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.

To make competitive lists in today’s meta you must play soup lists. I started asking myself the question what is a way to make mono faction lists more competitive and give them a fighting chance against soup lists. I don’t think GW should nerf soup lists since many people find this an enjoyable way to play the game. There are numerous ways to accomplish this, but I think the most balanced is through the use of command points. So I want to propose the following rule/change and welcome discussion or feedback:

“If all units and detacthements share the same keyword an army gains an additional +3 CP.”

This method doesn’t penalize all the current lists, however it gives a slight buff to players who want to play mono faction lists and allows them to become more competitive. I think it is a good compromise and pretty balanced.

What do you think???

I thought of something similar, basically my thought was if every detachment in your army wasn't the same faction, you use the old number of command points for battalions and briggades.

I don't think this idea would fix the discrepancy between mono and soup, personally.

I think CP and stratagems should be limited to the army faction that generated them or perhaps even limit stratagems to the faction that the warlord is taken from. Then give the option to take a relic or WL trait that allows the use of a single stratagem from another book that comprises your force (only while WL is on the battlefield).

Yeah it's a good suggestion, since one of the main reason people use soups is to dispose of more CPs just adding cheap units from other codexes.

I'd like +3CPs if the army is entirely from a single book. Combining it with faction locking CPs, the issue with soups could be resolved very well.

I don't think CP is a fix; I think additional abilities to mono-armies is a fix.

For example, a common complaint from Space Marine players is their vehicles do not recieve the benefit of chapter tactics.

So what if you give all models in its detachment chapter tactics if your army consists of only Codex: Space Marine detachments?

Really the only Mono-army's that aren't incredibly viable are Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, Grey Knights (but they need a lot of help), AdMech outside a couple of tricks.

I think instead of nerfing everything into the ground, they should be elevating the things that need help while nerfing the obviously OP options.

About the SM chapter tactics to vehicles that should not be a buff for mono army, that should be fixed as base for SM. For the high price of our vehicles at leats we should have the chapter tactics also for them.

For improvement of the mono army's it would be great that they could always go first in battle as they are more organized being all from the same codex.

I had a similar idea:

-1 cp for a detachment that has a different faction keyword than that of your warlord. -2 cp for a second detachment (on top of the first)

+1cp for a detachment that has the same faction keyword than that of your warlord. +2cp for a second detachment (on top of the first)

This recommendation is designed not to nerf soup lists which GW seems to encourage. If you use the same “faction keyword” not the same “book” there needs to be some help. The solution needs to become simple and not complex. Right now almost everyone would agree mono faction lists are at a large disadvantage compared to soup and this would be the first step in balancing it.

You wanna make monofaction viable? Make internal balance not such garbage.

broxus wrote:
To make competitive lists in today’s meta you must play soup lists. I started asking myself the question what is a way to make mono faction lists more competitive and give them a fighting chance against soup lists. I don’t think GW should nerf soup lists since many people find this an enjoyable way to play the game. There are numerous ways to accomplish this, but I think the most balanced is through the use of command points. So I want to propose the following rule/change and welcome discussion or feedback:

“If all units and detacthements share the same keyword an army gains an additional +3 CP.”

This method doesn’t penalize all the current lists, however it gives a slight buff to players who want to play mono faction lists and allows them to become more competitive. I think it is a good compromise and pretty balanced.

What do you think???

I'm not sure this would really address the issue. Say I'm an imperial player playing mostly not-guard. I want some extra cp and maybe some cheap screens. It costs me 3 CP to add the loyal 32 into my list, but they give me 5 CP, so I'm still coming out ahead by 2CP. Or flip that around. Maybe I'm playing mostly guard, but I want to add some knights or smash captains or whatever into my list. Guard are so good at generating CP innately that they won't really mind the 3CP penalty. Meanwhile, the Sisters player who wanted to splash in some Grey Knights just gave up a proportionately larger chunk of his CP for a less optimized army because neither sisters nor GK have especially cheap troops.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You wanna make monofaction viable? Make internal balance not such garbage.

Mostly this. If all options are basically worth their points and only become more efficient when used in combination with their own faction, then having access to lots of options will be less of a boon. I.E. if marine armies had access to more affordable screens, or if farseers with doom didn't offer such a boost to dark eldar, then having access to allies would be less problematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think this idea would fix the discrepancy between mono and soup, personally.

