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.

Thinking up some variant ways to handle command point and Stratagems

Option 1: Fixed CP per turn, based on army points.

At the start of each battle round, each player recieves 1 CP/500 army points. These can be spent offensively or defensively, but do not carry over from turn to turn. Optional: For each objective you hold at the end of a turn, you gain +1 CP on your next turn.

Option 2: Deck O' Command Points

Put together a small deck of cards - four 2's, three 3's, two 4's and one 5. At the start of each battle round, a player draws (Optional: chooses) a card and has that many CP's for the turn. The number on the card also indicates who goes first that turn; the person with the lowest card chooses

Option 3: Deck O' Stratagems

Inspired by Betrayal at Calth, put together a deck of Stratagems for your army. about 15 cards should be good. Only 3(?) copies of any given stratagem can be in your deck, and the total CP cost of the deck must be 30 or less. At the start of each battle round, draw up to a hand of 3 cards. You may play cards from your hand as appropriate, but discard the Stratagem after use - do not reuse it Optional: Randomly roll a D6+3 for available CP's for that turn to pay for the cards, and Stratagems can be reused until the end of the battle round

I like the deck of strategems. Only I would let you build your own deck, each card costs a certian number of points to put in your deck. Start with a hand of 5 draw 3 on your turn (or both players draw at the top of the round).

Pay 1 point to draw 3 more cards, 2 points to fish through and get the one you want.

The deck must be 30 cards at least. No more than 3 of one card.

You would have to change the way command points were handed out but I think it would be good.

 Stormonu wrote:
Thinking up some variant ways to handle command point and Stratagems

Option 1: Fixed CP per turn, based on army points.

At the start of each battle round, each player recieves 1 CP/500 army points. These can be spent offensively or defensively, but do not carry over from turn to turn. Optional: For each objective you hold at the end of a turn, you gain +1 CP on your next turn.

Option 2: Deck O' Command Points

Put together a small deck of cards - four 2's, three 3's, two 4's and one 5. At the start of each battle round, a player draws (Optional: chooses) a card and has that many CP's for the turn. The number on the card also indicates who goes first that turn; the person with the lowest card chooses

Option 3: Deck O' Stratagems

Inspired by Betrayal at Calth, put together a deck of Stratagems for your army. about 15 cards should be good. Only 3(?) copies of any given stratagem can be in your deck, and the total CP cost of the deck must be 30 or less. At the start of each battle round, draw up to a hand of 3 cards. You may play cards from your hand as appropriate, but discard the Stratagem after use - do not reuse it Optional: Randomly roll a D6+3 for available CP's for that turn to pay for the cards, and Stratagems can be reused until the end of the battle round

No. 1 No, fast armies have a massive advantage in such a case, fast elite amies that have good stratagems will roll in more CP then ever.

No. 2 An interesting solution, however this leads to the fact that we don't need specific detachments for CP's ergo leading to the problem that we take the best slot based detachment and go back to elite armies. Ppl should get an advantage if they take a proper Battalion or Brigade Detachment. Additionally why did you add the who goes first with the ammount of CP? That can lead to dual turns, allready the player with the first turn has a advantage, a dual turn as in 2 times in a row can seriously destroy the whole balance of the game.

No. 3. For as unbalanced as certain stratagems are this will lead to more problems. Take for exemple up to 3 Cards of the same type--> Tide of traitors. Enough said...

I don't think that randomness in the overall strategy/ tacitics is a good idea.

Option 1: You then need to redesign army creation structure from scratch. Battallion would basically die out of usage for most armies.

1. Interesting, but I think I actually prefer the idea of being able to stockpile them for a couple of turns. Typically, you want to be spending quite a few CP relatively early on to get the early game advantage. If spending a CP means you can silence one more enemy gun, then you're taking that much less return fire on your following turn. Thus, it's typically in your best interest to spend CP anyway, but allowing players to stockpile allows them to "save up" for a big turn or to feel more comfortable using pricier stratagems. Only giving me 3 or 4 stratagems to use each turn means that I'll basically just use the same 2 or 3 stratagems every single turn without ever looking at my other options.

I don't see a ton of appeal to option 2. I guess it could be interesting to have one player at a major CP disadvantage for a turn, but it's not likely to be fun for the disadvantaed player. Seems like a good way to screw over a player that needs a big turn to have a chance at winning by giving him a bad draw at the start of the phase. Ditch the potential for a double turn. In 40k, a double turn is potentially an auto-win if your army is built/positioned right.

