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.

So we've had quite a long sample of this CP experiment. IMO - it's one of the weakest parts of the game. So with my mates I have been trying out a new system and we like it a lot. Here - I will explain it to you in detail. Mainly - this lets you take whatever army you want - without forcing you to take another army to gen command points. Yet - it still allows you to take allies.

Every battle forged army receives a flat number of command points to start. For 2000 points - 15 (including the base 3 for being battle-forged) has seemed like a good starting number. We have tried 10 and 20 - both seemed like too much or too little.

Okay that isn't so crazy right? Now here's where it get interesting.

Batallion/Brigade give you +0 command points. More like - they are the only detachments that don't cost you to lose command points. Reasoning behind this is these detachments give a lot of slot allocations but also force you to take more HQ and troops.

Vangaurd/Spearhead/Outrider -2 command points. Want to spam a slot - it's going to cost you command points

Superheavy. -3 want to bring a superheavy army - that costs you command points.

Aux detachment. -2 want to bring an unit with no slot for it - that cost command points.

Patrol. -1 not as bad as an aux detachment but it still costs you 1 point.

Armies that have special detachments like for example IK (Knight lance) will get a +0 detchment. Same for DE with their special patrol detachment rule (a DE army that has 3 patrol detachment gets them for +0 command points instead of -1)

Before you knock this - try it. I promise you - you will find it enjoyable and it will feel more fair. It is possible that some negatives need to be placed on allies but I we haven't done enough testing with that part of it. My suggestion would be -1 for allied detachments added in edition to the minus they take for detachments. Example - allied batallion gives you -1. Allied Super heavy Aux gives you a -3.

These are the only detachments we have tested. I know there are more special detachments - like fort network. Find a number that works for those and work with it.
EDIT^^^
Additional untested changes
Knights can forseeably be problematic with high base CP. This would be a buff to them and that seems a little much. Perhaps the knight lance should not be a -0 detachment. Feel free to test and give feedback in the comments. My friends don't really want to face my kngihts anymore because they never lose. Perhaps your friends are more willing - test it out. Give feedback.

Other suggestions in regards to stratagem use.
Limit the number of CP that can be played per turn to 3 or 4.
Limit the number of stratagems that can be played on a single unit per turn to 2 (including command reroll)
Open to more suggestions here as well.

I have 2 problems with this:

1) Brigade should give better benefits than battalion
2) Doesn't solve CP detachments. I can still get unlimited CPs by taking 200 points of grand strategist and kurov's aquila.

Spoletta wrote:
I have 2 problems with this:

1) Brigade should give better benefits than battalion
2) Doesn't solve CP detachments. I can still get unlimited CPs by taking 200 points of grand strategist and kurov's aquila.

Counter to Point 1 is many mono factions can't build a competative Brigade and some can't even build a brigade at sub 2k.
Some codex's were also clearly designed around mixing subfactions not massive mono subfaction lists.

2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

Spoletta wrote:
I have 2 problems with this:

1) Brigade should give better benefits than battalion
2) Doesn't solve CP detachments. I can still get unlimited CPs by taking 200 points of grand strategist and kurov's aquila.

At some point though - more command points does nothing for you or isn't worth the investment away from stuff that is killy. I agree though - this does nothing to stop that - It could be discouraged another way. Like perhaps forcing your warlord to com from your "primary detachment" - which would be your largest detachment (or something even less restrictive). I don't see this as a problem too much though because 15 command points is more than enough to use all the starts you want for 3 turns anything over that is just excessive as it really isn't needed.

The brigade does give you more slots for HS and elites. True - this might not be very important but it is something. Plus 2 batallions compared to a brigade. A brigade pays less HQ tax to get bonus slots. It might not be the slots you want...but it is slots.

Make Battalion/Brigade cost 1 CP instead of 0. The bigger one gives you more slots/cp.

The scheme might benefit from an upscaling of the CP costs. Also, the CP should be specified on the 1CP per X points level.