I think CP and stratagems should be limited to the army faction that generated them or perhaps even limit stratagems to the faction that the warlord is taken from. Then give the option to take a relic or WL trait that allows the use of a single stratagem from another book that comprises your force (only while WL is on the battlefield).

I see this suggestion a lot, and it always makes me cringe. In addition to the mildly annoying but not game stopping bookkeeping this would cause (you'd basically just need 3 or 4 different colored dice to keep track of things with), this would severely punish armies that just aren't good at generating CP. GK and DW come to mind. Necrons aren't great at it. Marines and craftworlders are kind of middle of the road. But there would be a world of difference between the amount of CP an IG or 'nid detachment could generate compared to others. Telling a GK player they have to generate their own CP is basically telling them to pay a 3 squad troop tax that costs about as much as an entire loyal 32 detachment.

Plus, armies are designed around having access to their stratagems these days, and those stratagems often represent a large portion of the army's flavor. Harlequins (at least the non-bike variety) live and die off of their stratagems. This proposal would both make it harder for them to have enough CP for more than a couple of turns and/or would prevent them from using the tools they rely on to survive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MistaGav wrote:
I had a similar idea:

-1 cp for a detachment that has a different faction keyword than that of your warlord. -2 cp for a second detachment (on top of the first)

+1cp for a detachment that has the same faction keyword than that of your warlord. +2cp for a second detachment (on top of the first)

I liked Xenomancer's army construction suggestion from a while back. The gist of it was...

* You start with X CP based on the size of the game. So at 1500 points, you might have, let's say, 12CP.
* Detachments cost CP with "big" detachments like batallions costing fewer CP than small ones. So a brigade might be free or only 1 CP. A batallion might cost 3. A vanguard might cost 5.
* Detachments cost extra CP if they don't match that of your warlord. So taking a batallion of Space Wolves to go with your Blood Angels might cost 3 CP plus an extra 1 for not being the same kind of adeptus astartes. A batallion of IG might cost 3 base plus 1 for not being the same chapter and then another plus 1 for not being astartes at all.

Under this system, monofaction, single-detachment armies would be the best way to generate CP, and you'd be encouraged to fill out detachments rather than taking a bunch of small ones. The CP cost would serve as a baked-in cost for expanding your unit selection/unit slots/chapter tactics, but you'd be starting at a high enough starting CP that you're not prevented from using a meaningful number of stratagems.

Just convince tournament organisers to either not allow soup lists. Or make it so 75% of a list must be from 1 codex/index.

If soup is such a huge problem with tournament players only having the mental aptitude of a 5yr old then just ban soup.

Simple.

ValentineGames wrote:
Just convince tournament organisers to either not allow soup lists. Or make it so 75% of a list must be from 1 codex/index.

If soup is such a huge problem with tournament players only having the mental aptitude of a 5yr old then just ban soup.

Simple.

Why the insult? If anything, wouldn't it be more difficult to determine the best options from several different books than just one?

On topic, I'd say that a few extra CP is not gonna make mono factions more viable by any significant margin.

ValentineGames wrote:
Just convince tournament organisers to either not allow soup lists. Or make it so 75% of a list must be from 1 codex/index.

If soup is such a huge problem with tournament players only having the mental aptitude of a 5yr old then just ban soup.

Simple.

We should take a page out of Fantasy's book and use percentages to build lists.

25% of the army may be allies.

The fix I think works is the fix we needed for almost every revision of the game that came before:

- All auras, psychic powers, command points and all codex rules are limited to that detachment.
- No rules or abilities of any kind from one army/faction/detachment can be applied to another.

The difficulty for achieving "balance" (that word feels like a swear word some days) is too much cross contamination of rules applied to other armies not as "intended".
There would still be the benefit of cheaper or more powerful units used to off-set the weaknesses of a given army but at least they cannot buff any further than that.

 Talizvar wrote:
The fix I think works is the fix we needed for almost every revision of the game that came before:

- All auras, psychic powers, command points and all codex rules are limited to that detachment.
- No rules or abilities of any kind from one army/faction/detachment can be applied to another.