Option 3 is neat. I see the appeal. However, I also feel like this will pretty much guarantee that some of the interesting-bt-situational stratagems are never seen again. You'll never put a crucible of malediction or an "automatically advance 6"" stratagem in your deck over a fire and fade or a "use a third psychic power." Ditch the random CP on top of this. Too much book keeping. Makes stratagems wildly unreliable.

A wile back, I pitched something to the effect of...

*Make all stratagems either minor or major.
* Select X minor stratagems before deployment.
* Select Y major stratagems before deployment.
* You may use either an unlimited number or Z (hadn't settled on which) minor stratagems in a game round.
* You may use one major stratagem in a game round.
* Some stratagems would still be usable before/during deployment. The number of times they could be used would vary from stratagem to stratagem.
*Command points are no longer a thing; you just play the stratagems throughout the game.
*Optionally, include "Medium" stratagems that could be used more often than major stratagems, but less often than minor ones.

The intention was to limit the number of stratagems you had to remember at once, allow players to use the less potent stratagems they'd normally feel iffy about spending CP on, and provide players with yet another way to make their army (and its tactics) more personalized.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

No. 2 An interesting solution, however this leads to the fact that we don't need specific detachments for CP's ergo leading to the problem that we take the best slot based detachment and go back to elite armies. Ppl should get an advantage if they take a proper Battalion or Brigade Detachment.

This may be a discussion for another thread (like the Saim-Hann one), but why do you feel this way? If a Death Wing player wants to field a fluffy Death Wing army or a White Scars player wants to represent his force by fielding lots of bikes and little or no tactical marines/scouts, then why should they be punished for doing so? What's wrong with being an "elite" army in a universe where entire armies are described as being just that?

Politely, I'd propose that batallions and brigades are meant to be a bandaid over long-standing assumptions that formerly-mandatory (in the day of the force org chart) troop units should be less effective for their points than more "elite" options. Why not make the army full of tactical marines just as viable as the army full of bikes or terminators and divorce stratagems/CP from the number of troop units you fielded?

He can do that, but shoocktroops don't make for good armies on their own, lacking support, ergo they should have always less cp.
Sadly most troops are still lacking, especially marines.

Not Online!!! wrote:
He can do that, but shoocktroops don't make for good armies on their own, lacking support, ergo they should have always less cp.
Sadly most troops are still lacking, especially marines.

That sounds like a realism complaint. May I direct you to literally anything in 40k to point out why that's a silly complaint?

Interesting ideas. For option 1 fixed CPs with a carry-over--maybe a few CPs could be 'stored' per turn similar to old style warhammer fantasy magic phases. But I have some of the same concerns as other posters with options 2/3--double turns and random draws would make the game even more unbalanced.

Wyldhunt wrote:
A while back, I pitched something to the effect of...

*Make all stratagems either minor or major.
* Select X minor stratagems before deployment.
* Select Y major stratagems before deployment.
* You may use either an unlimited number or Z (hadn't settled on which) minor stratagems in a game round.
* You may use one major stratagem in a game round.
* Some stratagems would still be usable before/during deployment. The number of times they could be used would vary from stratagem to stratagem.
*Command points are no longer a thing; you just play the stratagems throughout the game.
*Optionally, include "Medium" stratagems that could be used more often than major stratagems, but less often than minor ones.

The intention was to limit the number of stratagems you had to remember at once, allow players to use the less potent stratagems they'd normally feel iffy about spending CP on, and provide players with yet another way to make their army (and its tactics) more personalized.

Sounds good, were you able to play test any of this? This concept could work well depending on the amounts of minor/major stratagems usable each turn.

Mchagen wrote:
Interesting ideas. For option 1 fixed CPs with a carry-over--maybe a few CPs could be 'stored' per turn similar to old style warhammer fantasy magic phases. But I have some of the same concerns as other posters with options 2/3--double turns and random draws would make the game even more unbalanced.

Wyldhunt wrote:
A while back, I pitched something to the effect of...

*Make all stratagems either minor or major.
* Select X minor stratagems before deployment.
* Select Y major stratagems before deployment.
* You may use either an unlimited number or Z (hadn't settled on which) minor stratagems in a game round.
* You may use one major stratagem in a game round.
* Some stratagems would still be usable before/during deployment. The number of times they could be used would vary from stratagem to stratagem.
*Command points are no longer a thing; you just play the stratagems throughout the game.
*Optionally, include "Medium" stratagems that could be used more often than major stratagems, but less often than minor ones.

The intention was to limit the number of stratagems you had to remember at once, allow players to use the less potent stratagems they'd normally feel iffy about spending CP on, and provide players with yet another way to make their army (and its tactics) more personalized.

