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.

I just don't see the correlation between the name of the system and the things that provide it.

If it's called 'Command Points', shouldn't it be a function based on how many commanders you have in the army? Why does having more troops give you better ability to command things? Following, why are heavy support, fast attacks and elites less 'commandable' than troops? Are they so elite and autonomous that they don't follow orders?

The logic of requiring troops in order to better command the more elite units of the army just doesn't make any sense.

It's also inconsistent how special abilities of different units were culled away into stratagems. Some units retained their special abilities that are borderline stratagem level (i.e. dark reapers), while some units' abilities that had minuscule/niche effect has to be paid for in CPs (i.e. flakk missile, hellfire shell, psybolt)!

Ranting on, the whole system of CP generation based on detachment is one of the worst design in 8th edition. I get it that they wanted to sell more troop units and go back to the root of things prior to the formation-mess that was 7th ed and bring back the min 2 troops, 1 HQ scheme, but this is simply too darn sloppy. If GW can't seem to balance out the FOC's between the armies, where one army has GREAT troops choice and GREAT point sink troops, they just need to throw the concept out before it ruins the game any further.

They need to do away with the concept of 'Command points' and rename them 'Stratagem Points' or 'SP' for short.

Standard miniatures war gaming logic. The larger, less disciplined forces are always easier to lead than smaller, more elite ones. Maybe it is the games I am drawn to, but that seems to be par for the course. You are right though.

What gets me is a Necron having a flesh wound in Kill Team. I mean, sure, a Flayed One might lose some skin, but I don't think they be nearly as distracted by that as to give them a -1, -2 or -3 because of it.

Wild concept:

Every army gets 1CP per turn.

If you had a Battalion or Brigade detachment in your army, your army gets an additional 1CP per turn.

If your Warlord is alive at the beginning of your turn, your army gets an additional 1CP per turn.

So armies that need 6-7CP at the start of the game become instant unplayable. Armies that have 2 or 3 CP stratagems they have to use each turn, get nerfed hard. And if they don't have a good basic line up of units, that work without CP, they become just as valid as those lists that require CP at the pre game phase.

At the same time something like Inari laugh at everyone, because they have a build in stratagem for 0CP, that is miles ahead of any chapter tactic etc.

May as well remove CP from the game.

Every detachment, with very few exceptions, includes a commander. I suppose the rationale behind command points is that they are awarded on the basis of the commanders included in each detachment.

Battalions require two commanders, hence award more command points.

Brigades only require two commanders, but they are essentially armies unto themselves. They are likely to include your army's warlord. From a fluff point of view, a spearhead commander has to know how to work support units, a vanguard commander, elite units, etc.

By contrast, the commanders of a brigade need to know how to work troops AND support units, AND elite units, etc. This would mean higher rank and more battlefield experience, even if you choose not to place your warlord in charge of your brigade.

Furthermore, "troop" points would imply that the number of soldiers is the factor that determines how many the army gets- meaning that how many slots in each detachment you chose to fill would be more of a factor in determining your point pool than how many detachments you brought.

The other, even narrow interpretation, that it was the number of soldiers from "troop" units that determined how many points you got is even worse.

I will concede that the connection isn't as strong as it could be- perhaps "detachment points" would be better.

Karol wrote:
So armies that need 6-7CP at the start of the game become instant unplayable. Armies that have 2 or 3 CP stratagems they have to use each turn, get nerfed hard. And if they don't have a good basic line up of units, that work without CP, they become just as valid as those lists that require CP at the pre game phase.

At the same time something like Inari laugh at everyone, because they have a build in stratagem for 0CP, that is miles ahead of any chapter tactic etc.

May as well remove CP from the game.

If a certain army's only viable if it dumps 6-7 CP's pre-battle, then it's the army that needs fixing, not the CP system.

CP should be the OOMPH factor of the armies, not defining characteristics.

If this really can't be done, then yes, CP should just be removed from the game.

If CP is going to stay stuck to army composition I would rather it be pegged to points or power and not FOC. This would remove the incentives to take cheap CP battery units to prop up a few smash units and keeps it more even between two players.

Karol wrote:

May as well remove CP from the game.

I would be thrilled if 40k went back to an era before CP's and Stratagems.

 skchsan wrote:

Karol wrote:
So armies that need 6-7CP at the start of the game become instant unplayable. Armies that have 2 or 3 CP stratagems they have to use each turn, get nerfed hard. And if they don't have a good basic line up of units, that work without CP, they become just as valid as those lists that require CP at the pre game phase.

