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.

The current CP generation system needs to die a horrible death and we all know it.

Alternate CP generation system is as follows:

1. If your army is battleforged, you gain 3 CP. If your army is battleforged and follows a specific theme, you gain 3 CP + X depending on the case. No CP is granted as a function of types of detachments that comprise your army.
2. At the beginning of the turn, starting from whose turn it is, draws 3 tactical objectives. At each drawing phase (after the first), players may discard their tactical objectives and draw new cards. Each player may hold up to 3 tactical objectives at any given time.
3. At the end of each turn, you gain CP for each tactical objectives you've achieved. Discard the tactical objective you've accomplished.
4. At the end of each round, players gain CP according to the number of objectives they control.
...if a troop FOC controls an objectives, you gain 3 CP.
...for any other FOC, you gain 1 CP.
...All CP accrues and can be saved up for a big wombocombo.

Tools required:
-CP Tracker (numbered from 1 to 20? 16?) or a D20?
-Tactical objectives deck

For the purpose of determining who controls an objective, the standard ObSec rule applies with the following addendum:
'If your army is Battle-forged, all Troops units in <Faction> Detachments gain this ability. Such as unit that is within range of an objective marker (as specified in the mission) controls it even if there are more enemy models within range of it. If an enemy unit within range of the objective marker has a similar ability, then it is controlled by the player who has the most models within range as normal. units with this ability within tange. If there are equal number of units with this ability are contesting the same objective, the player who has the model with highest Ld value controls the objective. "

What does this accomplish?
It essentially adds more tactical depth to the game. Each player will be contesting for objectives to set up their kill move, while actively trying to deny each other's CP accrual. Means of actively denying each other's advantage includes: peeling units controlling the objective; pushing more troops into objectives; denying path to the objective; flank maneuver against high priority target (foregoing CP denial over offensive), etc.

This works but for the fact that there are games which don't use objectives. That's an easy fix though.

Half the CP issue is the soup, which is largely cleared up here but there will still be an issue with cheap guardsmen being used for objectives. It also disproportionately rewards hordes as they will likely have both board control and CP in their advantage.

 some bloke wrote:
This works but for the fact that there are games which don't use objectives. That's an easy fix though.

Half the CP issue is the soup, which is largely cleared up here but there will still be an issue with cheap guardsmen being used for objectives. It also disproportionately rewards hordes as they will likely have both board control and CP in their advantage.

Right. This is why the Ld comes into play - typically horde troops tend to have lower Ld than "elite" troops. In order to wrestle away objectrive from Ld8 SM troops, you'd need to bring two units of guardsmen, guardsmen supported by commissar, etc.

Under this system, army compositions would be based solely on each individual player's playstyle and less on what units/detachments give you the most bang for your buck.

I feel like every matched play mission needs to be objective based.

We could also add that units in combat cannot control an objective as to make assault a viable means to deny objectives.This is too complicated.