Sounds good, were you able to play test any of this? This concept could work well depending on the amounts of minor/major stratagems usable each turn.

No playtesting to date. When I created a thread about it a while back, I was hoping to get a first round of feedback on it, before testing it out, but then no one responded to the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
He can do that, but shoocktroops don't make for good armies on their own, lacking support, ergo they should have always less cp.

That sounds like a realism complaint. May I direct you to literally anything in 40k to point out why that's a silly complaint?

Pretty much this. I don't particularly feel like 100 guardsmen lead by 2 comissars should be more coordinated/better lead than a handful of white scars on bikes lead b a captain. If anything, I'd think the smaller force would be easier to coordinate.

And I'm not sure the point about shock troops really holds up, especially in the context of 40k. Again, three squads of Death Wing terminators and their captain should probably be at least as coordinated as our hypothetical 100 guardsmen and two commissars. Plus, we're not talking about waging an entire war with just those terminators or bikers. A game of 40k is just a few seconds of fighting between a tiny part of each army on a tiny part of a battlefield. A specialized force is just that; a specialized series of components meant to work alongside more standard forces elsewhere in the area. Usually. When it isn't just 5 marines wandering around winning a war on their own.

It's weird when my kabalites can't fire their torment grenades as often because there don't happen to be 3 units of them an 2 archons in one place. It's weird when my reavers can't do their drivebye attacks as often because there aren't any wyches jogging along behind them. Blood Angels are curiously less likely to get really into a battle and fight twice in the fight phase if there aren't at least 3 units of tactical marines or scouts standing around to watch them.

Basically, I've yet to see a fluff justification for making specialized forces worse at using stratagems that makes sense. Mechanically, making troops better at unlocking CP feels like a slightly ham-fisted way of encouraging "fluffy" armies with lots of troops while also penalizing fluffy armies that don't make sense with troops. Plus, the whole, "but troops unlock CP" thing just feels like an excuse to make the once-mandatory troop units of many books inefficient/poorly designed for their points rather than being a valid option.

Considering this is a wargame basic tactical and strategical standards do apply, that means you need to accept a small margain of realism.
As for saim hann jetbikes as troops.
No thank you, i played through the scatbike editions and am allready pissed at the eldar dex with -bs spam through fliers and psykers. No i am not in favour of pure flying circus.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Considering this is a wargame basic tactical and strategical standards do apply, that means you need to accept a small margain of realism.

Completely fair. Now please explain why it's more realistic for 100+ laser troopers lead by a man with a very nice trench coat to be better organized than a handful of motorcycle spartans lead by a space wizard spartan or a bunch of space elf ninjas on flying motorcycles that are lead by an elf wizard motorcyclist. Furthermore, why does having only 5 yakuza torture elves present instead of 15 (the minimum for a kabal batallion) impact the number of times I can shoot a given grenade launcher?

As for saim hann jetbikes as troops.
No thank you, i played through the scatbike editions and am allready pissed at the eldar dex with -bs spam through fliers and psykers. No i am not in favour of pure flying circus.

1. 7th edition scatbikes were indeed broken. Thus far, 8th edition scat bikes do not.

2. Windriders are neither psykers nor flyers (though they do have the Fly keyword), and being Saim-Hann means you are not Alaitoc (another source of -1 to hit). So your point seems at once non-sensical and self-contradicting. Are you also irritated at terminators because Raven Guard devastator squads are at -1 to hit? ;D

3. We can already field an army consisting entirely of models with the Fly keyword regardless of whether or not they're troops. Our ability to field such an army is unrelated to whether or not some of the units in that army are troops. If you'd like to argue the case that an army with the Fly keyword all over the place is problematic or that the Fly keyword itself needs to be adjusted or that you feel the firepower put out by a windrider is still too good in the modern rules set, those would all be things to be discussed independently.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Considering this is a wargame basic tactical and strategical standards do apply, that means you need to accept a small margain of realism.

Completely fair. Now please explain why it's more realistic for 100+ laser troopers lead by a man with a very nice trench coat to be better organized than a handful of motorcycle spartans lead by a space wizard spartan or a bunch of space elf ninjas on flying motorcycles that are lead by an elf wizard motorcyclist. Furthermore, why does having only 5 yakuza torture elves present instead of 15 (the minimum for a kabal batallion) impact the number of times I can shoot a given grenade launcher?

As for saim hann jetbikes as troops.
No thank you, i played through the scatbike editions and am allready pissed at the eldar dex with -bs spam through fliers and psykers. No i am not in favour of pure flying circus.

1. 7th edition scatbikes were indeed broken. Thus far, 8th edition scat bikes do not.

