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.

All this talk about restricting soup, helping mono build armies etc, why not tie your Battleforged Command Points to your Faction keywords? Surely these keywords can be useful for something?

So number one, drop Battalion and Brigade CPs back to their rulebook values.

Then instead of adding +3CPs for being "Battleforged", add the following...

The more faction keywords your army (not detachment) contains, the more "Battleforged" CPs you get.

1 keyword: 0 CP (this could simply be Imperium)
2 keywords: 2 CPs (for example, Aeldari, Asuriyani)
3 keywords: 5 CPs (for example, Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Dark Angels)
4 keywords: 8 CPs (for example, Aeldari, Asuriyani, Spirit Host, Craftworld)

I know not all armies have access to 4 keywords, and since I don't own all codexes, are there any that can't get to 3?
Getting all 4 would be tougher but would reward a very fluffy list (in the example above, the entire army would have to be made up of wraith constructs and spiritseers, it couldn't even take Wave Serpents)

Of course, the numbers above are just examples, but surely these Faction keywords can be used to reward fluffy builds (like GW promised before 8th hit)?

What issues am I not seeing initially (I haven't thought this through in depth, just a quick glance through codexes)?

Tau, <SEPT>. That's all they got.

Necron, <DYNASTY>. Same.

They either need to only have CP work for the detachment that is getting it for you or shift CP away from detachments entirely and make it point based.

Ork probably cap at 2. ORK and <CLAN>.

At best I could get two for Necrons:
Necron, <Dynasty>

Unless I take units that's don't have <Dynasty>, and we have a few.

If there was a Canoptek HQ choice, I could make a 3 tiered one, if I didn't take any troops. But there isn't.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tau, <SEPT>. That's all they got.

Necron, <DYNASTY>. Same.

2 Codexes I don't have......typical, well damn, that kills that idea then!

Regular Tyranids max at 2. Cults can get 3.

I don't think this system works. The ironic part is that the armies that have access to soup actually come out best in this! As they have more levels of faction keyword.

How about Necron's and Tau start with 10CP instead of 3 for battleforged? That would be a decent start.

 Blndmage wrote:
At best I could get two for Necrons:
Necron, <Dynasty>

Unless I take units that's don't have <Dynasty>, and we have a few.

If there was a Canoptek HQ choice, I could make a 3 tiered one, if I didn't take any troops. But there isn't.

Theoretically you'd get more CP for just using Canoptek units then. That's...bizarre.

I think detachments were a missed opportunity in the codexes, personally. We saw them give a nod to it with the Dark Eldar codex - their joint patrols generating bonus CP, etc. (this is, however, handicapped by common tournament limitations on detachments).

We discussed this in the Proposed Rules section, but I would have liked to have seen a handful of faction dedicated detachments. It would have been an easy way to help themed armies generate better CP.

Example:

Windrider Host
An Outrider Detachment which shares the <Saim Hann> keyword and includes (at least) the following: 1x Autarch Skyrunner, 3x Windriders units, and 2x Vyper Jetbikes, generates 3 CP instead of the normal 1.

Spirit Host
A Vanguard Detachment which shares the <Iyanden> keyword and includes (at least) the following: 1x Spiritserr, 3x Wraithguard/Blades units, and 1x Wraithlord generates 3 CP instead of the normal 1.

It's a quick example, but these kind of modified detachments (with criteria) could have easily been a decent way to benefit mono-codex or "fluffy" detachments. You're not gaining any special rules, re-doing the detachments, you're not re-assigning battlefield roles, but allowing a minor CP boost for lore-based detachments. The same could be done for White Scar bikers, Ravenwing, Deathwing, etc. They wouldn't be abused like 7th edition, granting free points or units, or models. Just a minor CP buff to help off-set running a fluffier list which isn't based around battalions. Just a very simple option I think was missed out on with the codex releases.

 Elbows wrote:
They wouldn't be abused like 7th edition, granting free points or units, or models.

All it takes is one OP one to be abused.

But I do agree, they should've done that, so as to allow for more fluffy options to be viable.

Cadia Stands
Any detachment containing at least five units (of any sort) with the <CADIA> regiment faction generates an additional 14 CP

....like that?

 Elbows wrote:
Cadia Stands
Any detachment containing at least five units (of any sort) with the <CADIA> regiment faction generates an additional 14 CP

....like that?

Funny thing is, pure Cadian armies probably wouldn't even care. They're already swimming in CP, with not a ton to spend it on.