BCB has a tighter version of this he posts on relevant threads in Proposed Rules from time to time. I like it.

Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

The only fair way to fix it is the CP generated can only be spent by the faction generating it. The IK codex was not designed to have double digit CP.

This is one of those things where a well meaning change just creates a new normal/optimal configuration for people to argue changes to. My one concern is that people react irrationally to penalties over bonuses regardless of a net zero change to the final product, but I get the value in the difference here. I do agree that 15 seems like the right starting number.

On a side note, Brigades should just be gone, which I suppose is effectively what was done here. They're unreasonable for the vast majority of the game and really just create a problem in the system for the few factions that can manage it under 2000 points. It feels like it was supposed to be like the unreasonably battalions from AoS that have min costs in the 3000+, with GW forgetting how cheap everything is for Guard.

I don't think a new system actually solves anything though. It likely creates a new normal for people to whine about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:
The only fair way to fix it is the CP generated can only be spent by the faction generating it. The IK codex was not designed to have double digit CP.

Pretty sure it was....

That's where higher costs might make it mean something. So that there's a benefit to fitting everything into a Brigade or pair of Battalions.

The difference is that, instead of minimizing what you're doing in each detatchment so you can fit in more for more CP, you'd instead need to maximize your detatchments, so that you pay the fewest CP. Adding 3 FA units costs CP instead of giving you CP.

Bharring wrote:
Make Battalion/Brigade cost 1 CP instead of 0. The bigger one gives you more slots/cp.

The scheme might benefit from an upscaling of the CP costs. Also, the CP should be specified on the 1CP per X points level.

BCB has a tighter version of this he posts on relevant threads in Proposed Rules from time to time. I like it.

Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

Most of the time the battalion will be better in this case - but I am okay with that. Nether hurt you. Brigade can get away with less HQ choices and still open up 5HS and 8 elites if you don't mind taking 3 FA 3 Elites. In any case I agree - without altering the brigade a little bit it wont be as important in this version on CP generation. (Currently it is also never used ether)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:
The only fair way to fix it is the CP generated can only be spent by the faction generating it. The IK codex was not designed to have double digit CP.

I don't think these armies are "designed" in the sense you think they are. Plus - if there were any sense behind the person designing them. Taking a look at what you can do with 200 points to generate CP's from another imperial force is certainly something you should do when designing a new imperial codex.

So ether A.) GW did deisgn them that way.
B.) GW is incompetent and doesn't play test their game or even know how to make balanced rules.


In ether case I see no issue with treating every army the same in regards to CP generation. If GW can't take 20 minutes to sit down and make fair rules for their game - Heck - I'll do it.

I agree that this system would be better. I think most armies should be able to comfortably get a good number of CP, and right now CP is unfairly skewed in favor of armies with cheap units for no reason, and you are disincentivized to fill out your detachments. If anything, all detachments could cost at least 1 CP (and perhaps up the starting amount by 3) to reward people who take fewer detachments and actually fill them out.

Having different faction CP you have to keep track of sounds terrible. I do think the CP regen abilities could only work on that factions strategems, though. You should probably also only be able to roll one dice for CP regen.

Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

While I did like formations a lot. I think it's pretty unrealistic to have a complete redesign of the games detachments. Stratagems are an integral part of the game too. Aside from that "this idea is better" kind of comments. Do you have anything to suppose this wouldn't be a big improvement on the game.

Can my inquisition please not be forced to -2 cp if I run 3 of them in a command detatchment? I already stopped being an army, and 60% of my models are illegal, so if you’d be so kind as to not hurt them more that’d be nice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

While I did like formations a lot. I think it's pretty unrealistic to have a complete redesign of the games detachments. Stratagems are an integral part of the game too. Aside from that "this idea is better" kind of comments. Do you have anything to suppose this wouldn't be a big improvement on the game.

You don't have to change the organizational method at all. Formations in AoS are literally just you having taken the stuff normally, then paying a points cost to field it as the formation and get the rules.

