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.

We all know its an issue but nobody can come up with a simple and elegant solution on their own. Lets hash it out.


THREAD GOALS:

1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

3. Hash out and build upon other suggestions, to try and make them more feasible.






I'll start,

Current CP generation rewards cheap battalions added onto CP hungry units to make wombo combos which are front loading power into turn 1. This is spiraling into GW nerfing first turn deep strikers, which in turn buffs shooting armies unintentionally.


The easiest solution in my mind is making CP standardized to 5/10/15 for all 1000/1500/2000 point armies no mater what types of detachments they bring. This simplifies alot of things, makes it easier for people to bring single book armies, keeps things fair (between books that can/cant ally), and lets TO's use their missions determine their meta.

Is it perfect? No, but nothing is. It could lead to an army of 3 knights, 3 Dawneagle captains, and 3 smash captains. They would have a hard time againgst certain armies though, and with some bad dice rolling, get utterly steamrolled. This could also be controlled by TO's making composition rules such as "Armies must contain one battalion/brigade" or "only 1 of each detachment type".

 Eihnlazer wrote:
1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

The ability to soup in cheap CP generation for armies that are supposed to be limited by their expensive units. For example, IK have few CP but each CP they spend gives a huge effect. IG can generate lots of CP, but have mostly weak stratagems and will probably spend most of them on re-rolls. The problem is when you have an IK army generating CP at the IG rate by allying in a token detachment, giving the IK army way more than it is supposed to have and letting it freely use those expensive stratagems are are supposed to require a tough choice about when to use your one-shot buff.

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

Any detachment that doesn't share its faction keywords with your warlord does not generate CP, and any stratagem that does not share a faction with your warlord can not be used.

Fixed CP based on point level does not fix the problem. It effectively just gives the loyal 32 as a permanent and free upgrade to every elite army, giving no advantage to the pure IG (and other horde) armies that are stuck at the same CP level. The solution is to limit CP generation for armies that can't generate it on their own, not to give them access to max CP without even having to soup for it.

If Soup is the problem then the simple solution is that CPs generated by a detachment can only be spent on that detachment. Then if you were feeling really mean you would also remove the +3 CP for being battleforged because soup is the worst and if it never darkened the door of the competitive scene again I'd be okay with it.

This is however a different issue to "I think using CP is "Fun" and all factions should share in the "Fun", so everyone should have about 15 CP to play with". In which case you need to rebalance all the stratagems.

Limit them by faction, battleforged points are 3 free roaming.

If you choose to ally, you choose to complicate your life and cp tracking. It's reasonably elegant and doesn't completely destroy the point of them.

Fixed CP for fixed points levels defeats the purpose of cp encouraging generalist armies.

Though I have to admit, I have no concerns about undermining people who are using allies purely as CP batteries.

See I don't completely hate the "Can only use CP from your warlords detachment" thing, but if you do that, you would have to completely recost a lot of strats.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
See I don't completely hate the "Can only use CP from your warlords detachment" thing, but if you do that, you would have to completely recost a lot of strats.

Why? GW probably didn't design them with soup in mind, and being limited in how often you can use the most powerful ones is deliberate design. Not being able to use "rotate ion shields" or whatever at every single opportunity is a good thing, not a problem that needs to be solved.

Step 1: Get rid of the 3 free points.
Add a benefit to keywords- if all units from the army share 3 keywords, they generate 2 CP every game round, if they share 2 keywords, generate 1 cp every game round. If the warlord is killed, reduce the benefit by 1.

Leave the 1cp regen per player turn as they are now with the above rules

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
See I don't completely hate the "Can only use CP from your warlords detachment" thing, but if you do that, you would have to completely recost a lot of strats.

Why? GW probably didn't design them with soup in mind, and being limited in how often you can use the most powerful ones is deliberate design. Not being able to use "rotate ion shields" or whatever at every single opportunity is a good thing, not a problem that needs to be solved.

Actually you used to pick where you rotated your ion shields every turn back when there were armor facings...…...

