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.

 MinscS2 wrote:

fithos wrote:
For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.

A possible solution? Don't play vs. overly competitive players.

I have about 10-15 active/semi-active 40k-players in my area.
Over the years I've stopped playing against half of them because I quite simply don't enjoy playing with them.
They're not "bad people" and I have no issues hanging out with them, but I simply don't play wargames with them because their idea of a "fun/cool list" is vastly different from mine.

I think this is the heart of the issue.

Some people don't mind facing 10 Plagueburst Crawlers and calling that the game, while others want to see boatloads of ground troops and seeing games come down to the wire and not end by turn 4 with one side tabled.

It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting. Reading through the lists forum is always kind of disheartening because people want to be competitive, but play what they want, and these two things are in congruent in 40k (mostly). I adore terminator-only armies, but I'd lose 90% of my games if thats what I ran. It is what it is I suppose.

I'm working on a Corsair Prince's footdar army, drawing from craftworld eldar, dark eldar and forgeworld corsair armies. It's going to be very fluffy, and I have no interest in 40k tournaments whatsoever (which is good because the army would probably not do well). This would be impossible if we went back to the old FoC.

I don't think banning soup armies is about something being inherently bad about souping, isn't it more about being tired of seeing the same power combos? If each of these powerful units is confined to armies from its own codex then they will still be units that are too powerful, requiring them to get nerfed. Why not just nerf them and leave souping as it is? It won't happen as much if the power combo units become less powerful I'd think.

This nerfing stuff would probably take some time to get right (or right enough). Everyone is getting their codex in a short period of time and there are a lot of options in some cases (looking at you IoM). It should be doable though.

 Zid wrote:
It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting. Reading through the lists forum is always kind of disheartening because people want to be competitive, but play what they want, and these two things are in congruent in 40k (mostly). I adore terminator-only armies, but I'd lose 90% of my games if thats what I ran. It is what it is I suppose.

You mean like Matched Play vs Narrative Play?

If you want to apply gentleman's rules to a game, play Narrative, play League, play something where you and your opponent have some familiarity with each other and can agree on ground rules to a game.

Showing up to a random table at a random convention to play some random 40k player gives you a random result, go figure.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
I'm working on a Corsair Prince's footdar army, drawing from craftworld eldar, dark eldar and forgeworld corsair armies. It's going to be very fluffy, and I have no interest in 40k tournaments whatsoever (which is good because the army would probably not do well). This would be impossible if we went back to the old FoC.

I don't think banning soup armies is about something being inherently bad about souping, isn't it more about being tired of seeing the same power combos? If each of these powerful units is confined to armies from its own codex then they will still be units that are too powerful, requiring them to get nerfed. Why not just nerf them and leave souping as it is? It won't happen as much if the power combo units become less powerful I'd think.

This nerfing stuff would probably take some time to get right (or right enough). Everyone is getting their codex in a short period of time and there are a lot of options in some cases (looking at you IoM). It should be doable though.

Yeah i agree, i've been saying we need Comp Scores. The Detachments are not the problem, you'll have BIS units not matter what. If we had 1 FoC, Eldar would just be

Farseer
Spiritseer
Ranger
Ranger
Ranger
Swooping Hawks
Swooping Hawks
Shiny Spears
Dark Reapers
Dark Reapers
Dark Reapers
WS
WS

How is this any better? Foc are not the problem.

I like the CP for mono builds suggestion mentioned earlier. Someone should really let the GW rules team know about that one. It's far less painful to incentivise mono faction armies that ban soup lists. At least we have no lore-killing taudar builds running about this edition. I can definitely live with imperial allies, chaos allies + eldar allies. The other xenos book should be decently powerful to compensate for fewer options though.

 Zid wrote:
Hello all,

Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.

I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.

However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.

I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?

For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.

The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.

While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.

I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?

I think that you are conflating soup with the detachment rules. You can have a soup list in a single detachment. I think its the keywords (Imperium, Chaos) that you do not like.

