Switch Theme:

CPs based directly off Troops  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran





Mississippi

An oblique mention was made in the “Do you like 8E” thread that made me think of this:

The number of CPs you get per round is based directly on the number of Troop units you have at the start of the round (Units in reserve don’t provide CPs). For example, your army had two-five man squads of tactical marines, you get 2 CP at the start of the turn. If you have two ten-man squad of tactical marines, you would get 2 CP, unless you Combat squad them, which would then give you 4. If you lose a troop unit, you would gain fewer CP’s in future turns - so in the first example, if you lost one of your 5-man squads, you’d be down to 1 CP a turn.

The advantage of having large number of models in a troop would be to buffer them against loss, whereas having minimum models in a troop unit would give you more CPs. Transports would become more useful, as they could provide a layer of protection to the CP-generating troops inside.


What do ya’ll Think?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 21:13:45


It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Death-Dealing Dark Angels Devastator



Leeds, UK

Doesn't this just benefit horde armies and punish elite armies?

And makes it even more important to soup in as many guard as possible.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






This sort of doesn't do anything to stop IG CP spam no?

Personally i think id rather see the return of something like Strategy rating for HQs

Different types of HQ units give different amounts of CP per turn.

Super special heros give out more like the smurf heros.

i think it thematically makes more sense that a "command" point comes from the commander ya know?

edit: realistically i have no idea what the effect of doing this would be. though id like to think it would allow people to run more mono lists or different lists as almost everyone needs an HQ model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 21:20:58


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






Just delete Necrons from the game then?

This just buffs IG even further.

Now, if it was based off the number of points spent on Troops, it might be better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 21:25:37


+++++There are currently NINETY FOUR (94) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++ (Discord: BaconCatBug#0294)
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Because some people get their knickers in a twist, I'll list these RaW 'oddities' in my sig. Sadly GW's promise of fixing their broken rules has itself been broken. Zoom in to read them.
RaW you cannot advance and then fire assault weapons, you can't shoot pistols if within 1" of an enemy; "minimum" ranges don't work; the game simply breaks if you ever have more than one wounded model in a unit; the game also breaks if a single rule ever tries to do multiple things simultaneously; Librarians on Bikes are locked to the Index power list, Howling Banshees can't declare a charge further than 12"; Spore Mines have an infinite range; Shroudpsalm technically doesn't do anything, only enemy models, not friendly models, have permission to move on top of a Skyshield Landing Pad; T'au have access to stackable Ignore Wounds (albeit against Mortal Wounds only); the T'au Early Warning Override Support System only works if a unit is "teleporting to the battlefield", not just arriving mid-battle; you can only ever use the Deathwatch Teleportarium Stratagem "once", and then never again in any battle after you use it; if a model splits fire, each weapon must target a different unit; a Tyrant Guard with Lashwhip can absorb an infinite amount of damage via Shieldwall between the time they die and the time they fight; Codex Leman Russ's can take an infinite amount of Hunter-Killer Missiles, Storm Bolters and Heavy Stubbers; Imothekh's 'Lord of the Storm' ability hits the "target unit" twice; Wave Serpents cannot be legally charged at by any model with a standard base; Slab Shields, along with the 'Take Cover!' stratagem no longer have any effect; and vehicles that are "slain" by a special effect do not trigger the "Explodes" ability; Taking any Forge World Space Marine Named Characters denies the use of a Chapter Tactic; Vectored Manoeuvring Thrusters may be used to move within 1" of an enemy unit during the Movement Phase and does not benefit from FLY; and Scout Sentinels may use "Go! Recon!" to move within 1" of an enemy unit during the shooting phase.
--- Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities --- Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. --- Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran





Mississippi

Well, if you’re using the “Loyal 32” for spam CP’s, under this, you would now get 3 CP per turn. But I don’t imagine wiping out three IG squads would be very difficult, especially considering the amount of firepower in the game.

In a way, it is pointed based - wiping out a 5/10 man marine squad is more difficult than erasing a 10-man guard squad; wiping away 30 orcs to reduce the enemy’s CPS would take a more concentrated effort as well.

I’m advocating it because to me it brings a unique dynamic to the game - troops become the true “core” of an army - between Objective secured and CP generation You want to be somewhat aggressive with them, but careful at the same time. Elites and other slots have their own unique abilities, but now they rely on the backbone troops to make even more special, as you can’t use spend CPs without the troops around. Elites also gain a new mission - hunt down and destroy the enemy’s troops while protecting your own. Do you want to spend your time working on the Knights roaming the battlefield or pick off the IG that could cripple the Knight’s ability to use CP abilities first?