Now, add in soup...

Wouldn't just two 'levels' be enough to incentivize themed armies?

You can take your Imperial soup of Guard, BA, and Knights and get no bonus.

You can take just Guard, optimizing with a Cadian detachment and a Catachan detachment, and get a small bonus.

Or you can take all-Cadians and get a larger bonus.

That sets the three levels as soup, mono-faction, and mono-subfaction, which all factions in the game should be able to do. Factions that can't soup already have a leg up in starting at the second 'level', and can increase their bonus by going pure on a subfaction.

How about:

Battleforged CP: Choose a keyword your warlord has other than CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI OR TYRANIDS. Gain an amount of CP corresponding with the no. of detachments that entirely share that keyword.

1 Detachment: 3CP
2 Detachments: 5CP
3 Detachments: 9CP
The 2 detachment bonus is lower than it should be because double-dipping on IG Battalions is way too easy, but the numbers are suggestions and you get the idea. It could be straight-up +3/+6/+9 if:

Battalion/Brigade Command Point Benefits: +3/+6, plus an additional +2/+4 if the detachment contains at least 500/1000pts of units.

The key thing that needs to be added to the game is a benefit for using less codices for your army - there's no need to faff around with keywords beyond that.

How about just get rid of CP? Just a thought.

Moved to the correct forum.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How about just get rid of CP? Just a thought.

Are you prepared to rebalance a LOT of units then? Just wondering.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How about just get rid of CP? Just a thought.

This breaks 8th edition. The entire game is based around CP and using them to pull off tricks. The problem right now isn't CP, it's that tying it entirely to army construction encourages soup sillyness and CP batteries that give certain factions far more CP than they really should have access to. That creates a host of balance issues.

Reading the comments in this thread then one thing that in my opinion, it might work is:

1 keyword: 3 CP (this could simply be Imperium) <-- as it is now
2 keywords: 5 CPs (for example, Aeldari, Asuriyani)

And nothing else.

This will take into consideration all the armies that only has 2 keywords, and also is not so far away on the situation that we got at the moment, hence less change to brake anything. Besides of that, this extra 2CP will make it easier to reach more than CP points to an army that struggles on it as just with 1 battalion I would be 5CP for the battalion + CP for 2 keywords = 10CP.

Also, this -2 CP will place the gain of an external cheap battallion (e.g. AM) to be only effectively only 3CP instead 5CP. Enough to make it think twice and not be an auto-include option but without reaching the extreme to make it an unplayable option as there could be another tactical reason to include it (e.g. in my army I need a cheap chaff and an AM battalion will give me this plus 3CP)

Also, I would get rid of any form of CP farming and change it for something like "you start the battle with an extra 1CP (or 2CP)". In my opinion CP farming is broken, even after the big FAQ nerf. But maybe that is for another topic?

Overall, I think that CP changes should bring all the armies to a similar CP power level.

I can't help but feel that tying CP's to detachments is somewhat counter productive. It could easily be amended by having one detachment grant it's full benefits, and subsequent detachments only add 1.

The reasoning behind this is that the inbuilt balance of the game was always set out by limiting the number of heavy support, elite, hq etc. slots. Since 7th, GW has added rules to allow people to essentially break the old rules by taking more units, provided they fell into detachments, and now with 8th they have removed that caveat by giving detachments CP.

I would say that the benefit of having a second detachment should not be an increase of CP, but the unlocking of extra slots. you take 2 battalion detachments if you want to take more than 3 heavy support slots - the fact that you are heavily tilting your army in that direction is it's own reward. gaining 1 extra CP would be a nice bonus, rather than the root cause for those extra units entire existence. An army should exist to be more than reroll fuel for knights.

An alternative would be to apply a clan or dynasty tag to the battalion, and units included in the battalion which don't have the same clan/dynasty/faction don't count toward minimum units and can't have CP spent on them. CP could only be spent on units in the army with the same faction as the battalion.

That way the list stays themed, and CP can be generated by guard batallions to boost an army, but they can't be spent on a knight's rerolls. Let's face it, if a knight shoots badly, a commissar shouting at him from behind his minimal units of guardsmen isn't going to inspire him to do better.

Lists comprised entirely of the same faction will be able to share CP, whereas lists with multiple faction get the benefit they were after of having the powerful units from each army, but without the same synergy an army entirely of deff-skulls would have, or an entire cadian army.