The difficulty for achieving "balance" (that word feels like a swear word some days) is too much cross contamination of rules applied to other armies not as "intended".
There would still be the benefit of cheaper or more powerful units used to off-set the weaknesses of a given army but at least they cannot buff any further than that.

So if I take a Nurgle Daemons Battalion, and a Nurgle Daemons Outrider, my Poxbringer in the Battalion can't buff my Plague Drones in the Outrider? That seems like a bad idea.

Sir Heckington wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Just convince tournament organisers to either not allow soup lists. Or make it so 75% of a list must be from 1 codex/index.

If soup is such a huge problem with tournament players only having the mental aptitude of a 5yr old then just ban soup.

Simple.

We should take a page out of Fantasy's book and use percentages to build lists.

25% of the army may be allies.

I suppose we have to factor all the whinging from the fan base. Claiming percentages are too complex and awkward and they bog the game down and killed their cat.

ValentineGames wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Just convince tournament organisers to either not allow soup lists. Or make it so 75% of a list must be from 1 codex/index.

If soup is such a huge problem with tournament players only having the mental aptitude of a 5yr old then just ban soup.

Simple.

We should take a page out of Fantasy's book and use percentages to build lists.

25% of the army may be allies.

I suppose we have to factor all the whinging from the fan base. Claiming percentages are too complex and awkward and they bog the game down and killed their cat.

Ahh right, my bad. Maths is too hard!

Most people here seem to think that my recommended +3 CP isnt enough of a buff. I think it is much better than the way it is now and is a stepping stone in the right direction. However, if people have better recommendations I would love to hear them.

 Talizvar wrote:
The fix I think works is the fix we needed for almost every revision of the game that came before:

- All auras, psychic powers, command points and all codex rules are limited to that detachment.
- No rules or abilities of any kind from one army/faction/detachment can be applied to another.

The difficulty for achieving "balance" (that word feels like a swear word some days) is too much cross contamination of rules applied to other armies not as "intended".
There would still be the benefit of cheaper or more powerful units used to off-set the weaknesses of a given army but at least they cannot buff any further than that.

Sir, I know that is our SPIRITUAL LIEGE over there exhaling us to immense feats of arms, but because he is best buddies with the Three Captains over there I don't feel all that inspired anymore.

 Talizvar wrote:
The fix I think works is the fix we needed for almost every revision of the game that came before:

- All auras, psychic powers, command points and all codex rules are limited to that detachment.
- No rules or abilities of any kind from one army/faction/detachment can be applied to another.

The difficulty for achieving "balance" (that word feels like a swear word some days) is too much cross contamination of rules applied to other armies not as "intended".
There would still be the benefit of cheaper or more powerful units used to off-set the weaknesses of a given army but at least they cannot buff any further than that.

I mostly agree with this, but this change in a vacuum still leaves/creates some problems. Basically what you're touching on is having the internal balance of monofaction armies be equal to or greater than the internal balance of allied armies. I.e. Dark eldar with a doom farseer should not be straight up better than dark eldar without one. Though ideally allied armies would still remain roughly as viable as their mono-factioned counterparts.

If we take your suggestion and don't change the way CP are generated, however, you're just pushing armies with cheap troops up in the power rankings. Armies that struggle to fill out batallions or brigades would either be starved for CP or else forced to invest a relatively large chunk of their points into a relatively sub-optimal set of troop "tax" units. So while I think you're looking in the right direction, that solution on its own would lead to new problems that would need to be addressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Just convince tournament organisers to either not allow soup lists. Or make it so 75% of a list must be from 1 codex/index.

If soup is such a huge problem with tournament players only having the mental aptitude of a 5yr old then just ban soup.

Simple.

We should take a page out of Fantasy's book and use percentages to build lists.

25% of the army may be allies.

I suppose we have to factor all the whinging from the fan base. Claiming percentages are too complex and awkward and they bog the game down and killed their cat.

Ahh right, my bad. Maths is too hard!