While I can see the argument of CPs flowing from a commander narratively, game-wise I think it is more interesting if they are supplied by the common troops that make up your battleforce.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/06 21:47:19


It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




If you want to basically throw what little current balance we have out the window and only every see armies with the cheapest or most OP troop choices in anything but casual/narative games, it's a great idea.

Otherwise it's just trying to reintroduce the force org chart by stealth. CP's not being universally costed is one of the main issues with the balance of soup lists and is rendering a number of armies mono build useless as the strategums etc they reluctantly rely on are being jacked up in CP because Soup allows spaming of undercosted CP on strategums for CP limited factions.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I don't think anyone was complaining that CP needed to be more heavily weighted toward MSU Troop hordes, dude.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 23:45:40


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






Alter the rule by generating CPs by points-spent-on-troops. Eg. 700 points spent on troops = 7 CPs. Then scale it for other categories, with special units occasionally getting a bonus/nerf.

1 CP for every 100 points in troops, rounding down.
1 CP for every 200 points spent on Elites, etc.

By Unit:
Ripper Swarms do not count their points for CP generation.
Tactical Squads count double if taken with 10 models.

(Or whatever. You get the idea)

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






This may not be the most relevant for most armies, I'll need some feedback from people who have played anything but orks for the last 5 years!

Why not tie CP per turn (which I like) to a HQ, who will have special rules for how much they generate depending on the army build you have?

In previous editions;
Warbosses made a unit of nobs or Meganobs troops
big meks made a deff dread troops
wazdakka made bikers troops

This is all long gone, but what if you tied CP to the units in the army:

If a Warboss is your warlord, you gain 1CP for each unit of Boys, Nobs or Meganobs in your army per turn.
If a Big Mek is your warlord, you gain 1CP for each unit of Walkers in your army per turn.
If Wazdakka came back, as he should, you get 1CP for each unit of Bikers in your army per turn.
If Ghazkull is your warlord, you gain 2CP for each unit of Boys, Nobs or Meganobs in your army per turn (he's a better warlord!)
If Kaptin Badrukk is your warlord, 2CP per unit of flash gitz in your army per turn.

Rough assumptions to other armies:

If Kharne the Betrayer is your warlord, 2CP per unit of Khorne Bezerkers in your army per turn
If Trazyn the Infinite is your warlord, 1CP for each unit of praetorians (the things he can replace himself with) per turn
If a Chapter Master is your warlord, 1CP for each unit of 5 or less tacticals, 2CP for each unit of 6+ tacticals
Imperial Guard Commander (I can't think of his official name!) would give 1CP for every 2 squads of Guardsmen.



The trick, I think, (and I haven't worked out if I've done it in my above examples) is to make the units which grant CP the ones which don't much benefit from them. This way you have to balance your army between the units which give CP and the units which use them.

If you have a unit like lootas, which want to use the "More Dakka" stratagem (I think it's called that, in my defence it's early and I haven't consumed my weight in tea yet) and you let your warlord gain you enough CP to use this every turn for having the lootas, it would lead to pure loota spam. Grant CP for having Boys, and you end up with 3 units of boys, 1 of grots and 1 of lootas, to make the lootas shoot more and have grot shields each turn.

I also think that if your warlord is slain, you should pick another. You should also have a basic 2CP for being battleforged per turn, as this directly reflects that your army knows what it's doing, and so can make tactical decisions by itself.

What do you all think?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/07 07:34:33


4th Edition Orks in 7th, W/D/L 5/0/0 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

I think that this could be a fine idea, provided you add a single item: that HQ's personal wargear determines what can be taken as troops.

By this I mean that an Autarch or Farseer with a jetbike allows jetbike equipped models to be taken as troops. Bjorn the Fell Handed would allow dreadnoughts to be taken as troops. Shrike would allow Assault squads to be taken as troops. Shadowsun would allow Stealthsuits to be taken as troops, and so on.

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!' 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






^ I like the basic premise behind that idea, but worry it would be taken too far with the variety of characters available, and you'd wind up with some really skewed combos. Unsure.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 carldooley wrote:
I think that this could be a fine idea, provided you add a single item: that HQ's personal wargear determines what can be taken as troops.

By this I mean that an Autarch or Farseer with a jetbike allows jetbike equipped models to be taken as troops. Bjorn the Fell Handed would allow dreadnoughts to be taken as troops. Shrike would allow Assault squads to be taken as troops. Shadowsun would allow Stealthsuits to be taken as troops, and so on.