The only issue is keeping track of who can use what - which is fairly simple to do, with different coloured dice.

This would suck for Necrons. Our Praetorian units don't have a <Dynasty> Keyword. Neither do a few of the named HQs. Fluff-wise, they don't belong to any one Dynasty. They work for the Necrons as a whole. Illuminor Szeras and Triarch Praetorians are both examples. Taking an army with units like these would mean the best you could do is a single shared faction keyword... Necrons. Any rules like the proposed would effectively read "Spend XCP to include Illuminor Szeras in your army list".

 Kriswall wrote:
This would suck for Necrons. Our Praetorian units don't have a <Dynasty> Keyword. Neither do a few of the named HQs. Fluff-wise, they don't belong to any one Dynasty. They work for the Necrons as a whole. Illuminor Szeras and Triarch Praetorians are both examples. Taking an army with units like these would mean the best you could do is a single shared faction keyword... Necrons. Any rules like the proposed would effectively read "Spend XCP to include Illuminor Szeras in your army list".

It would take a bit of an overhaul of the rules, it wouldn't be just a blanket change we could make with one rule.

So, for example, special characters like Abbaddon, Ghazkull and their "goes with any clan" equivalent in the other armies would need rules to state that they count as any faction and can have CP spent on them.

I imagine that praetorians would either get a similar rule or be allowed in their dynasties, depending on what their fluff would allow.

I just think it odd that a mishmash of any and all clans/dynasties etc. gets more command points (meaning has a better command chain, fluffwise) than a cohesive force. limiting CP to only be used by models with the same clan as those who generated the CP will encourage themed armies and almost instantly remove soup from the menu.

 some bloke wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
This would suck for Necrons. Our Praetorian units don't have a <Dynasty> Keyword. Neither do a few of the named HQs. Fluff-wise, they don't belong to any one Dynasty. They work for the Necrons as a whole. Illuminor Szeras and Triarch Praetorians are both examples. Taking an army with units like these would mean the best you could do is a single shared faction keyword... Necrons. Any rules like the proposed would effectively read "Spend XCP to include Illuminor Szeras in your army list".

It would take a bit of an overhaul of the rules, it wouldn't be just a blanket change we could make with one rule.

So, for example, special characters like Abbaddon, Ghazkull and their "goes with any clan" equivalent in the other armies would need rules to state that they count as any faction and can have CP spent on them.

I imagine that praetorians would either get a similar rule or be allowed in their dynasties, depending on what their fluff would allow.

I just think it odd that a mishmash of any and all clans/dynasties etc. gets more command points (meaning has a better command chain, fluffwise) than a cohesive force. limiting CP to only be used by models with the same clan as those who generated the CP will encourage themed armies and almost instantly remove soup from the menu.

I definitely agree that the current CP generation makes no sense. The more fragments an army is, the more it's currently rewarded.

It would be a book keeping nightmare, but I'd like to see the CPs generated by a Detachment only be available for use by units from that same Faction. The +3CP for being Battleforged would be usable by anyone. "Top level" faction keywords like Imperium and Chaos wouldn't count.

So, if I have...
Necron Sautekh Dynasty Battalion (5CP)
Necron Novkh Dynasty Outrider (1CP)
Battleforged (3CP)
...I'd have 9 CP that could be used by any unit in the army.

If I have...
Adeptes Custodes Supreme Command Detachment (1CP)
Astra Militarum Cadian Battalion (5CP)
Imperial Knights Super Heavy Aux. Detachment (1CP)
Battleforged (3CP)
...I'd have 1CP for the Custodes, 5 for the Guard, 1 for the Knight and 3 that I could distribute as needed.

What if you award CP's according to how many detachments share the last (most specific) keyword?

3 CP if no detachments share the last keyword
5 CP if two detachments share the last keyword
9 CP if three detachments share the last keyword
12 CP if four detachments share the last keyword

So, base battleforged grants 3 CP, with tri-colored tortellini soup gets additional 3 CP = 6 CP
A battleforged army (3 CP) with pure mono-faction list containing 3 detachments (9 CP) = 12 CP

Scrap the CP based on detachment types.

So while it incentivizes MSU's, it will deter people from making a soup with cheapest meat but get the best soup - if you use cheap meat, the soup better be crappy.

CP should be granted in relation to how thematically coherent an army can operate, not how well you can cherry pick.

