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.

Rules to prevent cheap Command Point 'generating' factions from being abused. Update 6/22 revised version with updated detachments.

Idea 1.

Idea 2.

Idea 3.

Because 40k devolving into Guard vs Eldar is fun, right? Because that is all this rule will do. It also ignores the fact that you don't need a <REGIMENT> detachment to unlock stratagems, just an ASTRA MILITARUM one.

It's not a bad idea, but personally I really like that you can dump a lot of CPs into a smaller detachment, as it feels very fluffy to represent your strategy hinging around an Astartes strike team for example.

For balance purposes I'm not sure it would make a big difference, so I think the extra book-keeping probably isn't worth it overall.

I think the big problem with CP abuse are the armies that can most easily fill out those high CP detachments; when it comes to guard GW has never had any apparent idea of how to build a sane guard list, it always seems to end up absurdly cheap with weird structural shenanigans.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because 40k devolving into Guard vs Eldar is fun, right? Because that is all this rule will do. It also ignores the fact that you don't need a <REGIMENT> detachment to unlock stratagems, just an ASTRA MILITARUM one.

Your first statement is hyperbole. This wouldn't kill mixed factions, just weaken them. Besides, some people actually like playing single factions and against them.

Edit: Also, if individual codices cannot stand on their own, that's the problem. Those codex books need to be addressed. Armies shouldn't be dependent on allies to be competitive.

Out of curiousity, how many detachments have you made or know that people make that aren't <FACTION> specific?. Ynnari? What other armies wouldn't choose a faction specific detachment to gain their codex bonuses?

What if PL became primary CP generator rather than detachment types?

Every 10PL = 1CP. Rescale CP generated via detachments to +1/3/5 to special/battalion/brigade respectively.

Mchagen wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because 40k devolving into Guard vs Eldar is fun, right? Because that is all this rule will do. It also ignores the fact that you don't need a <REGIMENT> detachment to unlock stratagems, just an ASTRA MILITARUM one.

Your first statement is hyperbole. This wouldn't kill mixed factions, just weaken them. Besides, some people actually like playing single factions and against them.

Edit: Also, if individual codices cannot stand on their own, that's the problem. Those codex books need to be addressed. Armies shouldn't be dependent on allies to be competitive.

Out of curiousity, how many detachments have you made or know that people make that aren't <FACTION> specific?. Ynnari? What other armies wouldn't choose a faction specific detachment to gain their codex bonuses?

Actually, Ynnari have to be FACTION-specific now. No more souping in a single detachment with them.

I don't hate the OP's proposed rule, but I'm not that against a CP battery detachment either. The extra book keeping sounds annoying but not so annoying as to be problematic. Letting guard generate CP for your Blood Angels sounds more like a symptom than a problem. Ideally, you'd make each faction roughly as good at CP generation as others so that taking allies primarily for extra CP isn't as appealing. The main drawback to this that I see is that armies that don't want to take batallions or brigades won't get to use their fun and flavorful stratagems as often. My craftworld troops are fine but not especially cheap or impressive, so I tend not to field batallions of them. As a result, I'd be likely to only have a single CP (plus the 3 battleforged ones) to spend on their stratagems. So if I want to webway in 2 asuryani units in my harlequin/asuryani/drukhari army, I'll only have 1 CP to spend on craftworld sttratagems.

Just keep the ability to take allies to the smaller factions. Simple.

Allow harlequins, deathwacth, gen cult, sisters, inquisition, ad mech, custodes, grey knights etc, to take allies. Just make illegal to ally SM and IG units.

 Blackie wrote:
Just keep the ability to take allies to the smaller factions. Simple.

Allow harlequins, deathwacth, gen cult, sisters, inquisition, ad mech, custodes, grey knights etc, to take allies. Just make illegal to ally SM and IG units.

Because IG have never worked with SM ever in the history of the universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
What if PL became primary CP generator rather than detachment types?

Every 10PL = 1CP. Rescale CP generated via detachments to +1/3/5 to special/battalion/brigade respectively.