So if I want to play my dreadnaught list as aI currently van I now need to make them spacewolfs and by a special charictor to make them work, yet the meta lists spaming undercosted overpowered troops and 1 or 2 other units continue on exactly the same.

Also at some point your going to fall into a trap somewhere with shrike or the talon master or lysander being the only way to play an army same with eldar, choas etc.
I get the idea but you're missing the reason CP is currently a problem is because it has no universal value. And without an intrinsic points cost it leads to strategusm the cost the same noy costing the same.

3 CP strategum used twice when you have 9 is 2/3 of your CP
3 CP strategum used twice when you have 24CP is is 1/4 of your CP

2/3 is not the same as 1/4 especially if your playing the same strategums on the same target unit.
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




I'm really not a fan of tying CP to list building restrictions other than maybe the choice to soup or not. putting restrictions in place tied to specific types of units only switches the focus of the acrobatics people have to do to maximize their most valuable resource from one weirdly warping restriction to another.
Instead, tie CP to the total number of points that the game is played at, with maybe a modifier for each additional faction that they include, replacing the 3CP+ detachment system in place now,

"When mustering your army, if it consists of units from a single Faction, you gain 1 CP for every 100 points spent on non-Titanic units. If the army includes units from 2 factions, the player instead gains 1 CP for every 140 points of non-titanic units. If the army includes units from 3 factions, the player instead gains 1 CP for every 200 points spent on non-titanic units. You gain no additional CP for having units from more than 3 faction in your army."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/07 20:10:46


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Djangomatic82 wrote:
I'm really not a fan of tying CP to list building restrictions other than maybe the choice to soup or not. putting restrictions in place tied to specific types of units only switches the focus of the acrobatics people have to do to maximize their most valuable resource from one weirdly warping restriction to another.
Instead, tie CP to the total number of points that the game is played at, with maybe a modifier for each additional faction that they include, replacing the 3CP+ detachment system in place now,

"When mustering your army, if it consists of units from a single Faction, you gain 1 CP for every 100 points spent on non-Titanic units. If the army includes units from 2 factions, the player instead gains 1 CP for every 140 points of non-titanic units. If the army includes units from 3 factions, the player instead gains 1 CP for every 200 points spent on non-titanic units. You gain no additional CP for having units from more than 3 faction in your army."



I mostly agree with this. If we accept that...

A.) All units (including troops) should be worth their points and...
B.) Thematic armies that don't feature a lot of troops (white scars bike army, Iyanden wraith host, Death Wing terminators, etc.) are valid armies...

... then the number of "troops" in your army shouldn't matter. Tactical marines and dire avengers should be desirable because they're designed to fill a niche and have an appropriate points cost, not because they unlock a second finite resource (CP). Saim-Hann armies should have access to stratagems comparable to other armies without being penalized for focusing on thematic units that weren't arbitrarily designated as "troops" this edition (despite being arbitrarily designated as "troops" in previous editions).

Personally, I wouldn't penalize players for including titanic units in their armies though; such units should be priced according to their abilities just like everything else. A knight player shouldn't be penalized for having an army (or a single model) that happens to be efficient in the recent meta. Instead of calculating how many points you spent on units from different detachments with various keywords, I'd just give players X command points for every Y points of game size. So if X = 3 (for the sake of discussion) and Y = 500, then you'd have 9 command points in a 1500 point game The specific numbers can be adjusted.

You could maybe impose a a small, flat penalty for taking units from additional 'dexes. Spend 1 CP for a second detachment. Spend 2CP for a third. Something like that. It puts a small cost on the expanded options unlocked by taking units from different books but doesn't punish multi-faction armies into oblivion.
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




Wyldhunt wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't penalize players for including titanic units in their armies though; such units should be priced according to their abilities just like everything else. A knight player shouldn't be penalized for having an army (or a single model) that happens to be efficient in the recent meta. Instead of calculating how many points you spent on units from different detachments with various keywords, I'd just give players X command points for every Y points of game size. So if X = 3 (for the sake of discussion) and Y = 500, then you'd have 9 command points in a 1500 point game The specific numbers can be adjusted.