2. Windriders are neither psykers nor flyers (though they do have the Fly keyword), and being Saim-Hann means you are not Alaitoc (another source of -1 to hit). So your point seems at once non-sensical and self-contradicting. Are you also irritated at terminators because Raven Guard devastator squads are at -1 to hit? ;D

3. We can already field an army consisting entirely of models with the Fly keyword regardless of whether or not they're troops. Our ability to field such an army is unrelated to whether or not some of the units in that army are troops. If you'd like to argue the case that an army with the Fly keyword all over the place is problematic or that the Fly keyword itself needs to be adjusted or that you feel the firepower put out by a windrider is still too good in the modern rules set, those would all be things to be discussed independently.

Firstly Mustaches are only relevant for Valhallans, all jokes aside, i'll try to explain it as simple as possible since i do not know how much military background you have.
Assult and Elites are shooktroops. They are the frontline units, trying to exploit and force breakthroughs. --> by nature the most aggressive and independent people are picked for such troops, aswell as the most experienced, which especially rings true for Terminators (This is also why the current terminator profile makes 0 sense but he). They, by virtue of their task are constantly overextended. Important to note, it is equally difficult to organize a small specific strikeforce and a huge army, both require extreme length of structure and organization to function effectively:
In small elite strikeforces, the problem is often mission structure wise, respectively to organsie them in a manner that does not let them lose momentum if they ecounter something that they have not planned for. If schock troops lose momentum, they don't have the manpower required to hold a position, often they don't even have the weaponry for that either. See the problem?
A huge army has other organisational problems, mainly logistics, and requres a bigger pool of trained NCO's and or splits itself appart into platoons, squads etc. depending on their battlefield tactics. However their problems can be solved by burocracy, unlike the small strike force that requires good NCO's and relies on them beeing able to survive.

as for the rule specific questions why edgy elves and torture elves impact nade launchers? It is obvious to me that you need more edge for you edgy space elf army to edge out more edges with your nade launcher.

1. Scatbikes are still annoying to deal with, especcially Alaitoc ones and especially for low bs armies like ork or R&H

2. the prolbem is not with the -1bs modifier, the Problem is the ability of Eldar to stack those: -2bs allready kills the ork shooting phase basically a 3rd of their turn get's lost and R&H loses it's main fighting capability. -3 kicks out most armies. I was never a fan of the -1 bs to beginn with but the stackability of Eldar makes around half the turn of your oponent not count, now try to get in melee with scatbikes.... see the problem? They "Fly" away.

3. Yes you can, and you will average out with less CP, which is good, because you can not spend CP on stratagems as often. Additionally the fly keyword is to a degree a porblem because you can ignore all terrain, i would not care if it were some units, but a whole army ignoring terrain against armies that do not own fly units is a massive advantage no matter what, especcially prevalent in objective games.

From Fluff i would not see a problem, except that if A) can field a pure bike army , why can't A,5) not field a pure bike army, etc. Same happened with the marine Codex, where people wanted to be able to field bikes as troops.
Fluff wise there would be no problem though for saim han.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Firstly Mustaches are only relevant for Valhallans, all jokes aside, i'll try to explain it as simple as possible since i do not know how much military background you have.
Assult and Elites are shooktroops. They are the frontline units, trying to exploit and force breakthroughs. --> by nature the most aggressive and independent people are picked for such troops, aswell as the most experienced, which especially rings true for Terminators (This is also why the current terminator profile makes 0 sense but he). They, by virtue of their task are constantly overextended. Important to note, it is equally difficult to organize a small specific strikeforce and a huge army, both require extreme length of structure and organization to function effectively:
In small elite strikeforces, the problem is often mission structure wise, respectively to organsie them in a manner that does not let them lose momentum if they ecounter something that they have not planned for. If schock troops lose momentum, they don't have the manpower required to hold a position, often they don't even have the weaponry for that either. See the problem?
A huge army has other organisational problems, mainly logistics, and requres a bigger pool of trained NCO's and or splits itself appart into platoons, squads etc. depending on their battlefield tactics. However their problems can be solved by burocracy, unlike the small strike force that requires good NCO's and relies on them beeing able to survive.

That's interesting real-world knowledge, but I feel like most of that doesn't really apply to astartes strike teams or space elves whose armed forces consist primarily of guys on flying motorcyles. Assuming it somehow makes sense for the level of leadership behind an army to impact how many times you can swing your sword or do a barrel roll (both of which are stratagems for various factions), I don't see anything in there that makes it sound like a Raven Wing force is commanded less effectively than a green wing force. My 15 terminators or swooping hawks or whatever makes up the core of my vanguard or outrider detachment could theoretically have been fighting side by side for centuries, learning the habits and strengths of their peers. They're each superhumanly talented to begin with, and their leaders may or may not have literal precognitive guidance to give them. What is it about leading a squad of honored veterans makes my vanguard HQ librarian so much worse at leading his forces than my batallion HQ librarians leading some greenhorn scouts or a 30-something year-old company commander leading a bunch of rowdy conscripts?