I like the detachments. I usually go with a single Codex, but I usually run two detachments. The matched play rules suggest detachment maximums for organized play, and even allow you to add your own restrictions. Soup doesn't bother me. The rules for CPs and the stratagems in the Codex encourage detachments from a single source. Still, I think its fine to allow armies with detachments from two Codex. If you are at a tournament expect to see optimized lists.

You can absolutely build your list using the old style of FOC and feel happy about it. Its a Battalion. Play that old-school FOC list with pride! Just don't expect everyone to do it.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Hello all,

Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.

I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.

However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.

I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?

For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.

The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.

While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.

I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?

I think that you are conflating soup with the detachment rules. You can have a soup list in a single detachment. I think its the keywords (Imperium, Chaos) that you do not like.

I like the detachments. I usually go with a single Codex, but I usually run two detachments. The matched play rules suggest detachment maximums for organized play, and even allow you to add your own restrictions. Soup doesn't bother me. The rules for CPs and the stratagems in the Codex encourage detachments from a single source. Still, I think its fine to allow armies with detachments from two Codex. If you are at a tournament expect to see optimized lists.

You can absolutely build your list using the old style of FOC and feel happy about it. Its a Battalion. Play that old-school FOC list with pride! Just don't expect everyone to do it.

Without soup tho some units are literally unplayable unless you take an Aux detachment, like Corsairs as an example. And i'm sure GW doesnt want to force Aux Detachments at all, nor should they.

I don't mind soup (and said so in my post). I tend to run mono-Codex, but have nothing against an opponent who has a detachment of AM and a detachment of BA.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:
Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!

This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff

I played against an army that had all of the following factions:

IG
SoB
GK
BT
IF

That is pretty crazy if you ask me.

Why is that crazy? Most of those factions are barely factions in the first place and have more or less been dropped by GW. They're largely non-optimal and lack the versatility to support 2000 points of worthwhile models and I'd be really, really surprised if they were topping the podium at any large event. They're even largely fluff coherent.

So what's the issue other than it doesn't fit into your definition of what a "faction" is?

Seriously IG!?

Arg! I don't like a thing, GW please ban! No fun for others!

In my opinion, this thread is a case of blame the players not the game!

craftworld_uk wrote:
In my opinion, this thread is a case of blame the players not the game!

Don't get me wrong, I like all of the new detachments, they allow you to take armies like deathwing or kult of speed without special rules. With that said, if something is getting abused it's the games fault, because a game meant to be played competitively should have fair rules. Right now the balance between monolisting for special rules and multilisting to cherry pick units isn't a balanced proposition. However I don't feel like the detachments are the main cause of that, the issue is you can still get "chapter tactics" for FoCs, so you can often have your cake and eat it to. I feel like chapter tactics should be dependent on army wide keywords instead of FoC wide, so if you bring a soup army you don't get chapter tactics for any part of your army.

Ynarri and CE were exceptionally abusive of this, in addition to double dipping faction keywords for stratagems. I have little doubt that in the next FAQ they are going to get nerfed, and while GW is at it, if they want to preserve faction identity they should probably do something to support monofaction armies, such as my suggestion.

Ynnari was IMO just an oversight and will be fixed in march.

That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong

craftworld_uk wrote:
In my opinion, this thread is a case of blame the players not the game!

It's a possibility.

I like the fact that Roboute can lead a force of primaris into battle, with Cawl at his side, and a whole battalion of Leman Russ on the left flank. To me, that seems fluffy as heck. But, as with all things, obviously some kind of limit will have to be set. Maybe just remove heavy allies from Matched play, so that it can stay in narrative and open?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong

Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.

One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.

Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.

Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.

craftworld_uk wrote:
In my opinion, this thread is a case of blame the players not the game!

If there's balance issue in the game then it's fault of developers who failed in their job.

Game balance is never fault of players. It's developers who failed to create rules that avoids the problem.

To be honest, the FOC was a 3rd ed creation that was well past its sell by date. While it prevented extreme abuses it didn't really encourage balanced armies - in many cases it was just a Troop tax. 5th ed was probably the best edition for the FOC because the objective rules encouraged taking Troops but I hated it nonetheless - probably because I play Eldar and our Troops choices were horrible in the context of 5th.