Yeah, i can see where your coming from and to respond to your point, i'd say that, personally, i feel that if a pure knight army could get the same 20CP, under my scenario, as a pure faction, it would most definitely bring us back to the same state the game was in before the CP regen nerf was implemented (IE: very bad). i honestly believe that knight focused armies are not balanced around having so much CP. As i put forward, with a list containing 3 questoris class knights, the player should still be able to field 6-700 points of armigers, giving them a number of CP not too off of what they are currently able to achieve, so not much of, if any, of a real penalty would be incurred. The same point would go for similar list we saw near the beginning of 8th, such as the Guilliman and 3 Falchions armies, etc...

The only way i could see allowing a pure titanic army from benefiting from these changes would be if their points were to receive a significant increase, along the lines of questoris being costed at the a rate similar to what dominus currently are and dominus beginning to approach the points level of a thunderhawk or warhound titan. This would obviously kill any possible work-ability of those kind of lists and would make the entire attempt moot if were were genuinely trying to allow players to field such armies. so, i really cant see another alternative that doesn't completely skew any game in favor of the titanic army if we allow them to get the same CP as non titanic armies.

Wyldhunt wrote:
You could maybe impose a a small, flat penalty for taking units from additional 'dexes. Spend 1 CP for a second detachment. Spend 2CP for a third. Something like that. It puts a small cost on the expanded options unlocked by taking units from different books but doesn't punish multi-faction armies into oblivion.

Unfortunately, i really dont think that would be sufficient and just further skew the army building bias more towards soup than it already is. Personally, i am a firm believer in the concept that there should be an opportunity cost for every decision you make when building your army and allowing soup to have the same amount of CP would be eliminating any trade offs when making that decision. Soup armies already double the number of abilities, stratagems and powers they have access too, as well as the much greater benefit of being able to eliminate and strategic gaps mono dex armies are saddles with, compositionally. As a trade off, i think that gaining less CP compared to mono dex armies is still a fair compromise, as well as leaving them with a similar amount of CP under my concept as most soup armies, that are not running 2x briggades, have to work with under our current system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/08 22:06:06


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




If your going to rewrite the how you generate CP's why shouldn't all armies be on the same CP.
That way strategums can be costed around the same base coat of CP.

Right now we have a pure knight list with 6CP at 2k and we have guard lists that can do 10 CP at 500 points.
Untill that level of crazy imbalance is addressed can CP costs of Strategums be balanced between soup and mono.

If there is inherently imbalance in the system you do get the mess that is allied soup lists.

What your talking about wouldn't sole the issue of people picking the most efficent troop units and then finding 1 or 2 units that they can then super boost with all that CP they are generating.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/08 22:22:00


 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Ice_can wrote:
If your going to rewrite the how you generate CP's why shouldn't all armies be on the same CP.
That way strategums can be costed around the same base coat of CP.

Right now we have a pure knight list with 6CP at 2k and we have guard lists that can do 10 CP at 500 points.
Untill that level of crazy imbalance is addressed can CP costs of Strategums be balanced between soup and mono.

If there is inherently imbalance in the system you do get the mess that is allied soup lists.

What your talking about wouldn't sole the issue of people picking the most efficent troop units and then finding 1 or 2 units that they can then super boost with all that CP they are generating.


Until you realize that the value of the model also is important for the value of the stratagem.
Basically Rotating ion shields is a looooot more effective due to more points beeing affected then take cover f.e.
Same with cacophony etc.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
If your going to rewrite the how you generate CP's why shouldn't all armies be on the same CP.
That way strategums can be costed around the same base coat of CP.

Right now we have a pure knight list with 6CP at 2k and we have guard lists that can do 10 CP at 500 points.
Untill that level of crazy imbalance is addressed can CP costs of Strategums be balanced between soup and mono.

If there is inherently imbalance in the system you do get the mess that is allied soup lists.

What your talking about wouldn't sole the issue of people picking the most efficent troop units and then finding 1 or 2 units that they can then super boost with all that CP they are generating.


Until you realize that the value of the model also is important for the value of the stratagem.
Basically Rotating ion shields is a looooot more effective due to more points beeing affected then take cover f.e.
Same with cacophony etc.


Take cover can also be used on 200 to 400 points unjts of bullgryns, as I never see anyone use guard strategums on guardsmen.

Yeah I do get what your trying to get at however the point is 1CP out of nine and 1CP out of 20 isn't the same hence them not being equally effective.

But allies do rather break that by allowing cheap army CP to be spent on expensive CP Codex strategums, if every codex generated the same CP allies would be a lot less of a problem.
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Ice_can wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
If your going to rewrite the how you generate CP's why shouldn't all armies be on the same CP.
That way strategums can be costed around the same base coat of CP.