Personally, I don't like the 25% cut off for a few reasons. Assuming no other major changes, a 25% cutoff would make it difficult to reflect fluffy armies in which the "allied" portion of the army makes up more than a small portion of the overall forces. I don't think it's unreasonable to field an army wherein Sisters of Battle and IG or Drukhari and Asuryani both represent roughly even chunks of the army's total effectiveness (i.e. the army's points.) 25% also makes it awkward to fill out detachments. You're probably fine if what you want to ally in happens to be available for cheap, but something like a a spearhead of ravagers with an archon hq (the cheapest hq for a kabal detachment) is going to be hard to fit in even at 500 points (25% of 2k). Meanwhile, a doom farseer for my drukhari army or a ynnari patrol with Yvraine, some rangers, and a large (but not maxed out) squad of dark reapers would fit in pretty easily.

Or for a more imperial example, aren't the loyal 32 less than 500 points and also one of the most prolific example of top tier ally options out there?

I know I'm just one of those bad-at-math guys that politely disagrees with you, but I feel like a flat 25% cutoff doesn't really address many of the more powerful examples of allies while also making it more difficult to field relatively tame allies. It's not that complex of a rules change, but it's not that helpful of a rules change either.

I play a mono-faction Black Legion list that performs well enough on the tabletop. I would not be interested in modifying the game to accommodate my choice of army.

That said... Xenos players sure do complain a lot about not being able to take allies. I can see their point, kind of, that Imperial players have a slight advantage.

Were I the one deciding how to fix the problem, I would not start with command points. It kind of makes sense that Imperial armies would be a little more strategic given the way they are organized. I would focus on special rules like Reanimation Protocols that make those Xenos armies so distinctive.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Were I the one deciding how to fix the problem, I would not start with command points. It kind of makes sense that Imperial armies would be a little more strategic given the way they are organized.

I think the millenia-old space elf strategists and computer-assisted robo-generals would like to have a word with your decades and centuries old mon-keigh commanders.

Also, the thing is that "command points" exist to fuel stratagems, and stratagems aren't even really about strategizing or commanding half the time. The fight again strats are basically just representing someone deciding to stop being lazy and stab faster. Flakk missiles and haywire grenades are equipment. Eldar and orks have stratagems that let them do barrel rolls to avoid being hit. None of that seems especially relevant to how many infantrymen with rifles you happen to have in your army.

I feel like command points should just be divorced from the command structure of your army. Rewarding CP to armies with cheap troops makes CP generation hard to balance and gives GW an excuse to not make troops as valuable for their points (because you're being compensated for taking them with CP).

Wyldhunt wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Were I the one deciding how to fix the problem, I would not start with command points. It kind of makes sense that Imperial armies would be a little more strategic given the way they are organized.

I think the millenia-old space elf strategists and computer-assisted robo-generals would like to have a word with your decades and centuries old mon-keigh commanders.

Also, the thing is that "command points" exist to fuel stratagems, and stratagems aren't even really about strategizing or commanding half the time. The fight again strats are basically just representing someone deciding to stop being lazy and stab faster. Flakk missiles and haywire grenades are equipment. Eldar and orks have stratagems that let them do barrel rolls to avoid being hit. None of that seems especially relevant to how many infantrymen with rifles you happen to have in your army.

I feel like command points should just be divorced from the command structure of your army. Rewarding CP to armies with cheap troops makes CP generation hard to balance and gives GW an excuse to not make troops as valuable for their points (because you're being compensated for taking them with CP).

Yeah, I realized this would be contentious.

Eldar and Necron armies lack the need for organization present in an Imperial force. This is not a matter of the age of the species, this is a matter of the number of moving parts present.

Getting Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition (which includes SoS, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Inquisitors, etc.) and everything else under the Imperial banner working together as a fighting force would require a huge investment in strategic resources. Not just because of the number of factions involved, but also because of the number of bodies and their dispersion across so many Imperial worlds.

Eldar, otoh, are a much smaller race. There's not that many left of them, they have circumscribed battlefield roles, and they are psychically attuned to one another. It's a smaller force to manage and, arguably, the psychic aptitude of the race makes coordinating their efforts almost a matter of intuition. They don't have a layered bureaucracy spreading battle plans over a table, they have measured warfighters who coordinate their efforts via brain telegraphs to one another.

Necrons, otooh, are subject to the will of their masters. Compared to the Imperium, there's a tiny number of Necrons who actually make decisions about what shall fight. Necessarily, this limits the perspective of the leader of the army, who is only going to be able to direct so much so fast. The way they win battles is not by carrying out some grand battle plan, they just shamble in at the direction of their masters.