I like this idea, but I dislike the PL aspect for matched play. Should be 1 CP per 200 points, rounding down.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Letting guard generate CP for your Blood Angels sounds more like a symptom than a problem. Ideally, you'd make each faction roughly as good at CP generation as others so that taking allies primarily for extra CP isn't as appealing.

During the preview of 8th, I thought GW designers claimed there were going to be faction specific detachments. Though, maybe I misheard or misunderstood what they were saying in an interview. That could possibly alleviate CP generation problems for specific armies..

CPs based on points with some added extras for detachment types is definitely interesting.

To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.

IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.

 Haravikk wrote:
To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.

IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.

I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.

You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.

A Brigade is -0 points.
A Battalion is -1 point.
A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points.
A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points.
A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points.
A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points
An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.

To a minimum of 1.

^
|
|
|

This is a pretty solid idea.

Probably would adjust the higher end of the detachments a bit, depending on if said detachments are being either incentivized or not used because of adjustments. But other than that it's a nice idea

I think I might just only allow detachments that are the same chapter faction as your warlord to generate CP. I'd also probably make the warlord have to come from the largest detachment points wise.

Allies should be possible but not automatic or obviously better than a solo faction army.

Better solution.
"You can never go above 15 command points at any given time."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.

IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.

I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.

You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.

A Brigade is -0 points.
A Battalion is -1 point.
A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points.
A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points.
A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points.
A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points
An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.

To a minimum of 1.

I've added this to the original post. Also, for this style to work, many of these detachments would likely need to be streamlined in the sense that the minimum requirements in the detachment would be all the units that could be taken. Few or no additional choices in each detachment available, otherwise players would just overload each detachment to avoid buying into another.

I'm not totally sold on the numbers but I get where you're coming from. 11 CP for 3 specialist slots would be somewhere between very nice and generous (certainly way better than the current 6). More importantly it would remove the negativity from builds I like.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I'm not totally sold on the numbers but I get where you're coming from. 11 CP for 3 specialist slots would be somewhere between very nice and generous (certainly way better than the current 6). More importantly it would remove the negativity from builds I like.

The points and detachment penalties need some slight adjustments to get everything right, but overall it's a good idea.

I was looking at guard cp batteries, and giving it some thought, and came looking for a place to post my idea. Here seems appropriate, how about approaching the problem from the other direction? Rather than going after guard, how about spreading the love?

*Integrated training*
costs 180 points, 1 relic slot and 1 warlord slot, may be taken by your warlord in an army that only consists of pure <faction keyword>, eg all blood angels detachments in an army only, all space wolves only, all sisters of the bleeding heart sorority, etc etc. May not be taken by imperial guard, or anyone that is a filthy cp battery.

Grants +5cp to the army, may roll a 5+ on every spent cp to regain a cp, may roll a 5+ on every enemy strategem used to regain a cp.

Basically a guard cp battery without the guard, to represent the integrated training of a 'pure' army. The downside is the lack of cheap chaff from the guard infantry squads, the upside is you can take 2nd and 3rd relics from you 'main' force and don't require the battery to be the warlord.

Thoughts?

Its easy to look at Guard, because they are the most glaring example of a staple on ally to army lists to generate CP.

The problem is twofold, 1) Elite armies love using CP but struggle to generate them on their own, and 2) Having lots of chaff bodies floating around helps immensely in protecting those same elite armies. It creates a situation where cheap swarmy troop infantry is way over valued by the game, to the point where elite troop infantry is plotted out almost completely. If we fix Guard CP batteries, we also need to fix CHAOS CP batteries. You know, Cultists. Chaos Batallions tend to cost a bit more points than Guard ones true, but its ultimately a wash since Chaos would be buying those Daemon Prince and Sorcerer HQs anyway. A fix that addresses CP for everyone would help all armies, because it would make Imperial Forces less dependent on Guard to function, and it would allow Chaos armies to explore other troop options aside from Cultists Right now, cheap troop infantry is chocking the variety out of the game. I agree that a CP system that allocates CP based on the size of the game is the overall fairest solution. The real issue as others have pointed out is that GW is prevented from balancing the power of strategems by army access because all armies have the same access via alliances! So it must be that the access should be equivalent.