Right now we have a pure knight list with 6CP at 2k and we have guard lists that can do 10 CP at 500 points.
Untill that level of crazy imbalance is addressed can CP costs of Strategums be balanced between soup and mono.

If there is inherently imbalance in the system you do get the mess that is allied soup lists.

What your talking about wouldn't sole the issue of people picking the most efficent troop units and then finding 1 or 2 units that they can then super boost with all that CP they are generating.


Until you realize that the value of the model also is important for the value of the stratagem.
Basically Rotating ion shields is a looooot more effective due to more points beeing affected then take cover f.e.
Same with cacophony etc.


Take cover can also be used on 200 to 400 points unjts of bullgryns, as I never see anyone use guard strategums on guardsmen.

Yeah I do get what your trying to get at however the point is 1CP out of nine and 1CP out of 20 isn't the same hence them not being equally effective.

But allies do rather break that by allowing cheap army CP to be spent on expensive CP Codex strategums, if every codex generated the same CP allies would be a lot less of a problem.


No, what you want to implement is basically a Goldstandart for CP.

Newsflash, that ain't working. Regardless off monetary or Gamescenario.

Infact the whole dual system with stratagem does not work to be balanced propperly, even IF you cut allies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/09 08:01:29


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
If your going to rewrite the how you generate CP's why shouldn't all armies be on the same CP.
That way strategums can be costed around the same base coat of CP.

Right now we have a pure knight list with 6CP at 2k and we have guard lists that can do 10 CP at 500 points.
Untill that level of crazy imbalance is addressed can CP costs of Strategums be balanced between soup and mono.

If there is inherently imbalance in the system you do get the mess that is allied soup lists.

What your talking about wouldn't sole the issue of people picking the most efficent troop units and then finding 1 or 2 units that they can then super boost with all that CP they are generating.


Until you realize that the value of the model also is important for the value of the stratagem.
Basically Rotating ion shields is a looooot more effective due to more points beeing affected then take cover f.e.
Same with cacophony etc.


Take cover can also be used on 200 to 400 points unjts of bullgryns, as I never see anyone use guard strategums on guardsmen.

Yeah I do get what your trying to get at however the point is 1CP out of nine and 1CP out of 20 isn't the same hence them not being equally effective.

But allies do rather break that by allowing cheap army CP to be spent on expensive CP Codex strategums, if every codex generated the same CP allies would be a lot less of a problem.


No, what you want to implement is basically a Goldstandart for CP.

Newsflash, that ain't working. Regardless off monetary or Gamescenario.

Infact the whole dual system with stratagem does not work to be balanced propperly, even IF you cut allies.


Apologies, but I'm not sure I see what you're getting at. Standardizing the amount of CP available would let us price stratagems more accurately. Currently, an army containing a knight might have very few CP (if it stuck to a single book) or it might have a ton of CP (if it brought in cheap CP batteries.) If we knew that a 1500 or 2000 point game would have about X CP available, we could decide what portion of X something like Rotate Ion Shields is worth.

You seem to be saying that this doesn't work because stratagems are more or less powerful depending on what units you use them on. Which is true, but also the case with the current system. So if standardizing the availability of CP is an overall improvement that doesn't impact an existing issue with the game, it's still an overall improvement, yes? Or am I completely misunderstanding you?
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Yes and no, the problem even if you standardize cp you still have the problem of specific stratagem unit combination with certain traits beeing massively overpowered compared to the overall effectiveness of it for a whole army.
What i am getting at stratagems interaction with cp doesn't work.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:
Yes and no, the problem even if you standardize cp you still have the problem of specific stratagem unit combination with certain traits beeing massively overpowered compared to the overall effectiveness of it for a whole army.

Well, my knee-jerk reaction to that is to say that you'd generally want to base the CP cost of a stratagem around one of its relatively optimized applications. Endless Cacophony should be priced with obliterators and noise marines in mind; not raptors. If there is an edge case interaction that makes the stratagem too powerful, you can probably put a modest limitation on the stratagem to reign in that specific outlier. If Endless Cacophony were too potent on, I don't know, a decimator or something. You could add a line to make the strat only work on Infantry or what have you.


What i am getting at stratagems interaction with cp doesn't work.

So you're suggesting stratagems no longer be fueled by CP?
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Wyldhunt wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Yes and no, the problem even if you standardize cp you still have the problem of specific stratagem unit combination with certain traits beeing massively overpowered compared to the overall effectiveness of it for a whole army.