1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

to me the problems are two fold
- "soup" command point batteries making some armies that seem designed for a low CP count have a high one, and the way this isn't open to all armies
- "regen" abilities being handed out like candy to some armies (though the FAQ has toned this back thankfully)

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

I think two solutions, either of which could work
- a CP may only be used by the detachment keyword that created it, so two Ork detachments from the same kultur can exchange, but from different kultur cannot, ditto the same IG regiment can trade but not with another regiment, nor with allied marines - not hard to do, use coloured tokens to track them
- only allow the "primary" detachment to generate its normal CP, this is whichever one your Warlord is in, other detachments generate the normal amount if they share the same detachment keyword, or just +1CP if they do not.
hence you can have that IG battery, but only with an IG warlord and other non-IG or IG from different regiments only generate +1CP per detachment

Idea is to avoid penalising mono-factions or significantly penalising mono-faction with a small allied formation, say an outrider of some sort, while limiting the ability to then pour all the CP into the small allied formation

3. Hash out and build upon other suggestions, to try and make them more feasible.

personally I think the easy way is to limit CP usage to the detachment keyword that generated them, so say a marine battalion that brings a triplet of custard jetbikes and a guard battalion will have three CP "pools" thus:

- 5 for the marine battalion
- 5 for the IG battalion
- 1 for the custard battalion

plus three "swing" CP that can be used anywhere

if the IG or marines can regenerate CP they go back in the faction specific pool.

this is something GW could implement in a very easy way, and could even include "CP Coins" for the different factions (though coloured glass beads would be cheaper but plastic coins done nicely would work well), its also pretty clear to understand

Tyel wrote:
If Soup is the problem then the simple solution is that CPs generated by a detachment can only be spent on that detachment. Then if you were feeling really mean you would also remove the +3 CP for being battleforged because soup is the worst and if it never darkened the door of the competitive scene again I'd be okay with it.

This is however a different issue to "I think using CP is "Fun" and all factions should share in the "Fun", so everyone should have about 15 CP to play with". In which case you need to rebalance all the stratagems.

Pretty much this, but leave the 'you turned up, well done' CP as floating.

Lets certain combos still be quite ooomphy, without allowing IG to simply be batteries for Capt. Facepunch & Co.

CPs are a useful resource, but shouldn't be overly plentiful. They should be a way to swing a tight spot, or turn a given charge into a bloodbath. Not a way to constantly power the same select units throughout the game, especially when they're from a different Codex.

Anything to de-fang Soup without necessarily doing away with it. Combined Imperial Armies are nothing new, and true to the background after all.

Side thought, how about including in scenario objectives that provide additional CP?

vary by scenario but have a mechanic to let you "burn" victory points you have accumulated to generate CP? obviously lowers your score, burning strategic advantage for tactical benefit.

lowering the magnitude of a potential win to ensure that win, or a heroic sacrifice for one last push to victory

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Actually you used to pick where you rotated your ion shields every turn back when there were armor facings...…...

And? In 5th edition units didn't have a movement stat, all infantry moved 6". That's about as relevant a comment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

The ability to soup in cheap CP generation for armies that are supposed to be limited by their expensive units. For example, IK have few CP but each CP they spend gives a huge effect. IG can generate lots of CP, but have mostly weak stratagems and will probably spend most of them on re-rolls. The problem is when you have an IK army generating CP at the IG rate by allying in a token detachment, giving the IK army way more than it is supposed to have and letting it freely use those expensive stratagems are are supposed to require a tough choice about when to use your one-shot buff.

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

Any detachment that doesn't share its faction keywords with your warlord does not generate CP, and any stratagem that does not share a faction with your warlord can not be used.

Fixed CP based on point level does not fix the problem. It effectively just gives the loyal 32 as a permanent and free upgrade to every elite army, giving no advantage to the pure IG (and other horde) armies that are stuck at the same CP level. The solution is to limit CP generation for armies that can't generate it on their own, not to give them access to max CP without even having to soup for it.