If GW was capable of creating a reasonably balanced system, I would favour a looser FOC which results in a premium being charged for redundancy. You can take a completely imbalanced force but the cost eventually becomes prohibitive. So let's say you have three Elite choices and two Troops choices - you must pay x% premium on the third Elite choice. You must pay an even higher premium on a fourth Elite choice. Although that's simply an illustrative example - rather than the rather arbitrary and abuse prone 1 squad = 1 slot in the FOC, I would introduce a requisition points system. So a half size squad of Troops may only give you 1 requisition point to spend on choices in other slots without attracting a premium whereas a full size squad might provide 2 requisition points.

I think the game has to be balanced at top keyword level or it will not be balanced at all. This is easier than balancing mono-faction options, so is also an overall good idea for the game. This means that, inevitably, players who don't want to take a mixed force will have weaker armies and it is why we see mixed Eldar, Chaos and Imperium doing well (and Tyranids outside of the states) these seem to be pretty balanced against one another, certainly more so than previous editions. Tau, Necrons and Orks are a different matter and will either need mixed force options added to be competitive or to be made stronger than other single faction codexes. Either seems reasonable. It is not realistic to have Blood Angels balanced against Orks and Imperium balanced against Orks, so just balance Imperium seems the reasonable solution.

I don't want the old FOC mechanics to be honest. I'm not fond of 8th edition overall but the new detachments system is one of the few things I really love.

IMHO it adds more variety. You want a biker army? Legal. A Walker heavy army? Legal. Etc... An army of drukhari fast attacks is 100% fluffy and a lot of fun to play while a list full of heavy support taken from the coven stuff and ravagers can be awesome as well. I don't want restrictions about what kind of units I have to play, maybe just limit flyers, heroes and LoWs, but not standard units.

The real problem is the possibility of mixing factions from different codexes. That should be banned. However some armies should be included in the same codex and be part of the same faction.

I mean chaos should be CSM and daemons, not 5+ different codexes. Mixing different marks is not a soup. GK, SoB, custodes, inquisition and Ad mech should be a single faction. All SM merged into a single codex, the different chapters should be something like the coven or wych cult keywords for drukhari or the different clans for the orks. Tyranids and gen cult into a single army as well, etc.

I don't mind the current set of detachments, though I do think some of them possibly shouldn't give any CP, and in some cases should possibly cost CP (the Supreme Command detachment is the primary culprit, I think). One suggestion I did see somewhere was to only give the base 3CP bonus for being battle-forged to mono-list armies. I like that idea. alternatively you could restrict all <Chapter Tactics> style bonuses to mono-list only.

The problem at the moment is the lack of trade-off for souping combined with an imbalance in the options available for different factions: Imperium get loads of options, Chaos also has lots, while Eldar get a decent array of options and Nids/GC get a few too. Meanwhile Tau, Orks and Necrons are restricted to their own books. It's too easy for some factions to cover their weaknesses thanks to the current system, while a bunch of armies are left with no way to do so and no meaningful advantage by staying mono-list.

In terms of aesthetics, it's also pretty grating to see some of the lists we saw at the LVO, for example. "Armies" of roving bands of characters from 2-3 different Codices with minimal troops from yet another book combined in an attempt to unlock as many CPs and Stratagems as possible just doesn't really look great, IMO.

IMO I think the detachment system is good at the core. A few things I would like to see changed about it to make non-soup armies more competitive.

1.) a CP bonus for staying pure/penalty for being soup. Something like an extra CP for each detachment if those detachments share all faction keywords. So for example your first battalion is 3 CP, a second battalion sharing all keywords is 4 CP. Or alternatively -1 CP for detachments that do not share all keywords. This hurts the I include a 200 point guard battalion just for CP soup option.