Well, my knee-jerk reaction to that is to say that you'd generally want to base the CP cost of a stratagem around one of its relatively optimized applications. Endless Cacophony should be priced with obliterators and noise marines in mind; not raptors. If there is an edge case interaction that makes the stratagem too powerful, you can probably put a modest limitation on the stratagem to reign in that specific outlier. If Endless Cacophony were too potent on, I don't know, a decimator or something. You could add a line to make the strat only work on Infantry or what have you.


What i am getting at stratagems interaction with cp doesn't work.

So you're suggesting stratagems no longer be fueled by CP?


First: that's the issue, stratagems to be balanced that way is frankly absurd at the rate of rule changes and new releases.
Also then there is the problem, especially csm atm face the fact that without powerfull strategems somewhat toned down lists aren't even good enough for their Niveau, if you price them however along the problem combos that would be unfair and absurd for these.

Second: yes, infact all "equipment" stratagems such as flakk missiles should be buyable options (frankly aa missiles for missile launchers should be just always there considering the cost of a missile launcher)

Stratagems should be dictated by what army trait you have and alot more incline with the Chosen detachments aswell as subfaction rather then this.
Also should be limited to the ammount of slots you filled in a detachment and the ammount of stratagems generated with slots tied to them aswell.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:

First: that's the issue, stratagems to be balanced that way is frankly absurd at the rate of rule changes and new releases.
Also then there is the problem, especially csm atm face the fact that without powerfull strategems somewhat toned down lists aren't even good enough for their Niveau, if you price them however along the problem combos that would be unfair and absurd for these.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. Changing a stratagems cost by even a single CP is a pretty major change. If a strat is definitely too good at 2CP and definitely too expensive at 4CP, then you can be pretty confident that it's priced correctly at 3CP.

I do see what you're getting at though. Maybe strats should just have more situational modifiers to their costs? Something like Endless Cacophony could be priced at 1 CP for units with a Power Level less than 10, 2CP forless than 20, etc. Or whatever the exact numbers ought to be. That way, something expensive like an obliterator squad would pay a premium for it, but a humble CSM troop squad could use it cheaply.


Second: yes, infact all "equipment" stratagems such as flakk missiles should be buyable options (frankly aa missiles for missile launchers should be just always there considering the cost of a missile launcher)

Mostly agree with you here. Not a huge fan of flakk missiles and haywire grenades being strats. However, I'd worry that they might be a bit too good en masse. Even if they were only usable by one model per unit, free flakk missiles would mean that a trio of devastator squads could average 6 mortal wounds to a flyer turn 1 on their own. And I doubt people would love taking d3 mortal wounds from a bunch of haywire grenade wyches every turn.

Maybe if only a single unit per turn could use that kind of weaponry, and then you pay a small amount to give units the option to be the one to use that weapon? So maybe I can give an entire wych unit access to haywire grenades for, let's say, 15 points. Once per turn, any of my upgraded wych units could be the one to fling a single haywire grenade. Or maybe I'm overthinking it and such weapons just need to be given conventional profiles and points costs. (In which case we'd want to be sure to give flakk missiles a niche compared to krak missiles; in the past it was sometimes better to try to get lucky with a krak than to use the less damaging flakk.)

On that note, I'd really like relic weapons to just be purchasable weapons. Let 0-1 of my Poisoned Tongue characters pay the points to take Soul Seeker without it eating up one of my finite (and usually more useful) relic slots.


Stratagems should be dictated by what army trait you have and alot more incline with the Chosen detachments aswell as subfaction rather then this.

Sounds really cool. I'd love to see a more specific pitch.


Also should be limited to the ammount of slots you filled in a detachment and the ammount of stratagems generated with slots tied to them aswell.

That bit sounds like it could run into problems. Wouldn't that run into some of the existing problems where armies with lots of cheap units in every slot can utilize stratagems better than more elite armies? Compare the ability of an ork or IG army to fill out a batallion compared to that of Grey Knights, for instance.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 carldooley wrote:
I think that this could be a fine idea, provided you add a single item: that HQ's personal wargear determines what can be taken as troops.

By this I mean that an Autarch or Farseer with a jetbike allows jetbike equipped models to be taken as troops. Bjorn the Fell Handed would allow dreadnoughts to be taken as troops. Shrike would allow Assault squads to be taken as troops. Shadowsun would allow Stealthsuits to be taken as troops, and so on.


A large part of the balancing factor of my proposal was that the troops gift CP but are largely inefficient at using it. If you allow HQ's to make specific units troops, and those units also generate CP, but use CP, then you end up with spam.

EG:

Kharne the betrayer, who would logically make bezerkers troops.

