-point or undercosted models.

 skchsan wrote:
The amount of CP's granted by Brigade & Battalion should be readjusted. These two formations highly penalize armies with no decent troop choices while exponentially rewarding those with.

Battalion should grant +2CP, and maybe reduce the HQ requirements to 1.
Brigade should only grant +7CP, as this is a sum of 5 smaller detachments (2x Battalion, 1x Vanguard, 1x Outrider, 1x Spearhead) with reduced HQ tax.

They should also introduce stratagems that cost 0 CP's. Stratagems are essentially the special rules that certain units had prior to 8th ed, but now requires an "activation point." Most stratagems are not worth spending the CP, and currently, CP's are only being spent on a handful of the stratagems available. If we retain the matched play rule of a single stratagem being restricted to one-use per turn/phase, we can potentially promote a healthier, more varied army composition rather than min-maxing the most efficient-per-point or undercosted models.

That's not actually a bad idea. Mostly talking about the 0 CP strats-no comment on the Battalion and Brigade changes, since I have no strong feelings on it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The amount of CP's granted by Brigade & Battalion should be readjusted. These two formations highly penalize armies with no decent troop choices while exponentially rewarding those with.

Battalion should grant +2CP, and maybe reduce the HQ requirements to 1.
Brigade should only grant +7CP, as this is a sum of 5 smaller detachments (2x Battalion, 1x Vanguard, 1x Outrider, 1x Spearhead) with reduced HQ tax.

They should also introduce stratagems that cost 0 CP's. Stratagems are essentially the special rules that certain units had prior to 8th ed, but now requires an "activation point." Most stratagems are not worth spending the CP, and currently, CP's are only being spent on a handful of the stratagems available. If we retain the matched play rule of a single stratagem being restricted to one-use per turn/phase, we can potentially promote a healthier, more varied army composition rather than min-maxing the most efficient-per-point or undercosted models.

That's not actually a bad idea. Mostly talking about the 0 CP strats-no comment on the Battalion and Brigade changes, since I have no strong feelings on it.

Agreed, not a bad idea at all.

 Galef wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the LoW ones are kind of fine as it is – they're essentially a mechanism to allow you to ally in the big stuff, or to do an all-big-stuff army.

But why do we need 2 for that? We currently have one that give 3-5 LoW for 3CPs and a single LoW detachment that gives none.
Both of those can be combined into a single 1-3 LoW detachment that gives +1CP per LoW. That is more flexible and does what both the current detachments do, but better.

If you want to add 1 LoW, you can. If you want to do a whole army of LoW, you still can, but you get more CPs for it (but still WAAAYY less CPs than a "normal" army)
-

I'd have a hard NO to giving out CP's at +1 per loard of war with 200 pts LOW available to knight armies, thats a lot of CP's to be handing out to the definition of a squew list. Especially if they get away to regenerate or steel CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could definataly get behind a few 0CP strategums, or even just a few of the current ones getting dropped from 2/3 to 1.
The ones that are so overcosted they're never worth the CP.

Ice_can wrote:
I'd have a hard NO to giving out CP's at +1 per loard of war with 200 pts LOW available to knight armies, thats a lot of CP's to be handing out to the definition of a squew list. Especially if they get away to regenerate or steel CP.

WHAT?!? O.o

Ok, amendment to my proposal:
Combine the 2 Super Heavy detachments to look like this:
1-5 LoW choices. +3CP if the detachment includes at least 3 LoW choices.

Although at that rate it functions exactly like the current 2 detachments, except taking 2 LoWs would only could as 1 detachment

-

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the LoW ones are kind of fine as it is – they're essentially a mechanism to allow you to ally in the big stuff, or to do an all-big-stuff army.

But why do we need 2 for that? We currently have one that give 3-5 LoW for 3CPs and a single LoW detachment that gives none.
Both of those can be combined into a single 1-3 LoW detachment that gives +1CP per LoW. That is more flexible and does what both the current detachments do, but better.

If you want to add 1 LoW, you can. If you want to do a whole army of LoW, you still can, but you get more CPs for it (but still WAAAYY less CPs than a "normal" army)
-

I'd have a hard NO to giving out CP's at +1 per loard of war with 200 pts LOW available to knight armies, thats a lot of CP's to be handing out to the definition of a squew list. Especially if they get away to regenerate or steel CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could definataly get behind a few 0CP strategums, or even just a few of the current ones getting dropped from 2/3 to 1.
The ones that are so overcosted they're never worth the CP.

Those 200+ points add up. Three of those is over 600 points for 3CP?

If you actually chose to break it down like that, you'd see it isn't a bid deal.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the LoW ones are kind of fine as it is – they're essentially a mechanism to allow you to ally in the big stuff, or to do an all-big-stuff army.