Politely, I fail to see what could be happening over the span of roughly 1 minute of action a 40k game represents that makes 9 astartes bikers harder to lead than 90 conscripts.

as for the rule specific questions why edgy elves and torture elves impact nade launchers? It is obvious to me that you need more edge for you edgy space elf army to edge out more edges with your nade launcher.

You may be on to something there.

Actually, this kind of touches on something relevant to the topic. The sales pitch on CP and detachments is that taking a conventional force that includes lots of troops somehow results in better commander skills that somehow result in being able to shoot better, use special ammo more often, dodge attacks more reliably, etc. But that last part seems like something of a disconnect. Many of the things we actually spend CP on are not really related to being commanded more effectively or being part of a conventional force. They basically just represent someone slapping special ammo into a gun, using a special item they've been holding onto, or simply trying harder (see any stratagem related to stabbing stuff more or hitting more reliably or dodging attacks).
Many stratagems basically reflect limited-use abilities that don't have anything to do with being commanded effectively. As a result, we have a weird disconnect between CP generation and what the stratagems actually do.

1. Scatbikes are still annoying to deal with, especcially Alaitoc ones and especially for low bs armies like ork or R&H

I mean, I could very well be uninformed, but I'm not aware of any scatbike lists sweeping tournaments these days. From where I'm standing, scatbikes seem useful but far from overpowered. I find it annoying when hell hounds roll up and manage to do a bunch of damage to a unit I care about, but that has nothing to do with whether or not my opponent should be required to field guardsmen in his armored company themed list. Alaitoc's -1 to hit rule and how it disproportionately impacts ork armies is its own (very fair) topic.

2. the prolbem is not with the -1bs modifier, the Problem is the ability of Eldar to stack those: -2bs allready kills the ork shooting phase basically a 3rd of their turn get's lost and R&H loses it's main fighting capability. -3 kicks out most armies. I was never a fan of the -1 bs to beginn with but the stackability of Eldar makes around half the turn of your oponent not count, now try to get in melee with scatbikes.... see the problem? They "Fly" away.

Again, that's really its own topic. One we've had in this forum at least a couple of times in the recent past. I'm not opposed to limiting access to to-hit penalties, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to whether or not jetbikes (or wraith guard or whatever) themed armies should generate CP in a different way. You basically said you disliked a non-psychic, non-Flyer unit because the codex contains psychic and Flyer units. That's like me complaining about kroot because I don't like riptides.

3. Yes you can, and you will average out with less CP, which is good, because you can not spend CP on stratagems as often. Additionally the fly keyword is to a degree a porblem because you can ignore all terrain, i would not care if it were some units, but a whole army ignoring terrain against armies that do not own fly units is a massive advantage no matter what, especcially prevalent in objective games.

One could make the argument that a given unit with the Fly key word has had the benefits of that keyword factored into its points cost. I'm not opposed to exploring ways of reigning in the power of the Fly keyword, but I'm not sure an army should be punished in some obscure fashion for choosing to take a bunch of units that happen to have Fly. The potency of Fly is, however, also its own topic.

More on-topic is the concept that some armies should be able to use CP less often. I'll assume based on the flow of the conversation and your previous posts that you believe armies with lots of troop units (i.e. batallions) should have more access to CP. I will also imply that the reason you feel this way is that troops are worse for their points than "annoying" units like jetbikers. If I'm correct in these assumptions, then I will take the stance that it would be better to remove "extra cost" troops pay for their inefficiency in order to unlock access to CP and instead simply make troops worth their points. I'd much rather see tactical marines become a desirable unit in their own right or see battle sisters get a price discount based on the number of CP they're assumed to be unlocking rather than punishing certain themed lists for spending points efficiently.

If you design troops to be worth their points rather than assuming that part of their points cost will be used to access CP, then you can proceed to come up with a new system for generating CP such as the ones the OP has presented. You could even simply make CP purchasable with points, though that isn't necessarily my first choice of options.