All this is to say, I can see why Imperials would have more CPs to reflect the greater need / emphasis on strategy. That's not to say there are no brilliant strategists in Eldar and Necron armies. It's just that, given the resources required to manage strategy in an Imperial army, there's some justification the greater number of command points that go along with soup.

Again, most of the time, I play a mono-faction Black Legion list. I don't see the need to make the CP pool better than my opponent just because of how I structure my forces.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
The fix I think works is the fix we needed for almost every revision of the game that came before:

- All auras, psychic powers, command points and all codex rules are limited to that detachment.
- No rules or abilities of any kind from one army/faction/detachment can be applied to another.

The difficulty for achieving "balance" (that word feels like a swear word some days) is too much cross contamination of rules applied to other armies not as "intended".
There would still be the benefit of cheaper or more powerful units used to off-set the weaknesses of a given army but at least they cannot buff any further than that.

So if I take a Nurgle Daemons Battalion, and a Nurgle Daemons Outrider, my Poxbringer in the Battalion can't buff my Plague Drones in the Outrider? That seems like a bad idea.

Such is the tax for the ability to bring extra fast attack choices to the field. if you want to buff everything, accept the limitations of a single detachment.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
The fix I think works is the fix we needed for almost every revision of the game that came before:

- All auras, psychic powers, command points and all codex rules are limited to that detachment.
- No rules or abilities of any kind from one army/faction/detachment can be applied to another.

The difficulty for achieving "balance" (that word feels like a swear word some days) is too much cross contamination of rules applied to other armies not as "intended".
There would still be the benefit of cheaper or more powerful units used to off-set the weaknesses of a given army but at least they cannot buff any further than that.

I mostly agree with this, but this change in a vacuum still leaves/creates some problems. Basically what you're touching on is having the internal balance of monofaction armies be equal to or greater than the internal balance of allied armies. I.e. Dark eldar with a doom farseer should not be straight up better than dark eldar without one. Though ideally allied armies would still remain roughly as viable as their mono-factioned counterparts.

If we take your suggestion and don't change the way CP are generated, however, you're just pushing armies with cheap troops up in the power rankings. Armies that struggle to fill out batallions or brigades would either be starved for CP or else forced to invest a relatively large chunk of their points into a relatively sub-optimal set of troop "tax" units. So while I think you're looking in the right direction, that solution on its own would lead to new problems that would need to be addressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Just convince tournament organisers to either not allow soup lists. Or make it so 75% of a list must be from 1 codex/index.

If soup is such a huge problem with tournament players only having the mental aptitude of a 5yr old then just ban soup.

Simple.

We should take a page out of Fantasy's book and use percentages to build lists.

25% of the army may be allies.

I suppose we have to factor all the whinging from the fan base. Claiming percentages are too complex and awkward and they bog the game down and killed their cat.

Ahh right, my bad. Maths is too hard!

Personally, I don't like the 25% cut off for a few reasons. Assuming no other major changes, a 25% cutoff would make it difficult to reflect fluffy armies in which the "allied" portion of the army makes up more than a small portion of the overall forces. I don't think it's unreasonable to field an army wherein Sisters of Battle and IG or Drukhari and Asuryani both represent roughly even chunks of the army's total effectiveness (i.e. the army's points.) 25% also makes it awkward to fill out detachments. You're probably fine if what you want to ally in happens to be available for cheap, but something like a a spearhead of ravagers with an archon hq (the cheapest hq for a kabal detachment) is going to be hard to fit in even at 500 points (25% of 2k). Meanwhile, a doom farseer for my drukhari army or a ynnari patrol with Yvraine, some rangers, and a large (but not maxed out) squad of dark reapers would fit in pretty easily.

Or for a more imperial example, aren't the loyal 32 less than 500 points and also one of the most prolific example of top tier ally options out there?

I know I'm just one of those bad-at-math guys that politely disagrees with you, but I feel like a flat 25% cutoff doesn't really address many of the more powerful examples of allies while also making it more difficult to field relatively tame allies. It's not that complex of a rules change, but it's not that helpful of a rules change either.