But why do we need 2 for that? We currently have one that give 3-5 LoW for 3CPs and a single LoW detachment that gives none.
Both of those can be combined into a single 1-3 LoW detachment that gives +1CP per LoW. That is more flexible and does what both the current detachments do, but better.

If you want to add 1 LoW, you can. If you want to do a whole army of LoW, you still can, but you get more CPs for it (but still WAAAYY less CPs than a "normal" army)
-

I'd have a hard NO to giving out CP's at +1 per loard of war with 200 pts LOW available to knight armies, thats a lot of CP's to be handing out to the definition of a squew list. Especially if they get away to regenerate or steel CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could definataly get behind a few 0CP strategums, or even just a few of the current ones getting dropped from 2/3 to 1.
The ones that are so overcosted they're never worth the CP.

Those 200+ points add up. Three of those is over 600 points for 3CP?

If you actually chose to break it down like that, you'd see it isn't a bid deal.

It's more a full knight army with 2 big knights and 3-4 small knights at +1cp per LOW is looking at 9CP for a 6 unit army, most factions are 8 units for 3cp or 4 for 1cp so for a 9 CP list would be 16 units meaning those CP are getting spread a lot thinner.

I know at the moment every imperial player with half a brain is playing the +3cp and screens for 215points of guard, but that realy shouldn't be the design bar thats chased.

For the most play tested and balanced edition ever 8th edition codex power creep seems to be be in full swing just in traunches instead of codex by codex. The problem is that because of the known broken mess of imbalance that already exists, lots of things sound reasonable when they realy should be OP.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the LoW ones are kind of fine as it is – they're essentially a mechanism to allow you to ally in the big stuff, or to do an all-big-stuff army.

But why do we need 2 for that? We currently have one that give 3-5 LoW for 3CPs and a single LoW detachment that gives none.
Both of those can be combined into a single 1-3 LoW detachment that gives +1CP per LoW. That is more flexible and does what both the current detachments do, but better.

If you want to add 1 LoW, you can. If you want to do a whole army of LoW, you still can, but you get more CPs for it (but still WAAAYY less CPs than a "normal" army)
-

I'd have a hard NO to giving out CP's at +1 per loard of war with 200 pts LOW available to knight armies, thats a lot of CP's to be handing out to the definition of a squew list. Especially if they get away to regenerate or steel CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could definataly get behind a few 0CP strategums, or even just a few of the current ones getting dropped from 2/3 to 1.
The ones that are so overcosted they're never worth the CP.

Those 200+ points add up. Three of those is over 600 points for 3CP?

If you actually chose to break it down like that, you'd see it isn't a bid deal.

It's more a full knight army with 2 big knights and 3-4 small knights at +1cp per LOW is looking at 9CP for a 6 unit army, most factions are 8 units for 3cp or 4 for 1cp so for a 9 CP list would be 16 units meaning those CP are getting spread a lot thinner.

I know at the moment every imperial player with half a brain is playing the +3cp and screens for 215points of guard, but that realy shouldn't be the design bar thats chased.

For the most play tested and balanced edition ever 8th edition codex power creep seems to be be in full swing just in traunches instead of codex by codex. The problem is that because of the known broken mess of imbalance that already exists, lots of things sound reasonable when they realy should be OP.

And that's not any worse than someone doing a Brigade with any other army at that point level, seeing at can be about as unviable as...2 Imperial Knights and 3 Armigers? Huh. Look at that.

I think you missed the point in other armies those CP are spread over 16+ more likely 20 units. So that works out at .5 of a CP per unit.
If you only have 6 units and 9 CP your units are averaging 1.5 cp per unit, but honestly your probably going to prioritise the big guys more ao there probably getting 3/4 CP each for the game
It means any unit that would benifit from a +1 to ion shield for 1or 2CP becomes an auto play turn 1, 2 regain D3 wounds for 1or 2 CP again auto play, a save against mortal wounds on 4+ for a phase for 1 or 2 CP auto play. Its not just the amount of CP's its the number of units it has to be spread around thats important.

Ice_can wrote:
I think you missed the point in other armies those CP are spread over 16+ more likely 20 units. So that works out at .5 of a CP per unit.
If you only have 6 units and 9 CP your units are averaging 1.5 cp per unit, but honestly your probably going to prioritise the big guys more ao there probably getting 3/4 CP each for the game
It means any unit that would benifit from a +1 to ion shield for 1or 2CP becomes an auto play turn 1, 2 regain D3 wounds for 1or 2 CP again auto play, a save against mortal wounds on 4+ for a phase for 1 or 2 CP auto play. Its not just the amount of CP's its the number of units it has to be spread around thats important.

Except the Imperial Knight army is ridiculously starved for CP in the first place.

I know you're hitting for a main principle of the matter, but strictly speaking it isn't a broken set up. If someone wanted an extra CP for running the Armiger, they can be my guest.

 skchsan wrote:
The amount of CP's granted by Brigade & Battalion should be readjusted. These two formations highly penalize armies with no decent troop choices while exponentially rewarding those with.