A guard specific fix to the problem would be to bring back the Platoon = 1 Troop Choice. Anyone who played Guard in 5th edition and before should be very familiar with this. In order to qualify as a troop choice you must purchase a Platoon Command Squad and at least 2 Infantry Squads. You could then take further units such as Special Weapon and Heavy Weapon teams in the Platoon. This would make a guard battalion sky leap in price instead of needing 2x company commanders and 3x infantry squads, you would need to ally in 2x company commaners, 3x platoon command squads, and 6x infantry squads. Many armies would still ally this formation in for the additional CP and screening bodies, but it would cost as much as 2 Guard Battalions currently and drastically cut down on players ability to 'slot' this into a list, and lower the amount of CP you get from AM. It would not have a big effect on AM pure lists, because they tend to have more CP then they can use effectively anyway.

In my opinion this would fix a lot of the issues with imperial soup, however it doesn't particularly help with Chaos soup and the issue of cheap cultists. removing cultists from Codex CSM and implementing a similar structure in a citadel release of Renegades and Heretics isn't as graceful, as it leaves CSM with only one basic troop, and it doesn't make sense for R&H to have an organized command structure in the same way as AM. Obviously Cultists are a problem that needs to be fixed as well. Although Cultists far more limited equipment options helps keep them as a lesser threat than Guard Squads... look out, they can take a HEAVY STUBBER...

I like the idea of starting with a set CP pool and losing some to add more detachments.

My initial response to Akean's proposal is negative. First they it either includes a mechanism not currently in the game, which could set performance fir all kinds of special rules (I think aos does this). Second is that it would work well for the armies that could take ig anyways, especially in fluff for what that's worth,
so why bother?

I do think that battalion gives 1 too many cp, and outrider/spearhead/vanguard 1 too few. But this is still an issue with heavy infantry troops not feeling worth their points.

Guard get 4ptsX10models and csm do too, tau and admech get 7ptsX5models. There are lots of batteries, ig is just too efficient at it by a little bit. Imo there should be no getting cp back.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
My initial response to Akean's proposal is negative. First they it either includes a mechanism not currently in the game, which could set performance fir all kinds of special rules (I think aos does this). Second is that it would work well for the armies that could take ig anyways, especially in fluff for what that's worth,
so why bother?

I do think that battalion gives 1 too many cp, and outrider/spearhead/vanguard 1 too few. But this is still an issue with heavy infantry troops not feeling worth their points.

Guard get 4ptsX10models and csm do too, tau and admech get 7ptsX5models. There are lots of batteries, ig is just too efficient at it by a little bit. Imo there should be no getting cp back.

The term CP battery isn't necessarily applicable to Tau, Necron, Tyranids and Orks as they are the same faction. The issue at hand here is bringing in allies under imperium or chaos keyword for the sole purpose of gaining CP's to be spent to the primary, non IG or cultist detachments. Cultists are less so a problem as they have much heavier HQ tax (nearly 2~3 times) and because they're still CSM detachment and not a Chaos Daemon detachment (unless of course you're running a 6 daemon prince army, which even then, would be two CSM detachments & 1 daemons detachment).

IG CP battery costs 180 pts. That's the cost of 1 Tac squad with plas, combi plas & plas cannon. Do I take a 10 man Tac squad to build towards a SM battalion or just spend the same amount of points on a full AM battalion? Think about it.

I love, and have previously suggested, BCB's suggested rules.

The actual numbers may need fine tuning, but it's a great idea.

For instance, I think every detatchment - even brigade - should be at least 1 point.

Having crazy army composition (multiple detatchments, more air power and less boots, etc) should give you fewer CP, as you're a less organized/well-rounded force.

 akaean wrote:
Its easy to look at Guard, because they are the most glaring example of a staple on ally to army lists to generate CP.