Ah no, I think the entire army building system should work off percentages. It wouldn't work with detachments, you're right.

1 unit in a list must be a CHARACTER unit.
25% of a list must be SQUAD units.
25% of a list can be CHARACTER units.
50% of a list can be SUPPORT units.
50% of a list can be ALLY units (Cannot fill the compulsory SQUAD units.)

I'd like to see detachments removed, and we move to a system like that. You're probably right, 25% is too low, I think 50% might work more.

Alternatively, I think doubling CPs for detachments that share 2 or more Keywords with your WL would be better.
Although Battalions should go back to +3CPs and Brigaded back to +9CPs with this change.

This would mean that a List with Blood Angels, Guard and a Knight might look like this:
BA Battalion +6CPs (WL is in this detachment so +3CPs X2)
Guard Battalion +3CPs
Knight LoW detachment +0CPs
Battle Forged +3CPs = 12CPs total

If, however, a similar list dropped the Knight and Guard Battlion for another Blood Angel (or any Astartes faction) Battalion, it would look like this:
BA Battalion +6CPs
BA Battalion +6CPs
Battle Forges +3CP = 15CPs total

So you reward detachments that share more than 1 faction keyword with the WL. You already need 1 shared keyword for the army, sharing a second or more should be rewarded.
It's enough to encourage Mon-faction, but not enough to completely neuter using Allies
It also makes using all the 1CP detachments worth considering over taking everything in Battalions

-

 some bloke wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
The fix I think works is the fix we needed for almost every revision of the game that came before:
- All auras, psychic powers, command points and all codex rules are limited to that detachment.
- No rules or abilities of any kind from one army/faction/detachment can be applied to another.
The difficulty for achieving "balance" (that word feels like a swear word some days) is too much cross contamination of rules applied to other armies not as "intended".
There would still be the benefit of cheaper or more powerful units used to off-set the weaknesses of a given army but at least they cannot buff any further than that.

So if I take a Nurgle Daemons Battalion, and a Nurgle Daemons Outrider, my Poxbringer in the Battalion can't buff my Plague Drones in the Outrider? That seems like a bad idea.

Such is the tax for the ability to bring extra fast attack choices to the field. if you want to buff everything, accept the limitations of a single detachment.

This is what I was getting at.
You can fit all kinds of units within one selection but instead we keep adding on groups to feed CP's to our choice one.
I DO see if you use other formations that are the exact same Codex faction you "should" be able to swap the CPs around and apply abilities but again, we are trying to avoid abuse and reach some kind of balance.
If we really want to get into the "realism" end of things is that each add-on group is under specialist command, factions within the codex, that is actually what happens with most other armies like Orks.

I am in a fine position to soup the heck out of my Imperial Knights and IG/AM and I see absolutely no "solution" to preventing this fun little combo.

I don't think there is a great way other than simply ensuring their codex can get access to everything it needs or may need in the future. That means no areas in which the codex is pathetic. So you need decent and cheap troops to fill out your detatchments and give you bodies on the board, access to good anti horde and anti armor and anything in between, units that can handle themselves in close combat, decent transports, great strategems. Really everything in the codex needs to be good at what it's supposed to do and be as competitively priced as what a player with access to soup can get. Other codexes can be half assed and get away with it. Monodex not so much.

It's a tall order. I think Orks are close. Conversely I have no idea what the guy who designed the necron codex was thinking. It's like they didn't know what a army needed to be viable.

Alex_85 wrote:
About the SM chapter tactics to vehicles that should not be a buff for mono army, that should be fixed as base for SM. For the high price of our vehicles at leats we should have the chapter tactics also for them.

For improvement of the mono army's it would be great that they could always go first in battle as they are more organized being all from the same codex.

It was just a general idea, they could definitely take it many different directions. Buffing mono faction as opposed to nerfing soup would be the way to go overall.

Wyldhunt wrote:

broxus wrote:
To make competitive lists in today’s meta you must play soup lists. I started asking myself the question what is a way to make mono faction lists more competitive and give them a fighting chance against soup lists. I don’t think GW should nerf soup lists since many people find this an enjoyable way to play the game. There are numerous ways to accomplish this, but I think the most balanced is through the use of command points. So I want to propose the following rule/change and welcome discussion or feedback:

“If all units and detacthements share the same keyword an army gains an additional +3 CP.”