I'd like that. However a flat "CPs faction locking" should work as well. Those loyal 32 could still generate 5 CPs but the player can only spend those CPs for stratagems on them or any other unit listed in that AM battallion. This way the imperium player choses the 32 because he wants those specific units to use in battle, for a tactical purpose, not for having cheap additional CPs for his fancy superheroes.

leopard wrote:
Side thought, how about including in scenario objectives that provide additional CP?

vary by scenario but have a mechanic to let you "burn" victory points you have accumulated to generate CP? obviously lowers your score, burning strategic advantage for tactical benefit.

lowering the magnitude of a potential win to ensure that win, or a heroic sacrifice for one last push to victory

It's a nice idea, but I fear that would just make Imperial Soup even Spicier. Like whacking a Scotch Bonnet in. That's because as well packing a load of CPs for everyone else, the cheapo Guardsmen will also be able to farm further CP for objective holding, something small and elite armies (those with cheap but pokey Stratagems, because their CPs are meant to be scarce) can't do.

I'm either +1 to detachment or faction based command point restrictions or increase the requirements on the battalion to be more than just 2hq and 3 troops

Brigade is 3/6/3/3/3 requirements, battalion should be 2/3/1/1/1 honestly rather than hey look im 1 troop more than 2 patrol detachments but give 5 command points.

Though i haven't played much of 8th and haven't played competitively in a long time so my opinions aren't worth much

I'd argue that those such as you and I, who don't game regularly, may be of valued opinion precisely because we don't have a horse in this particular race.

We don't have the 'but how would this impact my army' hurdle to cross, so can arguably look at the various standpoints from a point of relative dispassion.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

leopard wrote:
Side thought, how about including in scenario objectives that provide additional CP?

vary by scenario but have a mechanic to let you "burn" victory points you have accumulated to generate CP? obviously lowers your score, burning strategic advantage for tactical benefit.

lowering the magnitude of a potential win to ensure that win, or a heroic sacrifice for one last push to victory

It's a nice idea, but I fear that would just make Imperial Soup even Spicier. Like whacking a Scotch Bonnet in. That's because as well packing a load of CPs for everyone else, the cheapo Guardsmen will also be able to farm further CP for objective holding, something small and elite armies (those with cheap but pokey Stratagems, because their CPs are meant to be scarce) can't do.

would depend how you did it in the scenarios, but like everything would need doing in way thats far more careful than GW likely would do it.

You know what is telling?

Not a single poster saying 'they're fine as they are'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd argue that those such as you and I, who don't game regularly, may be of valued opinion precisely because we don't have a horse in this particular race.

We don't have the 'but how would this impact my army' hurdle to cross, so can arguably look at the various standpoints from a point of relative dispassion.

I had that how does this impact my army back in the days of flying circus, my battle sisters had no anti air, sat those 2 editions out and never really played seriously after that. its still weird not having the same old force org that iv been playing with since 3rd edition... hell not being able to take burnas in slugga boy squads anymore still annoys me greatly lol.

I am curious to see if GW even addresses the CP farms at all beyond band-aid patches to making certain command abilities cost more CP, though i guess they dont really impact me too much as I don't jump on the bandwagon of using CP farms or multiple small units for everything, and havent really integrated myself into the local GW store here since i moved so i have no idea what the local meta is here at all.

Honestly, I think they should do an 8.5 update and change CP entirely to work the way AOS does (which seems way better). That said, I actually think Peregrine's solution is the best (shocking).

While I'd rather see soup armies be kept out of Matched Play entirely (simply because it's clear things cannot be balanced correctly while you're allowed to take multiple faction detachments in a Battle-forged army), I think his approach is a good compromise to still allow you to build a themed force based around a combined arms coalition while not having this nonsense now where you take a soup army with multiple detachments to get extra CP.

Instead of punishing players for soup, instead reward for not-soup.

Lower the CP gen back to pre-buff levels (3 for Battalions, 9 for Brigades) and offer an army wide bonus of +2CP per detachment if every unit in your army shares 2 Faction Keywords (with the Battle Brothers exclusions).