Battalion should grant +2CP, and maybe reduce the HQ requirements to 1.
Brigade should only grant +7CP, as this is a sum of 5 smaller detachments (2x Battalion, 1x Vanguard, 1x Outrider, 1x Spearhead) with reduced HQ tax.

They should also introduce stratagems that cost 0 CP's. Stratagems are essentially the special rules that certain units had prior to 8th ed, but now requires an "activation point." Most stratagems are not worth spending the CP, and currently, CP's are only being spent on a handful of the stratagems available. If we retain the matched play rule of a single stratagem being restricted to one-use per turn/phase, we can potentially promote a healthier, more varied army composition rather than min-maxing the most efficient-per-point or undercosted models.

Just curious, which armies don't have good troop choices?

Though I do love the idea of reducing HQ tax. It let's me get to the meat and potatoes of any good game: infantry slug fests. Maybe patrols should not require an HQ at all and just require 2 troops. They don't offer CP anyway.

I would also like to see a LOW slot allotted to the brigade. It would give certain armies more reason to take it instead of more battalions.
We should also remove the supreme command detachment. It doesn't do anything fun and just promotes spam. With all the detachments, you should have more than enough HQs...

Ice_can wrote:
I think you missed the point in other armies those CP are spread over 16+ more likely 20 units. So that works out at .5 of a CP per unit.
If you only have 6 units and 9 CP your units are averaging 1.5 cp per unit, but honestly your probably going to prioritise the big guys more ao there probably getting 3/4 CP each for the game
It means any unit that would benifit from a +1 to ion shield for 1or 2CP becomes an auto play turn 1, 2 regain D3 wounds for 1or 2 CP again auto play, a save against mortal wounds on 4+ for a phase for 1 or 2 CP auto play. Its not just the amount of CP's its the number of units it has to be spread around thats important.

Sorry but that's rubbish. How many of those 20 units are actually going to use up CP? I have 19 units in my 2k army and there's only about 4 or 5 of them that I actually use CP on so I get about 3CP per unit efficiency.

It's not about the amount of CP or the number of units, it's about the number of units that it's actually beneficial/needed to use CP on. If you had CP scale with number of units then low model count armies would be starved of CP and high model count armies would have stupidly high CP efficiency.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I think you missed the point in other armies those CP are spread over 16+ more likely 20 units. So that works out at .5 of a CP per unit.
If you only have 6 units and 9 CP your units are averaging 1.5 cp per unit, but honestly your probably going to prioritise the big guys more ao there probably getting 3/4 CP each for the game
It means any unit that would benifit from a +1 to ion shield for 1or 2CP becomes an auto play turn 1, 2 regain D3 wounds for 1or 2 CP again auto play, a save against mortal wounds on 4+ for a phase for 1 or 2 CP auto play. Its not just the amount of CP's its the number of units it has to be spread around thats important.

Except the Imperial Knight army is ridiculously starved for CP in the first place.

I know you're hitting for a main principle of the matter, but strictly speaking it isn't a broken set up. If someone wanted an extra CP for running the Armiger, they can be my guest.

I'm not totally against it, but there is a balance to be struck, especially in an army which is going to have 2 maybe 3 key models, which if the strategums are powerful enough can become functionally immune to the opponent for a turn or two, at which point you can neutralize the threatening units and pick appart the opponents army at leisure. Though it really depends upon the strategums as to the potential for broken ness but the dukari codex should have knights players excited as it looks like power creep is in full swing, but you have plenty of distance to climb from index rules.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I think you missed the point in other armies those CP are spread over 16+ more likely 20 units. So that works out at .5 of a CP per unit.
If you only have 6 units and 9 CP your units are averaging 1.5 cp per unit, but honestly your probably going to prioritise the big guys more ao there probably getting 3/4 CP each for the game
It means any unit that would benifit from a +1 to ion shield for 1or 2CP becomes an auto play turn 1, 2 regain D3 wounds for 1or 2 CP again auto play, a save against mortal wounds on 4+ for a phase for 1 or 2 CP auto play. Its not just the amount of CP's its the number of units it has to be spread around thats important.

Sorry but that's rubbish. How many of those 20 units are actually going to use up CP? I have 19 units in my 2k army and there's only about 4 or 5 of them that I actually use CP on so I get about 3CP per unit efficiency.

It's not about the amount of CP or the number of units, it's about the number of units that it's actually beneficial/needed to use CP on. If you had CP scale with number of units then low model count armies would be starved of CP and high model count armies would have stupidly high CP efficiency.

I'm with Mrhappyface on this. "Normal" armies can fill other detachment and get CPs much easier, than use those CPs on just the units that get the most out of the Stratagems
An army that takes 3+ LoW, even the cheap 200+pt ones, doesn't have as easy access to CP, nor does it have as many units to use Stratagems on as effectively.

-