Just make it so that CPs can't be transferred between faction keywords. So, for example, you can have your Imperial Knights list and get an extra 5CP from your Imperial Guard allies... but those 5CP can only be spent on your Imperial Guard and are not of use to your Knights.

 Fifty wrote:
Just make it so that CPs can't be transferred between faction keywords. So, for example, you can have your Imperial Knights list and get an extra 5CP from your Imperial Guard allies... but those 5CP can only be spent on your Imperial Guard and are not of use to your Knights.

But this only addresses a particular soup composition and not much in terms of general CP balance.

Currently, the game is designed so that if you want decent amount of CP to start the game, you have to take a min sized battalion, and those with good troop choices double dip on the current CP rewarding system as they're not simply 'taxes' to fulfill the battalion unit requirements (so you get tactical purpose for the troops and get CP's to boot!). GW might as well just scrap the whole formation-esque detachment types and just force min 2 troop choice tax at this rate.

Tactical flexibility (as in, cherry picking the best units with best traits across multiple codex) should come at a price of limited number of times you can pull off neat tricks (stratagems).

I think +3 CP if all detachments share the same faction keywords would be a decent way of buffing mono-faction armies. I know as Necrons I get very CP starved, especially AFTER the nerf to Hyperlogical Strategist, I would welcome even a few extra CP.

 skchsan wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Just make it so that CPs can't be transferred between faction keywords. So, for example, you can have your Imperial Knights list and get an extra 5CP from your Imperial Guard allies... but those 5CP can only be spent on your Imperial Guard and are not of use to your Knights.

But this only addresses a particular soup composition and not much in terms of general CP balance.

Currently, the game is designed so that if you want decent amount of CP to start the game, you have to take a min sized battalion, and those with good troop choices double dip on the current CP rewarding system as they're not simply 'taxes' to fulfill the battalion unit requirements (so you get tactical purpose for the troops and get CP's to boot!). GW might as well just scrap the whole formation-esque detachment types and just force min 2 troop choice tax at this rate.

Tactical flexibility (as in, cherry picking the best units with best traits across multiple codex) should come at a price of limited number of times you can pull off neat tricks (stratagems).

At that point, I'd rather take a different approach and divorce the presence of troops in an army from CP generation entirely. Currently, some armies have more desirable (or at least cheaper) troops than others, and it's more fluffy to not take troops in some themed armies. So instead, let's just just divorce your army's ability to field cheap or good troop units from the number of cool tricks (stratagems) it can do. Then make troops desirable by making them stand up on their own merits. I should want to take dire avengers and tactical marines and kroot because they do a job well for their points; not because I'm basically banned from using stratagems if I don't field them. Similarly, a ravenwing or deathwing army should be able to avoid green marines without basically losing access to the stratagem portion of the game. (4CP doesn't really go far enough to count.)

Wyldhunt wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Just make it so that CPs can't be transferred between faction keywords. So, for example, you can have your Imperial Knights list and get an extra 5CP from your Imperial Guard allies... but those 5CP can only be spent on your Imperial Guard and are not of use to your Knights.

But this only addresses a particular soup composition and not much in terms of general CP balance.

Currently, the game is designed so that if you want decent amount of CP to start the game, you have to take a min sized battalion, and those with good troop choices double dip on the current CP rewarding system as they're not simply 'taxes' to fulfill the battalion unit requirements (so you get tactical purpose for the troops and get CP's to boot!). GW might as well just scrap the whole formation-esque detachment types and just force min 2 troop choice tax at this rate.

Tactical flexibility (as in, cherry picking the best units with best traits across multiple codex) should come at a price of limited number of times you can pull off neat tricks (stratagems).

At that point, I'd rather take a different approach and divorce the presence of troops in an army from CP generation entirely. Currently, some armies have more desirable (or at least cheaper) troops than others, and it's more fluffy to not take troops in some themed armies. So instead, let's just just divorce your army's ability to field cheap or good troop units from the number of cool tricks (stratagems) it can do. Then make troops desirable by making them stand up on their own merits. I should want to take dire avengers and tactical marines and kroot because they do a job well for their points; not because I'm basically banned from using stratagems if I don't field them. Similarly, a ravenwing or deathwing army should be able to avoid green marines without basically losing access to the stratagem portion of the game. (4CP doesn't really go far enough to count.)

Eaxctly. GW would make a stance they'd move away from troops being mandatory, but makes it "suggestedly" mandatory by making them so important in list building.