From Fluff i would not see a problem, except that if A) can field a pure bike army , why can't A,5) not field a pure bike army, etc. Same happened with the marine Codex, where people wanted to be able to field bikes as troops.
Fluff wise there would be no problem though for saim han.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Marines and eldar can both currently field pure bike armies. The issue is that their access to stratagems is severely diminished as a result. Diminished beyond what I personally believe to be reasonable. I feel some of the methods for handling stratagems presented in this thread might serve as good alternatives to the current way things work as they might be allow a fluffy White Scars list to utilize stratagems as effectively as the green wing list.

I guess the idea is, atleast to what i came and concluded, that when you take the more balanced and more troop requiring options that it allows for greater tactical options because you have a bigger more flexibel force with more NCO's that can command their squads without you holding their hands.
Granted half the CP spending on stuff like flak missiles (which were equipment in 7th) should just be that, additional equipment.
Blame GW for that since the players are actually to dumb to deal with equipment costs all the time i guess.
I agree that stratagems should be alternative deployment tactics, additional reserves, etc. not additional abilities which better would've been part of units special rules.

As for your librarians: Simple, you have 2+ commanding officers leading a regular non frontline troops, compared to 1 commanding officer in the midst of the battle leading more autonomus frontline troops, experience after a certain point in time does not matter anymore in the heat of battle, that is the problem your librarian faces. That or he hears more voices of Khorne threating him , that he tears him a new donkey-cave if he uses smite one time more

1. I don't talk about tournament play, i talk about them beeing annoying, at the end of the day this is a game, both sides want fun and Jetbikes are not fun to play against, except if you have viable AA if they are massed. Also probably my PTSD kicking in from 5-7th. I think the same about alpha legion khorne berzerkers, or massed Marauders, etc. Let's just say i am not a fan of spamming ad leave it at that.

2. Not really, you can't split off the problem from the army to the units. You nearly always will run a psyker as an Eldar, you will nearly always take said psykich power, because frankly it is to good to not be taken.

3.That is also a possibility, frankly the costs of units are, atleast in my humble opinion, absolutely all over the place, simply because they did not factor in stratagems and faction bonuses. However there are troop choices out there that are done properly: Kabalites come to mind, guardsmen, Boyz, Cultists, etc. The real problem is that certain armes atm lack basic infantery that is usefull: SM scouts are overcosted and regular tac Marines aswell as CSM are just to lack luster in their ROF department. I'd also rather see diffrent ammounts of CP generated by diffrent detachments during diffrent missions. Heck if i have a capture the Relic mission i'd like to see vanguard detachments generete more then for exemple a battalion. I'd also like it if brigades would actually be worth it in Cp for a balanced force compared to Battalions, would also have the side effect of less soupy gamestyle if done properly.

The problem with the marine codex was that people wanted to run a full on dathwing or ravenwing without needing to play DA. Their argument was, if i equip my chapter master with Terminatorarmor or a Bike that he leads this or that battlecompany which is just composed of Terminators / bikes, therefore they need to become troops.
Now if GW gives that to the SM then CSM players will ask to get that too, because it makes no sense that a Legion has less Terminatorarmour then a Chapter.
Basically an unending Congaline.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I guess the idea is, atleast to what i came and concluded, that when you take the more balanced and more troop requiring options that it allows for greater tactical options because you have a bigger more flexibel force with more NCO's that can command their squads without you holding their hands.

Eh. The way I see it, running a corporation requires a great deal more technological support and active intentional management than running a small business. One guy coaching a basketball team seems like he should have fewer headaches than a handful of guys trying to organize a comic convention (or whatever). If a game of 40k represents about 1 minute of combat, then a coach calling out plays seems more in his element than a team of managers trying to coordinate their own teams while also trying to coordinate with one another.

Granted half the CP spending on stuff like flak missiles (which were equipment in 7th) should just be that, additional equipment.
Blame GW for that since the players are actually to dumb to deal with equipment costs all the time i guess.
I agree that stratagems should be alternative deployment tactics, additional reserves, etc. not additional abilities which better would've been part of units special rules.

This is a lot of it, I think. I don't mind a lot of equipment being limited use abilities (i.e. stratagems), but trying to justify the frequency with which that gear is used by saying the boss is more organized feels like a stretch. It gets even weirder when all I'm trying to do with command points is dodge better or stab more.

1. I don't talk about tournament play, i talk about them beeing annoying, at the end of the day this is a game, both sides want fun and Jetbikes are not fun to play against, except if you have viable AA if they are massed. Also probably my PTSD kicking in from 5-7th. I think the same about alpha legion khorne berzerkers, or massed Marauders, etc. Let's just say i am not a fan of spamming ad leave it at that.

I mean, you're entitled to your personal preferences and biases, but we should probably acknowledge that that's what they are. Grey Knights were the OP boogeyman army once upon a time, but it would be silly of us to punish them for their 5th edition incarnations now. Right?