Bezerkers generate CP each turn, but also want to use their "fight a third time" stratagem every chance they get. So you end up with an army of khorne bezerkers who get their best stratagem for free as long as they are alive - as such, you might as well write it into their rules.

If you keep bezerkers as elites and need CSM squads and cultists, you end up with a more balanced list.


For giving a set CP for points value, it sounds good until it is abused. If there is no reward for bringing a balanced list, then people will just spam their powerful units. Example: Ork Lootas, with the more dakka stratagem, currently need troop and HQ units to get it. If you get the same CP as everyone else, you could just bring lootas, and keep using the stratagem.

To summarise my suggestion (as I feel I'm getting muddled myself!):

Either:
1: HQ units generate CP depending on the number of certain units in the army, as long as the original list is battleforged (using proper detachments and paying troop taxes).
2: Army Theme (cooler name needed) to select for your army which generates CP based on the number of certain units in the army (so killing HQ doesn't affect it as much).

I'm even thinking that having HQ units do this in general without needing to be a warlord, obviously with duplicates not generating any extra - "If there is at least 1 friendly Big Mek in your army which has not been removed as a casualty, gain 1CP at the start of each of your turns for each surviving Deff Dread in your army." (worded to make sure he can be in a transport and still do it!).

Also add a rule stating that you must choose a faction - only units in your army's faction may generate CP. IG Soup fixed, but allies not written off.

Then make the CP generated by batallions and brigades etc lower, but so people can still buy relics etc. Reword some stratagems (EG tellyporta) to allow the CP to be spent to bring them in, rather than spent pre-game (so if you don't spend it, you lose 'em). CP must always carry over to the next round, so CC armies don't lose CP early and then generate less once they're worn down.


Expected results:
1: Souping will be for the advantages of bringing different units, not for the sake of extra CP
2: the HQ and Troop tax will seem lessened when you are rewarded for bringing both with CP
3: Priority for most players will be to take out the HQ units of the enemy, and to take out assassins. Transports will gain prestige for protecting the HQ's.


I think this would make the game function better - HQ's are a centre of command, so are tied to CP, makes sense. Tactical assassination & targeting of CP-related units will impact decision making - better. IG soup being brought to fuel titans will be gone - terrific!

Thoughts?

4th Edition Orks in 7th, W/D/L 5/0/0 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




HQ units could be fun, but certain undercosted ones would need addressing.

I also have a nasty feeling that TS wizard hammer would be so prevalent, but I'd rather it than the current system where every imperium list that does have the 32 is "clearly not a competitive list"
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Mostly agree with you here. Not a huge fan of flakk missiles and haywire grenades being strats. However, I'd worry that they might be a bit too good en masse. Even if they were only usable by one model per unit, free flakk missiles would mean that a trio of devastator squads could average 6 mortal wounds to a flyer turn 1 on their own. And I doubt people would love taking d3 mortal wounds from a bunch of haywire grenade wyches every turn.

Maybe if only a single unit per turn could use that kind of weaponry, and then you pay a small amount to give units the option to be the one to use that weapon? So maybe I can give an entire wych unit access to haywire grenades for, let's say, 15 points. Once per turn, any of my upgraded wych units could be the one to fling a single haywire grenade. Or maybe I'm overthinking it and such weapons just need to be given conventional profiles and points costs. (In which case we'd want to be sure to give flakk missiles a niche compared to krak missiles; in the past it was sometimes better to try to get lucky with a krak than to use the less damaging flakk.)

On that note, I'd really like relic weapons to just be purchasable weapons. Let 0-1 of my Poisoned Tongue characters pay the points to take Soul Seeker without it eating up one of my finite (and usually more useful) relic slots.

I never did specify that i wanted to just take the rules over 1:1 but frankly my question is, what was wrong with the old AA missiles beyond the additional pricetag on an allready overpriced weapon?


Sounds really cool. I'd love to see a more specific pitch.


Basically all detachments gain differing Stratagems which are equal for all armies:

Battalion gains Reserves 1 f.e. so you can replace one troop squad.
If you fill a Brigade you'd get Reserves 2 and the benefits of one of the outrider detachments /vanguard detachments / HS support detachments.

These would be overall equal, key point Knights would not profit from these as they can't form the following thins, meaning that Knights coud be separately balanced which is imo necessary .

So all these detachments give you a ONE USE specific on the detachment stratagem.

Of course someone more versed could write better ones as i did in my exemple but the key is that detachments as a part of battles are A: split away so you must make a choice and B the overall use of detachments is limitied.