2.) Layered chapter tactics/stratagems. Have another bonus that gets unlocked for being a "pure" army. So as a bad example Imperial fists tactic could have been a detachment of imperial fists gets ignores cover, a pure army also gets re-roll wounds against structures.

 Grimgold wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong

Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.

One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.

Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.

Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.

Thanks Grimgold, you put it much more eloquently than I did, haha.

Yes, this is exactly the problem I have. Its not that soup exists, because its very nature is for armies that would naturally be allied to work together on the table. I do like detachments too, but I felt like this was part of the problem. But, reading responses here, its true; the problem is that you can really pick and choose to fill holes from various codices, which results in over the top, OP armies. Theres a reason why you don't see top table Nids (whom have an amazing codex IMO) and probably won't see much top table Tau or Necrons, unless they have over the top mono-faction rules, which further imbalance the game and cause other armies to seem inferior.

I'd like to see benefits for armies that choose to stay mono-faction or focus on specific keywords (for example, Death Guard should be able to have a Nurgle Demons detachment with no negatives). There should be something to offset the power difference. This is the same issue I had with 6th, when they allowed the 2++ rerollable invun saves for Dark Eldar w/ Eldar abusive rules in the beginning. I like the idea of having multiple armies working together, but it needs to come with its own set of negatives instead of all upsides...


I do like the idea of limiting strategems to just your "primary" detachment (so if your Death Guard w/ CSM detachments, you can only use DG strategems), or having CP bonuses for monofaction. Theres a lot of ways to address the problems people are seeing, and I get now that the FOC isn't a solution; rose tinted glasses and all that.





Some ideas I've seen in this thread so far:
1) Bonuses for Monofaction armies (either CP bonuses or Chapter Rules only count if you run a single faction)
2) Limit Strategems to only the primary faction of lists
3) Balance at the top keyword level, this removes the abuse we see with secondary keywords allowing strategems to break certain units (like when we could DS primarchs...)
4) A points "tax" for taking the same unit over a certain amount of times, for example if you take over 3 Plagueburst Crawlers in a single detachment, you get taxed 40 points for each additional model (addresses super spam)
5) Return of "Comp Scores" in tournaments that address WAAC lists over fun lists

These are all great ideas. I love 40k, theres a reason I came back to it; the lore is far and away better than Warmahordes, but the mechanics issues are still pretty rampant as they were in 5th and 6th (and 7th from what I'm told). I like that GW fixes stuff, and that they are now (after so many years) addressing issues the community sees early, rather than "when the next codex comes out" or "wait for next edition".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
IMO I think the detachment system is good at the core. A few things I would like to see changed about it to make non-soup armies more competitive.

1.) a CP bonus for staying pure/penalty for being soup. Something like an extra CP for each detachment if those detachments share all faction keywords. So for example your first battalion is 3 CP, a second battalion sharing all keywords is 4 CP. Or alternatively -1 CP for detachments that do not share all keywords. This hurts the I include a 200 point guard battalion just for CP soup option.

2.) Layered chapter tactics/stratagems. Have another bonus that gets unlocked for being a "pure" army. So as a bad example Imperial fists tactic could have been a detachment of imperial fists gets ignores cover, a pure army also gets re-roll wounds against structures.

This second idea... so much yes.

Add a fluffy, but effective, rule that gives you a reason to be monofaction. Things like: Ultramarines can fall back, but still shoot (because they shall know no fear and all that...), Blood angels get +1 str on the charge, Tyranids get... something nidlike, etc.

Great idea!

I think the problem is twofold:

1) Having detachments means you can do heavy skews without any drawback

2) The fact having multiple detachments, each keeps their own ability.

I think #2 is the big thing. It would help curb a lot of soup if taking detachments of different forces resulted in none of them getting their specials (or maybe just the detachment with the warlord), or even a limited set of generic abilities similar to how AOS works (if you mix a grand alliance, you get some very basic abilities, but lose any specific ones). I'll also add an unofficial #3: The way Command Points are set up, you are encouraged to spam cheap battalions if you can in order to get as many as possible; this is the opposite of what GW said CP would be for (in the 8th edition previews they made a big deal of saying it would be there to encourage mono faction and/or fluffy armies, but in fact we got the opposite. Gaming command points encourages soup and ignoring the fluff)

The issue is that there's no drawback for soup; and often soup helps negate weaknesses so it becomes mandatory to take soup, because you don't want to have the weakness but you want the strength.