At the same time something like Inari laugh at everyone, because they have a build in stratagem for 0CP, that is miles ahead of any chapter tactic etc.

May as well remove CP from the game.

If a certain army's only viable if it dumps 6-7 CP's pre-battle, then it's the army that needs fixing, not the CP system.

CP should be the OOMPH factor of the armies, not defining characteristics.

If this really can't be done, then yes, CP should just be removed from the game.

also all this.

You get more Command Points when you have a more flexible force to Command.

 alextroy wrote:
You get more Command Points when you have a more flexible force to Command.

So call it flex points instead?

"My force is stronger and more coherent as an army, and therefore can be commanded more effectively, because it is comprised largely of un-specialized, general soldiers. These generic soldiers boost the abilities of the few elites in the army because [REASONS]."

 skchsan wrote:
If a certain army's only viable if it dumps 6-7 CP's pre-battle, then it's the army that needs fixing, not the CP system.

CP should be the OOMPH factor of the armies, not defining characteristics.

If this really can't be done, then yes, CP should just be removed from the game.

the way I see it GW does not fix stuff. The best they can do is to nerf kill something. They killed BA as an army with the nerfs and rule changes, but they didn't give them anything else in return. Asking for GW to fix something, seems to be equal to me to waiting for another edition.

These generic soldiers boost the abilities of the few elites in the army because

Isn't that the China military doctrin from the 50-60s? attack with an army of two, and then follow it with a more elite army, and chem and bacterial weapons use to stop the US from using nukes close to the conflict area.

"I would be thrilled if 40k went back to an era before CP's and Stratagems. "
Seconded.

There are some upsides - Fire & Fade is a lot more balanced than army-wide JSJ. But it's mostly drek.

Bharring wrote:
"I would be thrilled if 40k went back to an era before CP's and Stratagems. "
Seconded.

There are some upsides - Fire & Fade is a lot more balanced than army-wide JSJ. But it's mostly drek.

I agree that stratagems should be those special tricks unique to each army, where it'd be too powerful if left as a special rule that can be evoked every turn.

Honestly, of 20+ stratagems per army, you REALLY only use a handful of them if not spent all on pre-game strats and rest being saved up for rerolls.

Stratagems needs to be consolidated, filtered down to 12ish universal stratagems that all armies share, and have 3~6 army/chapter specific stratagems that are truly unique to each chapter/army.

I'd put stratagems, into a deck of cards for each player. Deal a few out at the start of the game, giving you a starting hand of say 5; can draw enough to replenish your hand at the start of each turn, each one can be used once then is discarded. Or something like that.
There's no real opportunity cost now, you can use a stratagem every turn, sometimes multiple times a turn. Making them a bit rarer, and giving you less control over which ones you can use, still allows great combo's, but makes it harder to pull off reliably.
(And yes, some would not work this way, like the pre game ones, adjustment would be needed)

As expected, Strategems have become the Formations of 8E - a good idea that wasn’t tested for balance and allowed to run rampant.

I like the idea of CPs and stratagems, but GW needs to go back to square one with them and put more limits on how many CPs you get and how often you can use them (shouldn’t be able to use more than about 2-3 a turn, IMO). Several also need to be recosted.

I also agree that IG’s Orders ought to be turned into stratagems, as should perhaps Chapter Tactics and other “freebies” GW handed out to the other armies with their codex. Too much free stuff introducing balance issues into the armies.

 Kcalehc wrote:
I'd put stratagems, into a deck of cards for each player. Deal a few out at the start of the game, giving you a starting hand of say 5; can draw enough to replenish your hand at the start of each turn, each one can be used once then is discarded. Or something like that.

That is pretty radical idea, but I actually like the sound of it. Worth testing in casual games for sure!

 Crimson wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
I'd put stratagems, into a deck of cards for each player. Deal a few out at the start of the game, giving you a starting hand of say 5; can draw enough to replenish your hand at the start of each turn, each one can be used once then is discarded. Or something like that.

That is pretty radical idea, but I actually like the sound of it. Worth testing in casual games for sure!

Not really radical, its what most TCGs are built around and its a proven marketing and gameplay strategy if your into those sorts of games. Personally stratagems already feel like using instants from MtG and I could very easily see it going in that direction. I just hope it doesn't because ive grown to hate the core loop of TCGs and I don't want that creeping into tabletop 40k.

I think Command points is apt because you are using your influence as a leader to Command your units to do impressive stuff.

But what grinds my gears is that a Guard Commander can have influence over a SM force. Some, sure, but the mechanics as they stand reward far too much mixing to make sense.

What I'd prefer is some kind of "per turn" CP generation that is less dependent on detachments.
Detachments are fine to generate CPs, but right now certain ones grant far too many over others, encouraging players to cram the cheapest of X for their army of Y.

What it SHOULD look like is closer to when 8E dropped.
Battalions back down to 3CP, Brigades back down 9, all others as is.
Then, we make Battle Forged be the primary generator of CPs: 3 per battle round so long as the WL is alive.

Now armies that want to go heavy on Battalions will only have 2-4CPs more that a list that takes Spearhead, Vanguards, etc. (as opposed to 5-9 more on average)
But everyone get 3 more per turn. This would also alleviate the issue of one opponent running out of CPs several turns before their opponent.

-

the_scotsman wrote:
Wild concept:

Every army gets 1CP per turn.

If you had a Battalion or Brigade detachment in your army, your army gets an additional 1CP per turn.

If your Warlord is alive at the beginning of your turn, your army gets an additional 1CP per turn.

I'd suggest maybe starting with a few CPs (for stratagems that can only be used at the beginning of the game - stuff like extra relics and redeployment). But otherwise I really like this idea.

Karol wrote:
So armies that need 6-7CP at the start of the game become instant unplayable. Armies that have 2 or 3 CP stratagems they have to use each turn, get nerfed hard. And if they don't have a good basic line up of units, that work without CP, they become just as valid as those lists that require CP at the pre game phase.

Which armies are you thinking of that need to spend that many CPs at the beginning of the game and on each subsequent turn?

Karol wrote:
May as well remove CP from the game.

The horror.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
I'd put stratagems, into a deck of cards for each player. Deal a few out at the start of the game, giving you a starting hand of say 5; can draw enough to replenish your hand at the start of each turn, each one can be used once then is discarded. Or something like that.

That is pretty radical idea, but I actually like the sound of it. Worth testing in casual games for sure!

Not really radical, its what most TCGs are built around and its a proven marketing and gameplay strategy if your into those sorts of games. Personally stratagems already feel like using instants from MtG and I could very easily see it going in that direction. I just hope it doesn't because ive grown to hate the core loop of TCGs and I don't want that creeping into tabletop 40k.

Dropfleet Commander uses such a system, it's horrible tbh. (1 Deck per faction, you can draw additional cards based on your leaders level each turn)
All you do is add another randomizer to the game that can feth one side over while boosting the other side. Something THAT random can't be balanced better than e.g. a set of stratagems that cost CP, because if you simply have "fight twice" be as likely as "well if you have 3 vindicators on the table, NOW it's their time to shine!", and - if you also removed CP at the same time - just as expensive, how's that going to be balanced at all?

Not to mention enforcing the deck composition - who's going to police that the deck is composed "legally"? What's stopping a player from just forming a deck with command rerolls & only the important stratagems? If it's enforced in the beginning, who's going to know if they swapped out cards after the initial inspection?

 skchsan wrote:
Not to mention enforcing the deck composition - who's going to police that the deck is composed "legally"? What's stopping a player from just forming a deck with command rerolls & only the important stratagems? If it's enforced in the beginning, who's going to know if they swapped out cards after the initial inspection?

While I agree that the deck idea is silly and doesn't fix much, the above is a false concern. If your worried about your opponent cheating or being dishonest, then playing the game with that person is not a worthwhile pursuit. The same argument could be used to have to constantly double check your opponents rules or constantly check their list versus what they have on the table. That just sounds like a chore.

 vipoid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Wild concept:

Every army gets 1CP per turn.

If you had a Battalion or Brigade detachment in your army, your army gets an additional 1CP per turn.

If your Warlord is alive at the beginning of your turn, your army gets an additional 1CP per turn.

I'd suggest maybe starting with a few CPs (for stratagems that can only be used at the beginning of the game - stuff like extra relics and redeployment). But otherwise I really like this idea.

Karol wrote:
So armies that need 6-7CP at the start of the game become instant unplayable. Armies that have 2 or 3 CP stratagems they have to use each turn, get nerfed hard. And if they don't have a good basic line up of units, that work without CP, they become just as valid as those lists that require CP at the pre game phase.

Which armies are you thinking of that need to spend that many CPs at the beginning of the game and on each subsequent turn?

Karol wrote:
May as well remove CP from the game.

The horror.

I guess the struggle I'm having is I want to get away from a world where your command points are 99% of the time used turn 1 and turn 2 and by turn 3, you're out. That's the optimal way to play them: Use your wombo-combo and deal as much damage as fast as possible.

MAYBE you get 1-3 pre-game and 1-3 first turn that you can dip into for more pre-game, but then armies that don't want to use them pregame get 6 for the first turn?

I think a lot of the pregame stratagems shouldn't be stratagems. Anything that is an unit or a gear upgrade (Iron-hail heavy stubbers, Chapter Master, Veteran Intercessors, Relics) should cost points. Making these sort of things cost CP just confuses the system. Stratagems should be one-off tricks, permanent upgrades should cost points.

the_scotsman wrote:

I guess the struggle I'm having is I want to get away from a world where your command points are 99% of the time used turn 1 and turn 2 and by turn 3, you're out. That's the optimal way to play them: Use your wombo-combo and deal as much damage as fast as possible.

Oh, I do agree with that.

However, there are currently a number of Stratagems that can only be used at the beginning of the game, so it seems like that should be kept in mind.

Then again, I'm of the belief that Relics should be bought with points, rather than CPs, so that would potentially free up 1/3 CPs.

the_scotsman wrote:

MAYBE you get 1-3 pre-game and 1-3 first turn that you can dip into for more pre-game, but then armies that don't want to use them pregame get 6 for the first turn?

Yeah, something like that could work.


EDIT:

 Crimson wrote:
I think a lot of the pregame stratagems shouldn't be stratagems. Anything that is an unit or a gear upgrade (Iron-hail heavy stubbers, Chapter Master, Veteran Intercessors, Relics) should cost points. Making these sort of things cost CP just confuses the system. Stratagems should be one-off tricks, permanent upgrades should cost points.

Agreed.

If you go to an era before CP and stratagems, then you go back to 7th.

Let's not go back to 7th.

I like stratagems, I think they add an extra tactical flexibility to the game which can make similar armies act very differently. However command points, and mainly re-rolls are a source of crap and constant annoyance.

My suggestion would be to strip out command points, and the cost to stratagems. I would make a re-roll a stratagem and then the way it would function be is, you get to pick any 2 stratagem cards you want per 500 points, so you get 8 at 2000 points, each stratagem can be duplicated once if you wish (with some being once only as described below). You would then only be able to use a maximum of 2 per game turn, none are re-usable after their use, and you cannot use your duplicate stratagem in the same turn.

I'd then for balance make certain very powerful stratagems only able to be used from turn two on wards, and those would also be unable to be duplicated. So agents of vect would not be abe to be used in turn 1, and it would be once per battle, with similar powerful stratagems being nerfed in the same fashion,

So that stratagem card for the re-roll a single dice roll would become twice per game now. Evidently some strats would be chosen over others, but then some that are too expensive currently may actually get chosen now.

 vaklor4 wrote:
If you go to an era before CP and stratagems, then you go back to 7th.

Ah, yes. I forgot that 40k started with 7th edition.

 Galef wrote:
I think Command points is apt because you are using your influence as a leader to Command your units to do impressive stuff.

But what grinds my gears is that a Guard Commander can have influence over a SM force. Some, sure, but the mechanics as they stand reward far too much mixing to make sense.

What I'd prefer is some kind of "per turn" CP generation that is less dependent on detachments.
Detachments are fine to generate CPs, but right now certain ones grant far too many over others, encouraging players to cram the cheapest of X for their army of Y.

What it SHOULD look like is closer to when 8E dropped.
Battalions back down to 3CP, Brigades back down 9, all others as is.
Then, we make Battle Forged be the primary generator of CPs: 3 per battle round so long as the WL is alive.

Now armies that want to go heavy on Battalions will only have 2-4CPs more that a list that takes Spearhead, Vanguards, etc. (as opposed to 5-9 more on average)
But everyone get 3 more per turn. This would also alleviate the issue of one opponent running out of CPs several turns before their opponent.

-

I can see why people can be miffed about a guard commander positively influencing a SM warlord or such with command points, so that’s why I look at is that these combined forces are benefiting me, the real commander, with points to use.

 vaklor4 wrote:
If you go to an era before CP and stratagems, then you go back to 7th.

Let's not go back to 7th.

7th had a lot of issues but the major crux of the problem was GW's unwillingness to do any sort of oversight on game balance. The core rules where deep and allowed for a lot of interesting gameplay without needing a bunch of gimmick stratagems. 8th using index armies without stratagems and Command Points is basically just move, shoot, charge without almost no other mechanics. 7th without the formations and an equivalent to the indexes would still be an interesting game because the core rules allow for a lot of variety, mechanics, and gameplay outside of just move, shoot, charge.