2. Not really, you can't split off the problem from the army to the units. You nearly always will run a psyker as an Eldar, you will nearly always take said psykich power, because frankly it is to good to not be taken.

Still feels like quite a disconnect. Sure, you'll often field psykers with certain powers in an eldar army, but those powers can benefit most units in the codex including units that are generally considered far more problematic than jetbikes. Jetbikes don't really even have any particular synergy with to-hit modifier abilities. Again, it's like saying kroot are problematic because riptides are good. Guilliman is a heck of a unit, but I'm not complaining about terminators because he exists.

3.That is also a possibility, frankly the costs of units are, atleast in my humble opinion, absolutely all over the place, simply because they did not factor in stratagems and faction bonuses. However there are troop choices out there that are done properly: Kabalites come to mind, guardsmen, Boyz, Cultists, etc. The real problem is that certain armes atm lack basic infantery that is usefull: SM scouts are overcosted and regular tac Marines aswell as CSM are just to lack luster in their ROF department. I'd also rather see diffrent ammounts of CP generated by diffrent detachments during diffrent missions. Heck if i have a capture the Relic mission i'd like to see vanguard detachments generete more then for exemple a battalion. I'd also like it if brigades would actually be worth it in Cp for a balanced force compared to Battalions, would also have the side effect of less soupy gamestyle if done properly.

Fair. I, too, would like to see many troops improved so that they seem like just as valid a choice as their non-troop counterparts. At that point, however, there would be no mechanical reason to reward players with more CP for fielding more troops. Which would be great. Let's ditch the troops = CP connection so that fluffy armies that aren't troop centric aren't punished for not having troops and troop heavy armies feel like their units can stand on their merits.

The problem with the marine codex was that people wanted to run a full on dathwing or ravenwing without needing to play DA. Their argument was, if i equip my chapter master with Terminatorarmor or a Bike that he leads this or that battlecompany which is just composed of Terminators / bikes, therefore they need to become troops.
Now if GW gives that to the SM then CSM players will ask to get that too, because it makes no sense that a Legion has less Terminatorarmour then a Chapter.
Basically an unending Congaline.

I don't see a problem with any of that. A Ravenwing or White Scars army lead by a guy on a bike sounds fluffy and fun. A Black Legion strike force full of terminators lead by a terminator lord sounds rad. A Night Lords army full of raptor lead by a jump pack lord or a wraith-heavy Iyanden force lead by a spirit seer both sound awesome. If we make troops equally as desirable as non-troops without leaning on CP and stratagems to do so, then I don't see how having such an army would be a problem. The whole point of chapter tactics, warlord traits, and relics is to give people ways to customize their armies and give players a sense of ownership and flavor. Allowing some units to be more prevalent than others seems like a good way of doing that.

And once we've broken the troops = CP connection, suggestions like those of the OP can provide alternative methods for determining just how often we can use our precious stratagems in a troop-agnostic fashion.

Honestly, get rid of equipment abilities stratagems.
Seriously it completely shiet justification wise, if i expect flyers as a CSM i want to buy Flakk Missiles, not spend precious CP on a flakk missile (Imagine a CSM lord pre battle, instead of spreading out flakk missiles he carries them around and in the right moment he plans to use them.....)
Same goes for the Grenadiers stratagem of IG. Why the hell would they not frag the living Gak out of a charging unit? They all carry frag nades.
My solution to this: Make equipment once again buyable, and also add in buyable Rules like grenadiers for IG. Maybee adapt the rules a bit more like:
Grenadiers, 1 pts per IG squad per modell, per 3 modells shooting can throw a greanade instead. Range for greanades is increased by 2" to 8".
Not only would it allow to customize your force again, but also give you a fluffy way to do so.

AS for for point 3:
Honestly, just get rid of the fixed CP. If i have a mission like a skirmish, a battalion should period generate less CP then the Fast attack detachment.
If i have an eternal war mission a Heavy support detachment and a troop heavy detachment should genereate more CP.
Battalions should revert back, because atm any army with acess to cheaper brothers in arms and their mother use them as CP farms.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honestly, get rid of equipment abilities stratagems.
Seriously it completely shiet justification wise, if i expect flyers as a CSM i want to buy Flakk Missiles, not spend precious CP on a flakk missile (Imagine a CSM lord pre battle, instead of spreading out flakk missiles he carries them around and in the right moment he plans to use them.....)
Same goes for the Grenadiers stratagem of IG. Why the hell would they not frag the living Gak out of a charging unit? They all carry frag nades.
My solution to this: Make equipment once again buyable, and also add in buyable Rules like grenadiers for IG. Maybee adapt the rules a bit more like:
Grenadiers, 1 pts per IG squad per modell, per 3 modells shooting can throw a greanade instead. Range for greanades is increased by 2" to 8".
Not only would it allow to customize your force again, but also give you a fluffy way to do so.