IMHO it's worse than formations ever were. The biggest issue is 40k is not sized as a game where you should have elements of different forces together. 40k is still, despite having huge war machines, largely a company-level game. At that level you don't have various units sending squads to the battlefield, you start to see mixing and matching of different elements at brigade level (which is what the old Epic was; it was perfectly reasonable in Epic to see like an IG tank company fighting alongside elements from a Marine Battle Company).

GWs game design is all about and has been for many years now all about all the perks with no drawbacks. Because drawbacks aren't fun.

 auticus wrote:
GWs game design is all about and has been for many years now all about all the perks with no drawbacks. Because drawbacks aren't fun.

Drawbacks are where tactics and strategy come into play, though. If both armies have no drawbacks, then it comes down to just dice. Eldar armies were always fast, but fragile, but space marines were slow but tougher, for example.

I don't buy it. If that were true I'd expect a more diverse selection of units and representation at these LVO style events.

If there were drawbacks in the list building phase, that would give actual meaningful choices. Right now the lists build themselves because they are fairly obvious in most cases with a few notable exceptions.

Negating chapter tactics for going soup isn't fun and isn't fluffy. CP is instead something that we can look at. One possibility i was thinking about was:

Your CP total is equal to the highest CP amount gained from a single mono faction in your army.

So, if you have a list made by:

Salamander Battalion
Imperial Guard Spearhead
Imperial Guard Battalion

Your CP total is 3 (base) + 3 (IG battalion) +1 (IG Spearhead).

This creates more choices. The more mono faction you go with your detachments, the more CP you have.

If you soup, you can do it with a brigade and still be full of CP, but you lose on the chapter tactics. Alternatively you soup with multiple detachments and gain the chapter tactics, but you lose on CP.


The definition for mono faction would be based on any faction keyword different from "Imperium" "Chaos" "Aeldari". Things like SM chapters collaborating is fine, as is GSC + nids like associations.

Jbz` wrote:

I saw somewhere someone suggest that CP should be done in the inverse of how it is now.
For example:
You start with X CP per 1,000pts,
Each Detachment you take reduces the number. (With the bigger detachments taking away less than the smaller ones)
Then "Souping" costs command points rather than gets you more.

And for "fluff reasons" it can be explained as the bureaucracy in high command between the different groups (Who's in overall charge, logistic issues with different army groups etc.)

This one I rather like and if I had any interest in playing 40k at home(rather than just for league/tournament I can attend for very cheap to throw dice. Real games are 30k) would adopt this right away.

Spoletta wrote:
Negating chapter tactics for going soup isn't fun and isn't fluffy. CP is instead something that we can look at. One possibility i was thinking about was:

Your CP total is equal to the highest CP amount gained from a single mono faction in your army.

So, if you have a list made by:

Salamander Battalion
Imperial Guard Spearhead
Imperial Guard Battalion

Your CP total is 3 (base) + 3 (IG battalion) +1 (IG Spearhead).

This creates more choices. The more mono faction you go with your detachments, the more CP you have.

If you soup, you can do it with a brigade and still be full of CP, but you lose on the chapter tactics. Alternatively you soup with multiple detachments and gain the chapter tactics, but you lose on CP.


The definition for mono faction would be based on any faction keyword different from "Imperium" "Chaos" "Aeldari". Things like SM chapters collaborating is fine, as is GSC + nids like associations.

That is why I said you get extra or better chapter tactics for staying pure. bonuses not penalties. To me that is far less of a penalty than what you have here. As in your system, Sisters battaltion + Guard battalion +Inquisition vangaurd gets 6 CP, but Ravenguard battaltion + blood angesl battalion + dark angels vanguard gets 10? I'd rather see more of a middle road.