The problem is twofold, 1) Elite armies love using CP but struggle to generate them on their own, and 2) Having lots of chaff bodies floating around helps immensely in protecting those same elite armies. It creates a situation where cheap swarmy troop infantry is way over valued by the game, to the point where elite troop infantry is plotted out almost completely. If we fix Guard CP batteries, we also need to fix CHAOS CP batteries. You know, Cultists. Chaos Batallions tend to cost a bit more points than Guard ones true, but its ultimately a wash since Chaos would be buying those Daemon Prince and Sorcerer HQs anyway. A fix that addresses CP for everyone would help all armies, because it would make Imperial Forces less dependent on Guard to function, and it would allow Chaos armies to explore other troop options aside from Cultists Right now, cheap troop infantry is chocking the variety out of the game. I agree that a CP system that allocates CP based on the size of the game is the overall fairest solution. The real issue as others have pointed out is that GW is prevented from balancing the power of strategems by army access because all armies have the same access via alliances! So it must be that the access should be equivalent.

A guard specific fix to the problem would be to bring back the Platoon = 1 Troop Choice. Anyone who played Guard in 5th edition and before should be very familiar with this. In order to qualify as a troop choice you must purchase a Platoon Command Squad and at least 2 Infantry Squads. You could then take further units such as Special Weapon and Heavy Weapon teams in the Platoon. This would make a guard battalion sky leap in price instead of needing 2x company commanders and 3x infantry squads, you would need to ally in 2x company commaners, 3x platoon command squads, and 6x infantry squads. Many armies would still ally this formation in for the additional CP and screening bodies, but it would cost as much as 2 Guard Battalions currently and drastically cut down on players ability to 'slot' this into a list, and lower the amount of CP you get from AM. It would not have a big effect on AM pure lists, because they tend to have more CP then they can use effectively anyway.

In my opinion this would fix a lot of the issues with imperial soup, however it doesn't particularly help with Chaos soup and the issue of cheap cultists. removing cultists from Codex CSM and implementing a similar structure in a citadel release of Renegades and Heretics isn't as graceful, as it leaves CSM with only one basic troop, and it doesn't make sense for R&H to have an organized command structure in the same way as AM. Obviously Cultists are a problem that needs to be fixed as well. Although Cultists far more limited equipment options helps keep them as a lesser threat than Guard Squads... look out, they can take a HEAVY STUBBER...

At some point though aren't we just trying to design a different game? I mean, if we need to take care of cheap Imperium batteries and cheap cultist batteries, do we need to have a look at Tyranid swarms? Honestly Tau can generate a good amount of CP with strike squads. Orks can break their Boyz swarmz into multiple detachments for CP...

At some point I have to wonder if we're trying to remove the engine to make the car less noisy. If these batteries are making the stratagem system function and effectively reducing the power of first turn charges and smite spam.... what are we actually fixing by trying day after day to remove it?

Is it the cheap bodies that make the guard CP farm broken or their regeneration ability thats the real issue.

For example Ultramarines can only regen on 5+ no stealing 
Choas can steel on a 5+ no regen 
Tau can regen 1 per strat and steal 1 cp per strategum. 
None of the above feel broken in terms of CP. 

Its the stacking 5+ and 5+ meaning if you start with say 14 CP not unreasonable for a guard or soup list. You get +4 due to grand strategist & unless your opponent is CP starved they'll spend say 9 thats another +3, grand strategist on 6 of those gives you another +2 which should allow you to get +1 from the last 3. 

Thats generated 10 CP over the starting CP. 

Tau would get +2 from their own +1.5 from the enemy +.5 from the generated CP so they generated 4CP 

Ultramarines start with 12 and regain +4 CP then another +1CP from that so generated 5CP.

IMHO CP isn't the issue its guards broken regen combo.

Mchagen wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
To be honest I think part of the problem with CP generation is that you can get extra CPs at all, as this was always going to be exploited.

IMO it would be better if the number of CPs per player were fixed by game size, and detachment choices could only lose CPs, not add them. This way you still balance to a degree overuse of certain detachments, but otherwise the number of CPs is the same for both players, barring character bonuses.

I like the idea. Won't ever happen because it's a good idea, but still a good idea.