So 3 Marine Battalions generate 15 CP, but 2 Guard Battalions and a Marine Battalion generate only 9.

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly, I think they should do an 8.5 update and change CP entirely to work the way AOS does (which seems way better). That said, I actually think Peregrine's solution is the best (shocking).

While I'd rather see soup armies be kept out of Matched Play entirely (simply because it's clear things cannot be balanced correctly while you're allowed to take multiple faction detachments in a Battle-forged army), I think his approach is a good compromise to still allow you to build a themed force based around a combined arms coalition while not having this nonsense now where you take a soup army with multiple detachments to get extra CP.

I forget how AoS does it, i read the rulebook once but havent played it yet.

what if soup was limited in points like AoS is with allies? not sure if that would really do anything though, would still allow me to pretend codex witch hunters exists and pick up an inquisitor into my battle sisters occasionally.

gealgain wrote:
Step 1: Get rid of the 3 free points.
Add a benefit to keywords- if all units from the army share 3 keywords, they generate 2 CP every game round, if they share 2 keywords, generate 1 cp every game round. If the warlord is killed, reduce the benefit by 1.

Leave the 1cp regen per player turn as they are now with the above rules

So let's see, that means Orks, Tau, Necrons, and Tyranids all only generate a single CP per round?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Instead of punishing players for soup, instead reward for not-soup.

Lower the CP gen back to pre-buff levels (3 for Battalions, 9 for Brigades) and offer an army wide bonus of +2CP per detachment if every unit in your army shares 2 Faction Keywords (with the Battle Brothers exclusions).

So 3 Marine Battalions generate 15 CP, but 2 Guard Battalions and a Marine Battalion generate only 9.

Im almost on the fence with the idea someone said earlier of just giving fixed CP based on point level instead. In addition to that maybe give the CP bonus if your entire army shares the same keyword. though there are some issues with that as well

Declare an army keyword when you create your first battleforged detachment, any detachment that doesn't match that keyword generates half the CP it normally would, rounding up. Ergo a soup battalion now generates 3cp and a soup Brigade now gives 6cp. Wording has to be this way to prevent 0CP specialist detachments.

It's a bit of a band aid solution but it's also easy to implement with minimal knock on effects compared to some other ideas in this thread.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know what is telling?

Not a single poster saying 'they're fine as they are'.

I could do that if you like.
I think soup is the problem - not CPs.
Imperial, Eldar and Chaos soup dominates the competitive scene and can utterly monster more casual mono-build armies.
I think mono-guard would be strong in a mono-dex world - but not because they can easily bring 20+ CPs.
I think mono-knights would be good too even though they would have half a dozen.
Its just obvious that combining both together makes a better army.

I agree the main issue is that some armies were designed to work with only a handful of CP, and are now an issue because souping provides them with too many CPs.
Like others, I'd like CPs to be faction-locked, that would instantly fix soup at the cost of very little bookkeeping.

But I would add that part of the problem is also the ability to burn as many CPs as you as soon as the game starts. In AoS and KT, you now generate CPs each turn, and I think this is something to look at.
I would prefer battleforged armies to get 1CP/Turn instead of 3 CPs from the start. Similarly, battalions could be 1CP/Turn, while Vanguard/Outrider/Supreme command and so on would be +1 at the start, and no generation each turn. And I might be biased but I would love for some specialists detachments to turn the +1 to a +1/turn by filling the slots with special units, and forbidding others (to make Ravenguard, Wraith hosts or similar detachments).
Although there seems to be an increasing number of stratagems meant to be used before T1 (like the new formations), so maybe that would be an issue in itself.

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly, I think they should do an 8.5 update and change CP entirely to work the way AOS does (which seems way better). That said, I actually think Peregrine's solution is the best (shocking).