NOW the next step is base stratagems, this one is simple, a fix proposed for elite armies, due to their nature are smaller can't fill as many detachments easily but they start with 2-3 free Stratagems which they have to bind to a Detachment they field before the battle, whilest armies like guard, Orkz, etc don't get free ones.

Subfaction wise you could take stuff like these, you gain 1 per detachment made up of a subfaction, if your whole army is the same subfaction you get 3 more which then are bound to the use of the subfaction one: E.G Preliminary bombardment for Iron warriors which is an radious which get's shelled an area denial tool so to speak.
Key is that it get's rid of doule phase shenanigans which are stupid, whilest actually giving you tactical choice.
Also you you give out straatagems to coherent fighting forces so Soup get's discouraged and has an actual drawback.

Granted this is an absolute raw draft, so make of this what you want but i think this is the way Strategems should've been handled rather then what we got now.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:

I never did specify that i wanted to just take the rules over 1:1 but frankly my question is, what was wrong with the old AA missiles beyond the additional pricetag on an allready overpriced weapon?

Last edition, the price tag was really the only problem. If you spent the points and your opponent didn't take flyers, you just wasted points. If you saved the points and faced flyers, you wished you weren't snap shooting at flyers.

That said, the changes to 8th edition would require a few tweaks. Strength 7 AP4 (presumably translated to Ap-1) that ignores a -1 to hit is situationally less good than just a krak missile. But there are plenty of ways to represent a flakk missile other than what the current stratagem does. I'm sure you could come up with something reasonable.


Basically all detachments gain differing Stratagems which are equal for all armies:

Battalion gains Reserves 1 f.e. so you can replace one troop squad.
If you fill a Brigade you'd get Reserves 2 and the benefits of one of the outrider detachments /vanguard detachments / HS support detachments.

These would be overall equal, key point Knights would not profit from these as they can't form the following thins, meaning that Knights coud be separately balanced which is imo necessary .

So all these detachments give you a ONE USE specific on the detachment stratagem.

Of course someone more versed could write better ones as i did in my exemple but the key is that detachments as a part of battles are A: split away so you must make a choice and B the overall use of detachments is limitied.

NOW the next step is base stratagems, this one is simple, a fix proposed for elite armies, due to their nature are smaller can't fill as many detachments easily but they start with 2-3 free Stratagems which they have to bind to a Detachment they field before the battle, whilest armies like guard, Orkz, etc don't get free ones.

Subfaction wise you could take stuff like these, you gain 1 per detachment made up of a subfaction, if your whole army is the same subfaction you get 3 more which then are bound to the use of the subfaction one: E.G Preliminary bombardment for Iron warriors which is an radious which get's shelled an area denial tool so to speak.
Key is that it get's rid of doule phase shenanigans which are stupid, whilest actually giving you tactical choice.
Also you you give out straatagems to coherent fighting forces so Soup get's discouraged and has an actual drawback.

Granted this is an absolute raw draft, so make of this what you want but i think this is the way Strategems should've been handled rather then what we got now.


I think there's a lot of potential there. But at this point, we'd probably need a new thread and some more fleshed out examples to take the conversation much further. I would hope that souping wouldn't be punished too harshly overall though. Yes, soup has innate advantages that ought to be accounted for, but we don't want to withold major parts of the game (strats) from players who have fluffy-but-not-monodex lists.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I always felt that the simplest solution to soup, which means you can stil ldo it if you want to have a fluffy alliance but can't if you're farming CP, is to state that CP can only be used by the faction of the detachment which generated it - so loyal 32 makes extra CP, but it can only be spent on guard. This could easily fit in with the above proposal, and so reward fluff-soup and punish farm-soup.

4th Edition Orks in 7th, W/D/L 5/0/0 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:
I always felt that the simplest solution to soup, which means you can stil ldo it if you want to have a fluffy alliance but can't if you're farming CP, is to state that CP can only be used by the faction of the detachment which generated it - so loyal 32 makes extra CP, but it can only be spent on guard. This could easily fit in with the above proposal, and so reward fluff-soup and punish farm-soup.


I agree but people hate the idea of having to write down extra numbers, so I have an alternative that popped into my head a minute ago, anti-min maxing CP rule, no detachment that is less than 20% of the value of your army generates CP. If you're going to have 3 detachments, balance those boys. It'd run into problems over 2k points since there's more detatchments allowed as you get bigger, but it'd certainly make min maxing slightly less rewarding.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: