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 like the system of command points and stratagems but it has the unfortunate problem of making certen armies a little too power ful when it comes to CP then others. For example I can create a list worth 957 points for the Astra M and get 25 command points, leaving a lot of room for extras were others stuggle to get 8 at 2000 points. To fix this I think placing a maximum cap on the number of CP you can have in matched play would work. I would propose 15, your standard 3 plus the 12 from a brigade detachment. You would still be able to take more dettachments if you want more units but ypu would not get the extra CP. One question is how to handle special abilities, warlord traits, and relics that give extra CP like Azraels Supreme Tactician. Thoughts?

This seems like a decent bandaid, but I feel other alternatives would better address the core issue.

Either of the following CP generation systems would effectively put a flat cap on CP while also making it easier to balance the CP cost of strats and/or creating more of an incentive for mono-book lists:

* Both players get a flat X CP per Y points of game size. For example, both players might get 3 CP per 500 points meaning they'd both have 12 CP to work with in a 2,000 point game. This means that you can now price stratagems based on the assumption that players will have 9 or 12 CP in a "normal" game of 1500 or 2000 points. This also divorces CP generation from troops so you're no longer punishing themed armies that don't use troops for being fluffy and no longer designing troops as relatively unimpressive units that make up for being less desirable by being tied to CP generation.

* Both players start with X CP as above, then spend that CP to buy detachments, possibly putting an extra cost on detachments that don't share the same chapter-level keyword with the first. Troop-heavy detachments cost fewer CP than troop-light detachments. This keeps troops central to CP generation and encourages players to fill out one or two detachments from the same faction rather than taking lots of small detachments from allied factions.

"Detachments that do not share a <Faction> keyword (other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc.) with your Warlord do not generate Command Points."

It doesn't totally break soup armies, since you can still take a CP battery detachment and whatever other elite detachments you want if that's your bag. But it leans harder to encouraging mono-armies.

It seems elegant, which probably means I'm missing something.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
"Detachments that do not share a <Faction> keyword (other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc.) with your Warlord do not generate Command Points."

It doesn't totally break soup armies, since you can still take a CP battery detachment and whatever other elite detachments you want if that's your bag. But it leans harder to encouraging mono-armies.

It seems elegant, which probably means I'm missing something.

Take Two Battery Detachments of Guard and one "real" detachment. Make a random Company Commander your warlord.

All this does is penalise armies that don't have a stratagem to give warlord traits to non-warlords.

As stated by myself and many others before, the best way to fix CP is to give all armies the same amount of CP to start with and rebalance stratagem costs to better reflect this.



This would require some effort on GW's part though, so I doubt we would see it till a future edition.

Just limit CP usage to the detachment that generated them. Boom, fixed.

Crazy Jay wrote:
Just limit CP usage to the detachment that generated them. Boom, fixed.

You need to rephrase this as "Players have to staple a big L on their forehead if they take any detachment other than Battalion or Brigade. And they have to paint the L (before stapling it) if they take an Auxiliary Support Detachment."

 solkan wrote:

Crazy Jay wrote:
Just limit CP usage to the detachment that generated them. Boom, fixed.

You need to rephrase this as "Players have to staple a big L on their forehead if they take any detachment other than Battalion or Brigade. And they have to paint the L (before stapling it) if they take an Auxiliary Support Detachment."

Seems fair, if we can't just fix GW's mistake and remove those detachments entirely.

 Peregrine wrote:

 solkan wrote:

Crazy Jay wrote:
Just limit CP usage to the detachment that generated them. Boom, fixed.

You need to rephrase this as "Players have to staple a big L on their forehead if they take any detachment other than Battalion or Brigade. And they have to paint the L (before stapling it) if they take an Auxiliary Support Detachment."

Seems fair, if we can't just fix GW's mistake and remove those detachments entirely.

In the same manner that simply banning playing or including Imperial Guard (or whatever it was renamed to) detachments would address the Imperial Soup issue. If we can’t fix GW’s mistakes in that codex...

 solkan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 solkan wrote:

Crazy Jay wrote:
Just limit CP usage to the detachment that generated them. Boom, fixed.

You need to rephrase this as "Players have to staple a big L on their forehead if they take any detachment other than Battalion or Brigade. And they have to paint the L (before stapling it) if they take an Auxiliary Support Detachment."

Seems fair, if we can't just fix GW's mistake and remove those detachments entirely.

In the same manner that simply banning playing or including Imperial Guard (or whatever it was renamed to) detachments would address the Imperial Soup issue. If we can’t fix GW’s mistakes in that codex...

It is for the good of the game.

Ice_can wrote:
It is for the good of the game.

Removing the non Troop focused detachments?
Or IG?

I just wish they would change it to X per turn, based on game size. Part of the problem is you can dump a whole lot of stratagems at once, making that initial alpha strike all the worse.

 Stormonu wrote:
I just wish they would change it to X per turn, based on game size. Part of the problem is you can dump a whole lot of stratagems at once, making that initial alpha strike all the worse.

Unless they totally reboot the game to not need pre-game CP for deployment stratagems, this won't work.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I just wish they would change it to X per turn, based on game size. Part of the problem is you can dump a whole lot of stratagems at once, making that initial alpha strike all the worse.

Unless they totally reboot the game to not need pre-game CP for deployment stratagems, this won't work.

Or you just use your first turn CP to do it.

I'm alright with CP per turn, but I still think it should be limited by faction it's generated by.

Rather than limiting CP to the detachment that generated it, limit it to detachments with shared keywords, excepting the CHAOS, IMPERIUM, and AELDARI key words. That way, an Imperial Guard company commander can use his support assets (CP) to command the attached Basilisk artillery battery (separate detachment), but can't command the Imperial Knight within a completely different command structure.

The army's core generated CP could be spent anywhere, but that is a much more limited amount.

It requires more bookkeeping, but basically limits CP to individual Codices, and how CP costs are balanced within those books.

Some Codices would need reworking a bit to add exceptions/more organic CP, like the Assassins one.

This is largely due to GW's inconsistency and player base's refusal to nerf what's been working for them.

I am all for limiting CP usage to the detachment that generated them, barring the 3 CP you get for being battleforged. The on-going argument is that limiting the CP usage to the detachment that generated them is that it will create too much bookkeeping - I'm sorry but this is a load of horse poop and you know it.

We pretend that we don't already keep track of other core elements in the game - accrued damage on multi-wound models come to mind.

We pretend that we don't already use tokens in the game to keep track of things in the game - homing beacons & blips come to mind.

The fact of the matter is, resolving this CP battery issue is as simple as allocating tokens for them, just like how GW released tokens to represent blips.

Release paper token packs, and then the premium token packs (plastic, clay, metal, w/e GW may fancy). They would come with 3 battleforged CP tokens + assortment of colors to represent the detachments. Think energy cards/mana from Pokemon TCG/magic.

You can further differentiate the battleforged CP with detachment generated CP's as "neutral CP" and "detachmental CP". Certain non-detachment based CP's requires 'neutral CP's to activate. Army strats need the 'detachmental CP's allocated to the detachment AND/OR 'neutral CP's.

Better yet - even out the CP generated from non battalion/brigade detachments to curtail the NEED to take a CP battery. Not every army can afford to take a battalion or a brigade. Hell, some armies actually can't even make a brigade without severly hamstringing their army by taking inconsequential units for the sake of filling in the FOC. Let everyone have CP's FFS.

 skchsan wrote:
This is largely due to GW's inconsistency and player base's refusal to nerf what's been working for them.

I am all for limiting CP usage to the detachment that generated them, barring the 3 CP you get for being battleforged. The on-going argument is that limiting the CP usage to the detachment that generated them is that it will create too much bookkeeping - I'm sorry but this is a load of horse poop and you know it.

We pretend that we don't already keep track of other core elements in the game - accrued damage on multi-wound models come to mind.

We pretend that we don't already use tokens in the game to keep track of things in the game - homing beacons & blips come to mind.

The fact of the matter is, resolving this CP battery issue is as simple as allocating tokens for them, just like how GW released tokens to represent blips.

Release paper token packs, and then the premium token packs (plastic, clay, metal, w/e GW may fancy). They would come with 3 battleforged CP tokens + assortment of colors to represent the detachments. Think energy cards/mana from Pokemon TCG/magic.

You can further differentiate the battleforged CP with detachment generated CP's as "neutral CP" and "detachmental CP". Certain non-detachment based CP's requires 'neutral CP's to activate. Army strats need the 'detachmental CP's allocated to the detachment AND/OR 'neutral CP's.

I still think it makes more sense to have keyword based "faction" CPs instead of "detachment" CPs, obviously excluding the chief soup keywords (CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI).

 Haighus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
This is largely due to GW's inconsistency and player base's refusal to nerf what's been working for them.

I am all for limiting CP usage to the detachment that generated them, barring the 3 CP you get for being battleforged. The on-going argument is that limiting the CP usage to the detachment that generated them is that it will create too much bookkeeping - I'm sorry but this is a load of horse poop and you know it.

We pretend that we don't already keep track of other core elements in the game - accrued damage on multi-wound models come to mind.

We pretend that we don't already use tokens in the game to keep track of things in the game - homing beacons & blips come to mind.

The fact of the matter is, resolving this CP battery issue is as simple as allocating tokens for them, just like how GW released tokens to represent blips.

Release paper token packs, and then the premium token packs (plastic, clay, metal, w/e GW may fancy). They would come with 3 battleforged CP tokens + assortment of colors to represent the detachments. Think energy cards/mana from Pokemon TCG/magic.

You can further differentiate the battleforged CP with detachment generated CP's as "neutral CP" and "detachmental CP". Certain non-detachment based CP's requires 'neutral CP's to activate. Army strats need the 'detachmental CP's allocated to the detachment AND/OR 'neutral CP's.

I still think it makes more sense to have keyword based "faction" CPs instead of "detachment" CPs, obviously excluding the chief soup keywords (CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI).

Sure, faction CP would work too. The matter of fact is that token system is not that hard to implement, and it'll mean more sales to GW.

Micro transaction is the name of the game in the current entertainment economy. GW needs to get on that train.

Studies show that people are more likely to make multiple small transactions than one big transaction.

 solkan wrote:
In the same manner that simply banning playing or including Imperial Guard (or whatever it was renamed to) detachments would address the Imperial Soup issue. If we can’t fix GW’s mistakes in that codex..

It's not at all the same. IG are fine from a design concept point of view, they just have some point cost issues. There's nothing inherently wrong or unbalanced about the faction and all of its problems can be fixed. The new detachments, on the other hand, are inherently flawed and create balance issues just by existing. The only way to prevent them from being an issue is to nerf them so heavily that the penalties for using them are sufficient to overcome the power advantages.

 Peregrine wrote:

 solkan wrote:
In the same manner that simply banning playing or including Imperial Guard (or whatever it was renamed to) detachments would address the Imperial Soup issue. If we can’t fix GW’s mistakes in that codex..

It's not at all the same. IG are fine from a design concept point of view, they just have some point cost issues. There's nothing inherently wrong or unbalanced about the faction and all of its problems can be fixed. The new detachments, on the other hand, are inherently flawed and create balance issues just by existing. The only way to prevent them from being an issue is to nerf them so heavily that the penalties for using them are sufficient to overcome the power advantages.

Right. Imperial Guard is fine. That’s why the most excited I’ve ever heard a Tyranid player was when he was discussing the fact that GSC can take Guard allies. And it’s just a coincidence, and has nothing to do with design flaws in IG, that it features so heavily in Imperial Soup.

Simpler to just ban Guard until it can be fixed. And in the interim, people who own Guard models can continue playing using counts-as. Becoming familiar with other armies will even benefit them and help them grow as players.

What about having you initial detachment CP only work for "before the battle begins" and then from the first battle round onwards both players generate a set amount of CP points depending on different factors.

- Size of game
- warlord (alive/dead,+-10W, Monster/vehicle,Titanic, ect.
- objectives

This way, people can still build those battalions and stuff, but the CP they produce only applies to the beginning of the game. While the meat of the game relies on the person to use their limited CP that is generated per battle round to tactically be used for their battle needs.

This would also probably mean that CP generating items would have to have some penalties for using them. I would probably think make them cost some of your generating CP in exchange of being able to "make" CP.

So an example would be this.

1500 pt game you generate 3CP flat.
Your warlord is a 8 W character with no extra keywords, so you generate 2 CP standard.
And your army holds 1 objective at the beginning of the battle round, which is 1CP extra.

this would be 6CP this battle round for you to use.

Lets compare this to his opponent.

1500 pt game = 3CP
his Warlord is a 16W monster, which means he generates 4CP (this is to represent him being a greater influence on the battlefield, and also because he cannot hide from his enemies)
and his army holds 2 objectives = 2CP

this would be 9CP this battle round for them to use.

Titanic could be +2CP to show that they are both an absolute icon for their army and a priority for yours.

Having say 1 CP generating ability would cost 1CP and every 1 after that cost an additional CP. So if you had say 4 CP generating items you would suffer a 4CP penalty to your normal generating per turn but you get access to the ability to generate more, which is strong in this sense cause your rolls could mean you get those extra 4 CP really fast

This is my opinion

mchammadad wrote:
What about having you initial detachment CP only work for "before the battle begins" and then from the first battle round onwards both players generate a set amount of CP points depending on different factors.

- Size of game
- warlord (alive/dead,+-10W, Monster/vehicle,Titanic, ect.
- objectives

This way, people can still build those battalions and stuff, but the CP they produce only applies to the beginning of the game. While the meat of the game relies on the person to use their limited CP that is generated per battle round to tactically be used for their battle needs.

This would also probably mean that CP generating items would have to have some penalties for using them. I would probably think make them cost some of your generating CP in exchange of being able to "make" CP.

So an example would be this.

1500 pt game you generate 3CP flat.
Your warlord is a 8 W character with no extra keywords, so you generate 2 CP standard.
And your army holds 1 objective at the beginning of the battle round, which is 1CP extra.

this would be 6CP this battle round for you to use.

Lets compare this to his opponent.

1500 pt game = 3CP
his Warlord is a 16W monster, which means he generates 4CP (this is to represent him being a greater influence on the battlefield, and also because he cannot hide from his enemies)
and his army holds 2 objectives = 2CP

this would be 9CP this battle round for them to use.

Titanic could be +2CP to show that they are both an absolute icon for their army and a priority for yours.

Having say 1 CP generating ability would cost 1CP and every 1 after that cost an additional CP. So if you had say 4 CP generating items you would suffer a 4CP penalty to your normal generating per turn but you get access to the ability to generate more, which is strong in this sense cause your rolls could mean you get those extra 4 CP really fast

This is my opinion

I think if a rule can't be explained in words in a single paragraph comprised mostly of simple sentences it's not a good rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's not at all the same. IG are fine from a design concept point of view, they just have some point cost issues.

No, they have MAJOR points issue. The points issue is so bad that it's actually causing issues at the design concept level. Quantity is its own quality is a fluff standpoint. Fluff cannot and shall not dictate how a faction is designed. Otherwise, marine should have nigh-invulnerability, Tau should have 60" pulse rifles, Tyranid/orks should be 10x cheaper than guards because they're supposed to outnumber even guards at a 10 to 1 ratio, Eldar untargettable, and grey knights should be what they were in 5th ed, and custodes should exist only at cell level, not a company level because they're all extinct but a handful of select few.

 Peregrine wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong or unbalanced about the faction and all of its problems can be fixed. The new detachments, on the other hand, are inherently flawed and create balance issues just by existing. The only way to prevent them from being an issue is to nerf them so heavily that the penalties for using them are sufficient to overcome the power advantages.

Agreed. The specialist detachment being allowed in matched play is by far the worst game design move in 8th ed so far. Why go the lengths to get rid of the mess that was formation only to bring it back? Again, campaign fluff is fluff. Keep fluff out of matched play.

I dislike faction-locking CP because it punishes factions that are bad at CP generation but not really problematic. Sure, faction-locking your IG CP to your IG units keeps them from serving as a battery to a Castellan. It also makes it even harder for that Sisters + Grey Knights army over there to provide their GK with CP.

So in a vacuum, restricting CP usage to the faction that generated the CP *does* address some very specific problems, but it also creates a bunch of innocent casualties.