While I'd rather see soup armies be kept out of Matched Play entirely (simply because it's clear things cannot be balanced correctly while you're allowed to take multiple faction detachments in a Battle-forged army), I think his approach is a good compromise to still allow you to build a themed force based around a combined arms coalition while not having this nonsense now where you take a soup army with multiple detachments to get extra CP.

I forget how AoS does it, i read the rulebook once but havent played it yet.

what if soup was limited in points like AoS is with allies? not sure if that would really do anything though, would still allow me to pretend codex witch hunters exists and pick up an inquisitor into my battle sisters occasionally.

AOS you generate CP each turn which you spend on Command Abilities. You get 1 base, +1 for each battalion (which costs points) you take. It couldn't be done exactly the same way as 40k doesn't have battalions in the same sense, but something like changing it to be an amount you get every turn rather than something you get a huge lump sum of immediately might help to curb some of the most egregious abuses of it. But the major issue with CP is being able to take multiple detachments in an army (i.e. cheap battalions) to be able to get like 10+ CP.

Other ideas I had that probably won't work that well but popped into my head:

1) To take a detachment after the first (other than auxiliary) you need to fill out that detachment. Meaning if you took a Battalion, you couldn't take a second detachment of any type until you took all the slots in the first. However, this would absolutely kill soup (which isn't a bad thing to me, but to others) since you would have to have each detachment with a single faction keyword. Maybe just restrict this to the same battalion, so you could take a Battalion + Vanguard, but not two battalions unless your first Battalion had all of its slots. This doesn't help armies with cheap troops getting a ton of CP though because they can take a Brigade, while others can't.

2) Your army gets 0-1 battalion or brigade detachment only (no limit on the others). This would help by virtue of limiting you to a single battalion rather than a battalion of something and the "Loyal 32" in a second battalion for an immediate 13 (5x2 + 3 for battleforged) CP for Imperium armies. Essentially you drop all CP farming by 5 points but may have the same issue as above where armies that can cheaply do a Brigade are at an advantage over ones who have to do a Battalion.

fresus wrote:
I agree the main issue is that some armies were designed to work with only a handful of CP, and are now an issue because souping provides them with too many CPs.
Like others, I'd like CPs to be faction-locked, that would instantly fix soup at the cost of very little bookkeeping.

But I would add that part of the problem is also the ability to burn as many CPs as you as soon as the game starts. In AoS and KT, you now generate CPs each turn, and I think this is something to look at.
I would prefer battleforged armies to get 1CP/Turn instead of 3 CPs from the start. Similarly, battalions could be 1CP/Turn, while Vanguard/Outrider/Supreme command and so on would be +1 at the start, and no generation each turn. And I might be biased but I would love for some specialists detachments to turn the +1 to a +1/turn by filling the slots with special units, and forbidding others (to make Ravenguard, Wraith hosts or similar detachments).
Although there seems to be an increasing number of stratagems meant to be used before T1 (like the new formations), so maybe that would be an issue in itself.

I could see battle forged 1cp/turn and while warlord is alive grant another 1cp/turn, so you would have a mix of flat points at the start and some cp generation each turn rather than a large number of CP at the start

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

The ability to soup in cheap CP generation for armies that are supposed to be limited by their expensive units. For example, IK have few CP but each CP they spend gives a huge effect. IG can generate lots of CP, but have mostly weak stratagems and will probably spend most of them on re-rolls. The problem is when you have an IK army generating CP at the IG rate by allying in a token detachment, giving the IK army way more than it is supposed to have and letting it freely use those expensive stratagems are are supposed to require a tough choice about when to use your one-shot buff.

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

Any detachment that doesn't share its faction keywords with your warlord does not generate CP, and any stratagem that does not share a faction with your warlord can not be used.

Fixed CP based on point level does not fix the problem. It effectively just gives the loyal 32 as a permanent and free upgrade to every elite army, giving no advantage to the pure IG (and other horde) armies that are stuck at the same CP level. The solution is to limit CP generation for armies that can't generate it on their own, not to give them access to max CP without even having to soup for it.

I was an advocate of the "fixed CP based on battle size" solution, but I think I like this solution better.