This method doesn’t penalize all the current lists, however it gives a slight buff to players who want to play mono faction lists and allows them to become more competitive. I think it is a good compromise and pretty balanced.

What do you think???

I'm not sure this would really address the issue. Say I'm an imperial player playing mostly not-guard. I want some extra cp and maybe some cheap screens. It costs me 3 CP to add the loyal 32 into my list, but they give me 5 CP, so I'm still coming out ahead by 2CP. Or flip that around. Maybe I'm playing mostly guard, but I want to add some knights or smash captains or whatever into my list. Guard are so good at generating CP innately that they won't really mind the 3CP penalty. Meanwhile, the Sisters player who wanted to splash in some Grey Knights just gave up a proportionately larger chunk of his CP for a less optimized army because neither sisters nor GK have especially cheap troops.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You wanna make monofaction viable? Make internal balance not such garbage.

Mostly this. If all options are basically worth their points and only become more efficient when used in combination with their own faction, then having access to lots of options will be less of a boon. I.E. if marine armies had access to more affordable screens, or if farseers with doom didn't offer such a boost to dark eldar, then having access to allies would be less problematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think this idea would fix the discrepancy between mono and soup, personally.

I think CP and stratagems should be limited to the army faction that generated them or perhaps even limit stratagems to the faction that the warlord is taken from. Then give the option to take a relic or WL trait that allows the use of a single stratagem from another book that comprises your force (only while WL is on the battlefield).

I see this suggestion a lot, and it always makes me cringe. In addition to the mildly annoying but not game stopping bookkeeping this would cause (you'd basically just need 3 or 4 different colored dice to keep track of things with), this would severely punish armies that just aren't good at generating CP. GK and DW come to mind. Necrons aren't great at it. Marines and craftworlders are kind of middle of the road. But there would be a world of difference between the amount of CP an IG or 'nid detachment could generate compared to others. Telling a GK player they have to generate their own CP is basically telling them to pay a 3 squad troop tax that costs about as much as an entire loyal 32 detachment.

Plus, armies are designed around having access to their stratagems these days, and those stratagems often represent a large portion of the army's flavor. Harlequins (at least the non-bike variety) live and die off of their stratagems. This proposal would both make it harder for them to have enough CP for more than a couple of turns and/or would prevent them from using the tools they rely on to survive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MistaGav wrote:
I had a similar idea:

-1 cp for a detachment that has a different faction keyword than that of your warlord. -2 cp for a second detachment (on top of the first)

+1cp for a detachment that has the same faction keyword than that of your warlord. +2cp for a second detachment (on top of the first)

I liked Xenomancer's army construction suggestion from a while back. The gist of it was...

* You start with X CP based on the size of the game. So at 1500 points, you might have, let's say, 12CP.
* Detachments cost CP with "big" detachments like batallions costing fewer CP than small ones. So a brigade might be free or only 1 CP. A batallion might cost 3. A vanguard might cost 5.
* Detachments cost extra CP if they don't match that of your warlord. So taking a batallion of Space Wolves to go with your Blood Angels might cost 3 CP plus an extra 1 for not being the same kind of adeptus astartes. A batallion of IG might cost 3 base plus 1 for not being the same chapter and then another plus 1 for not being astartes at all.

Under this system, monofaction, single-detachment armies would be the best way to generate CP, and you'd be encouraged to fill out detachments rather than taking a bunch of small ones. The CP cost would serve as a baked-in cost for expanding your unit selection/unit slots/chapter tactics, but you'd be starting at a high enough starting CP that you're not prevented from using a meaningful number of stratagems.

This... may actually be a great idea. It gives you a baseline CP, then you build around that; which means no longer will people take cheap battalions just for CP. Things like Fort detachments, Brigades, and other obscure detachments would be free, while the smaller the detachment, the more "strain" it puts on your resources; and prevents the abuse we see with the Loyal 32, Aux detachments with a single psycher for a specific power, etc. Armies would be built around a limited amount of resources.

One change I would make is providing a bonus if someone took from a single book or faction... but this system would address the "CP battery" problem, and make CP's much more precious.