And quite frankly, if we can completely and utterly neuter Commissars then we can stand a big shift to Command Points.

I'd rather see someone just jump Company Commanders up a few points since they are 99% of the problem with their CP battalions.

 Jaxler wrote:
Can my inquisition please not be forced to -2 cp if I run 3 of them in a command detatchment? I already stopped being an army, and 60% of my models are illegal, so if you’d be so kind as to not hurt them more that’d be nice.

This will be corrected when you get a codex. In a friendly game I would not force you to take negative CP because you don't have a codex yet. In these discussions I think it's very important to understand - issues that are a result of not having a codex are not issues we need to worry about when making adjustments to the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bring back Formations, limit you to 1 CP/turn and let you bank them.

Any Formations you've got in your army unlock an additional Relic(remove the "buy additional Relic stratagems" or make it so that they get reworded to only be available based on the number of Formations you have) and a single CP at the start of the game.

AoS has the right of it in that regard.

Bharring wrote:Grand Strat/Kurov's may need a targetted fix independent of a broader fix. I see this as more punishing those CWE lists that bring few, if any, Troops.

They need to be locked to Company Commanders only.

While I did like formations a lot. I think it's pretty unrealistic to have a complete redesign of the games detachments. Stratagems are an integral part of the game too. Aside from that "this idea is better" kind of comments. Do you have anything to suppose this wouldn't be a big improvement on the game.

You don't have to change the organizational method at all. Formations in AoS are literally just you having taken the stuff normally, then paying a points cost to field it as the formation and get the rules.

And quite frankly, if we can completely and utterly neuter Commissars then we can stand a big shift to Command Points.

Commissars was a clear over nerf. Triple nerfing a problem when 1 nerf would have been sufficient. You have my sympathy with commissars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I'd rather see someone just jump Company Commanders up a few points since they are 99% of the problem with their CP battalions.

That should also happen. An HQ choice for under 40 points is asinine.

Factions are supposed to have different number of CPs available.

If you give equal CPs to everyone, you just shift the balance to a new OP, you don't solve anything.

The actual CP system is fine, the only change needed is locking CPs to the detachments generating it.

You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

Spoletta wrote:
Factions are supposed to have different number of CPs available.

If you give equal CPs to everyone, you just shift the balance to a new OP, you don't solve anything.

The actual CP system is fine, the only change needed is locking CPs to the detachments generating it.

The actualy CP system is not fine. I disagree. Mono custodies cant get gak for CP. Mono knights are also significantly boned by that rule. Nids win games on their own without soup and can make tons of CP for themselves with good stratagems. There is no link between ability to generate command points and power of stratagems. Eldar and DE can easily generate the points they need and stratagems are fantastic.

This is an interesting system, but I've got two issues with it:

1) Probably a minor point, but having a Patrol give -1CP seems really strange and counter-intuitive.

2) It seems like there should be a penalty for taking allies. e.g. For each army you include after the first, you lose 5 CPs.

So, you're free to take the best units from multiple different armies, but it'll cost you heavily in terms of CPs. (Obviously we could have exceptions or reduced penalties for stuff like Inquisition.)


The thing is, though, I'm wondering if this is the best way to handle CPs in the first place. Rather than having a ton of them to start with, would it be better to just have a few that regenerate each turn?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

This.

Also, are Company Commanders even an issue now that you're limited to 3-per-army?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.


I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
This is an interesting system, but I've got two issues with it:

1) Probably a minor point, but having a Patrol give -1CP seems really strange and counter-intuitive.

2) It seems like there should be a penalty for taking allies. e.g. For each army you include after the first, you lose 5 CPs.

So, you're free to take the best units from multiple different armies, but it'll cost you heavily in terms of CPs. (Obviously we could have exceptions or reduced penalties for stuff like Inquisition.)


The thing is, though, I'm wondering if this is the best way to handle CPs in the first place. Rather than having a ton of them to start with, would it be better to just have a few that regenerate each turn?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

This.