I'm torn on this one. I'm not really opposed to making certain "special equipment" effects limited use. It's just weird when their number of uses is based on how many troops I have around. My phantasm grenade launcher stratagem basically turns my 3 point gun into a Smite that doesn't have to target the closest unit. Haywire Grenade does the same thing for the grenades found on my basic troops. You could maybe put a points cost on the number of uses of such "special ammo," but that has its own problems. For instance, Flakk Missiles in the last edition were this weird feelbad choice where you either spent points on them and then risked not facing an appropriate target (making them a waste of points) or didn't spend points on them and then felt like you ill-equipped when you went up against a flyer. And if a unit that you paid to give flakk missiles died before it had a chance to shoot at the flyer, you wasted extra points, unlike stratagem-fueled flakk missiles that you only pay for (in CP) when you're ready to use them .

Plus, you'd either have to artificially limit the number of times you could use a given type of special ammo in a turn or else people would use all their flakk missile shots to alpha strike the enemy flyer into oblivion or use phantasm launchers to blast away the hardest target in the enemy army turn 1. Being forced to stagger the use of such weapons limits their effectiveness and thus makes it more acceptable to have such weapons feel potent when you do use them.

But again, I'm of a mixed mind. I do very much like the idea of being able to pay for "skills" like "grenadiers" for a unit. That used to be a thing aspect warriors could do when lead by an exarch.

AS for for point 3:
Honestly, just get rid of the fixed CP. If i have a mission like a skirmish, a battalion should period generate less CP then the Fast attack detachment.
If i have an eternal war mission a Heavy support detachment and a troop heavy detachment should genereate more CP.
Battalions should revert back, because atm any army with acess to cheaper brothers in arms and their mother use them as CP farms.

Eh. That sounds cool, but also very messy and subjective. Why are your spearhead and batallion detachments better in Relic missions than my Outriders who are great at zooming up to the relic and retrieving it? In the aforementioned "skirmish" mission that favors outriders, why is your army of assault marines without jump packs generating more CP than my (much faster) Spearhead of heavy support ravagers?

Plus, designing balanced missions is difficult enough as-is. Giving one side a CP advantage based on which mission you happen to be playing (probably based on the round of the event you're at or the result of a die you rolled pre-game) just makes it more difficult to get a balanced game.

Randomness can balance the game. Consider this, if you know you will play only Eternal War, why bring any list that does not favor that?
If however missions are decided via die, you are potentially out of luck, or lucky and it does not just become a list meassuring contest.
Also i mentioned that equipment and rules may need a redesign, like the haywire nades.
Also one time use on breacher charges or other stuff made for intersting tactical choices, instead of just spamming a stratagem that genereates mortal wounds.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Randomness can balance the game.

Counterpoint: remember how much "fun" it was to roll one of the 4 useless warlord traits last edition instead of one of the 2 useful ones? Or how about how "balanced" invisibility was since there was always a chance you might not get it when rolling on telepathy?

Consider this, if you know you will play only Eternal War, why bring any list that does not favor that?
If however missions are decided via die, you are potentially out of luck, or lucky and it does not just become a list meassuring contest.

* If you can potentially be "out of luck" or "lucky" based on a pre-game dice roll, then it's just a list-measuring contest with an extra variable. If half the missions favor mobile armies and half the missions favor gunlines, then you can just take one or the other and have an advantage any time the pre-game roll is in your favor and not your opponent's.

* If you design the missions and unit rules such that a well-rounded army will generally have an advantage over a less well-rounded one, then you incentivize well-rounded lists but punish thematic lists that don't fit that description. Wanted to play Raven Wing? Go for it. Enjoy that 20% greater chance of losing the game as punishment for thinking motorcycles are cool.

Also i mentioned that equipment and rules may need a redesign, like the haywire nades.
Also one time use on breacher charges or other stuff made for intersting tactical choices, instead of just spamming a stratagem that genereates mortal wounds.

I could see it working. I'd certainly be open to seeing some proposed reworks to such weapons. Relics too, for that matter. I'd just worry that in reworking a given weapon to make it balanced without an additional CP cost, we'd end up making it significantly less useful. Limited-use weapons might be a good middle ground, though there would be a small increase in book-keeping if I have those on every plasma grenade or phantasm launcher unit in my army.