You start with PL/5 (Agreed Points Limit / 100 rounded for matched play) Command Points. e.g if you have 110 PL in your army you begin with 22 Command points. A 1500 point limit game would have each player start with 15 points (even if you only take 1499 points etc.), a 1750 point limit game would have each player starting with 18 points, and so on.

A Brigade is -0 points.
A Battalion is -1 point.
A Super-Heavy Detachment or Air Wing Detachment is -2 points.
A Vanguard, Spearhead or Outrider detachment is -3 points.
A Supreme Command detachment is -4 points.
A Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment and Fortification Network is -5 Command Points
An Auxiliary Support Detachment is -7 points.

To a minimum of 1.

I've added this to the original post. Also, for this style to work, many of these detachments would likely need to be streamlined in the sense that the minimum requirements in the detachment would be all the units that could be taken. Few or no additional choices in each detachment available, otherwise players would just overload each detachment to avoid buying into another.

Maxing out on a detachment should be encouraged, not penalized

Crazy thought.

Any CP generated by a detachment can only be used for that detachment. The 3 for being battleforged cc an be used for any detachment.
This can limit come super elite armies. (Knights and custodes come to mind)

 psf3077 wrote:
Crazy thought.

Any CP generated by a detachment can only be used for that detachment. The 3 for being battleforged cc an be used for any detachment.
This can eliminate come super elite armies. (Knights and custodes come to mind)

Fixed that for you.

I'm not entirely sure why elite armies need to be limited. It takes a lot of work to make them work compared to swarms and things like Eldar.

Wouldn't the upthread suggestion of formations-cost-CP reverse it though, helping elite armies?

The only-used-in-detatchment also makes it really hard to do bookkeeping.

If things were rebalanced, I think it'd be cool if only the Warlord's detatchment's faction could take a Chapter Tactic or book stratagems. That'd cut down on soup being auto-include without entirely eliminating it. And would make sense, as the force is fighting using the Warlord's preferred tactics, not their own. Might overly nerf Allies, though. I like BCBs suggestions more.

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't the upthread suggestion of formations-cost-CP reverse it though, helping elite armies?

The only-used-in-detatchment also makes it really hard to do bookkeeping.

If things were rebalanced, I think it'd be cool if only the Warlord's detatchment's faction could take a Chapter Tactic or book stratagems. That'd cut down on soup being auto-include without entirely eliminating it. And would make sense, as the force is fighting using the Warlord's preferred tactics, not their own. Might overly nerf Allies, though. I like BCBs suggestions more.

I think ultimately trying to use CP to reward purity isn't looking at the big picture. There are factions that function pure. They're on top now and forcing it on everyone else just widens the gap. The reason for this really isn't CP related, its simply that efficient troops provide flexible and efficient means of counterplay to things like objectives, psychics, and charges. They're just kind of a basic tool every army needs and in Custodes we saw the extremes needed to even try and make a faction work without them (and they still really don't). If anything, I see the CP carrot as just a way to get everyone to realize that, yeah, Guard are the way GW has chosen to give a bunch of armies access to the kind of foundation every army needs to succeed. The other route is to actually give everyone a model for this job, but why? Why make a 4 PPM Custodes martyr unit when Guard exist and fill this role in the fluff all the time?

I've come around to the point where I felt I was early in my Warmachine career. I wanted to play all heavies all the time, but quickly found myself at the mercy of things with longer threat ranges. Eventually I started throwing a cheap unit in the way to block charge lanes and learned the value of a tarpit to blunt the value of an extreme alpha strike. 40k feels like its in that place right now, but rather than accept an available solution to the problems they're facing, players are seeking to rewrite the game less than a year in without really gaining anything from the change. Punish people for taking Guard and watch as a bunch of people switch to complaining about the lack of viable tactics against extreme threat ranges in armies that can't buy a 1W model for less than 1% of a list. Guard allies aren't dominating the scene; just letting a pretty wide swath of sub armies compete with the 2-3 "pure" codexes that have all the tools everyone else has to soup for. It really seems like soup does more good for the game than anything. I honestly don't understand the constant tirade.