Also, are Company Commanders even an issue now that you're limited to 3-per-army?

The -1 for patrols is more or less a nerf to allies - though I can see your point. The idea here is you should have to take troops/hq's to open up slots - patrols do do that so it's a reasonable objection.
Limiting CC to 3 does not really excuse them being underpoint IMO. Hive tyrants were nerfed in the same way and went up points and are still played at a high rate. CC would be too IMO.

Also I think nerfing allies to that degree is too much. Maybe a -2 for each allied detachment.

How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

 Blndmage wrote:
How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

We tested 2500 points with 20 CP. It was more than enough. The exact ratio at 2500 if it is to be the same is like 18.9. So we just gave another CP. 1 cp for 133 points and round up.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

For a 500 point game though I would probably run with 6 CP. These are typically learning games and you would want people to have fun - not feel starved for CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

It seems like almost every attempt to fix this, misses the issue of CP regeneration and just seem to go after armies people don’t feel are gentlemanly.

I don’t feel that it’s a “cheap battalion problem” because you never see serious Chaos Players souping in a Renegades and Heretics battalion for ten points cheaper than the imperial guard version. It’s the CP regen that’s the issue. We can say up and down that people don’t bring R&H because R&H suck, but if all your using it for is 5 CP, who cares how good 32 bullet catchers are?

We need to remove CP regeneration Traits and relics, or just make everyone’s CP generate each turn like Kill Team. Probably both.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You don't have to change the organizational method at all. Formations in AoS are literally just you having taken the stuff normally, then paying a points cost to field it as the formation and get the rules.

No, they force you to take specific bundles of units. I want to choose myself which units to take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
It seems like almost every attempt to fix this, misses the issue of CP regeneration and just seem to go after armies people don’t feel are gentlemanly.

I don’t feel that it’s a “cheap battalion problem” because you never see serious Chaos Players souping in a Renegades and Heretics battalion for ten points cheaper than the imperial guard version. It’s the CP regen that’s the issue. We can say up and down that people don’t bring R&H because R&H suck, but if all your using it for is 5 CP, who cares how good 32 bullet catchers are?

We need to remove CP regeneration Traits and relics, or just make everyone’s CP generate each turn like Kill Team. Probably both.

Yep. I think the CP regeneration is way worse issue than being able to buy 5CPs for 200(ish) points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

We tested 2500 points with 20 CP. It was more than enough. The exact ratio at 2500 if it is to be the same is like 18.9. So we just gave another CP. 1 cp for 133 points and round up.

So that would make it (rounding 5+ up, not sure if that's what you mean):
500: 4
750: 6
1,000: 8
1,250: 9.39, so 10?
1,500: 11.27, so 12?
1,750: 13.15, so 14?
2,000: 15.03, no way you'd round this to 16
2,250: 17
2,500: 18.80 to 19

Do those sound like valid amounts of CP at each points level?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Factions are supposed to have different number of CPs available.

If you give equal CPs to everyone, you just shift the balance to a new OP, you don't solve anything.

The actual CP system is fine, the only change needed is locking CPs to the detachments generating it.

The actualy CP system is not fine. I disagree. Mono custodies cant get gak for CP. Mono knights are also significantly boned by that rule. Nids win games on their own without soup and can make tons of CP for themselves with good stratagems. There is no link between ability to generate command points and power of stratagems. Eldar and DE can easily generate the points they need and stratagems are fantastic.

But what you prove is only that armies with good stratagems and ok CP generation do fine. You should also look at armies that don't have access to good stratagems or methods of generating them. It does have an efffect on those armies, and it aint positive.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

Yeah, sure okay. Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, and Boltgun. Those are the 3 options for Officers. They can't even take a Lasgun.

And let's be honest here: Marine Captains still have a pretty good spread of options between their multiple datasheets, and Primaris Captains are an option too.

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

Nope.

All lasguns and hotshot lasguns in the ordered unit change their Type to Rapid Fire 2 until the end of the phase.

So it literally just lasts for Shooting.