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.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
As a player who routinely plays Ravenwing and Iyanden wraiths, yes, the lack of CPs hurt. Now I have to add unfluffy "tax" units just to get some CPs

Or don't, and just play with less CP?

Which I have routinely done already. There was zero reason to increase CPs for Batts and Brigades.

Buffed every single codex with the imperium tag that wasn't named Astra Militarum? Seriously, what are they going to do with the extra CP?

Put a greater emphasis on troops instead of specialized models? Not that troops need any sort of push, but yeah... I can go along with this.

Actually there were a ton of reasons to increase the amount of CP's for batts and brigades.

It helps armies like Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Necrons, etc... that have problems building big detachments.
It makes Astra Militarum less of a neccesity to farm CP.

It opens other options for Astra Militarum armies to have different relics and warlord traits because the difference between having 15 CP or 20 CP is irrelevant, the more CP you have the less valuable they become.

The only fail with this change is that they didn't increased the amount of CP's for Dark Eldar Patrols to 3 patrols for 6 CP or 6 for 15 CP.

Wouldn't have upped the CP for formations, would have upped the CP for turning up, say a baseline of six

Maybe, rather than CP being based on detachments it should be based on points limit of the game being played or agreed by the players before hand. That at least would be a little more balancing, potentially.

 Galas wrote:
Actually there were a ton of reasons to increase the amount of CP's for batts and brigades.

It helps armies like Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Necrons, etc... that have problems building big detachments.
It makes Astra Militarum less of a neccesity to farm CP.

It opens other options for Astra Militarum armies to have different relics and warlord traits because the difference between having 15 CP or 20 CP is irrelevant, the more CP you have the less valuable they become.

The only fail with this change is that they didn't increased the amount of CP's for Dark Eldar Patrols to 3 patrols for 6 CP or 6 for 15 CP.

Actually it really hurts Adeptus Custodes because anything that's not an Outrider/Supreme Command for us is operating at less than tournament level (basically everything not on a Bike can't compete). Now the necessity is on us to find an ally to farm even more because the CP gap between those who do and don't will be significantly worse.

The battalion change made me decide to start bringing immortals instead of tomb blades, so... Mission accomplished, I think is what GW would say.

Audustum wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Actually there were a ton of reasons to increase the amount of CP's for batts and brigades.

It helps armies like Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Necrons, etc... that have problems building big detachments.
It makes Astra Militarum less of a neccesity to farm CP.

It opens other options for Astra Militarum armies to have different relics and warlord traits because the difference between having 15 CP or 20 CP is irrelevant, the more CP you have the less valuable they become.

The only fail with this change is that they didn't increased the amount of CP's for Dark Eldar Patrols to 3 patrols for 6 CP or 6 for 15 CP.

Actually it really hurts Adeptus Custodes because anything that's not an Outrider/Supreme Command for us is operating at less than tournament level (basically everything not on a Bike can't compete). Now the necessity is on us to find an ally to farm even more because the CP gap between those who do and don't will be significantly worse.

Yeah... but thats another problem that has nothing to do with this change. I play Custodes too. But what you are describing is a problem with the internal balance of the Codex.

Audustum wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Actually there were a ton of reasons to increase the amount of CP's for batts and brigades.

It helps armies like Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Necrons, etc... that have problems building big detachments.
It makes Astra Militarum less of a neccesity to farm CP.

It opens other options for Astra Militarum armies to have different relics and warlord traits because the difference between having 15 CP or 20 CP is irrelevant, the more CP you have the less valuable they become.

The only fail with this change is that they didn't increased the amount of CP's for Dark Eldar Patrols to 3 patrols for 6 CP or 6 for 15 CP.

Actually it really hurts Adeptus Custodes because anything that's not an Outrider/Supreme Command for us is operating at less than tournament level (basically everything not on a Bike can't compete). Now the necessity is on us to find an ally to farm even more because the CP gap between those who do and don't will be significantly worse.

The detachment change does absolutely nothing to existing armies that did not leverage the two changed dets. You can continue to play with the same dets, and some of your opponents may enjoy more CP than you. So are you complaining that the BN/BDE is now appealing for you to bring models that you normally wouldn't? Making sure I am clear on it... you want more CP and are posting because you have to spam less jetbikes?

Sounds like the change is working as intended

 Galas wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Actually there were a ton of reasons to increase the amount of CP's for batts and brigades.

It helps armies like Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Necrons, etc... that have problems building big detachments.
It makes Astra Militarum less of a neccesity to farm CP.

It opens other options for Astra Militarum armies to have different relics and warlord traits because the difference between having 15 CP or 20 CP is irrelevant, the more CP you have the less valuable they become.

The only fail with this change is that they didn't increased the amount of CP's for Dark Eldar Patrols to 3 patrols for 6 CP or 6 for 15 CP.

Actually it really hurts Adeptus Custodes because anything that's not an Outrider/Supreme Command for us is operating at less than tournament level (basically everything not on a Bike can't compete). Now the necessity is on us to find an ally to farm even more because the CP gap between those who do and don't will be significantly worse.

Yeah... but thats another problem that has nothing to do with this change. I play Custodes too. But what you are describing is a problem with the internal balance of the Codex.

It's actually an external balance problem. Things that aren't bikes suck against other armies, not that bikes are too good. Bikes are right on target for tournament play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Actually there were a ton of reasons to increase the amount of CP's for batts and brigades.

It helps armies like Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Necrons, etc... that have problems building big detachments.
It makes Astra Militarum less of a neccesity to farm CP.

It opens other options for Astra Militarum armies to have different relics and warlord traits because the difference between having 15 CP or 20 CP is irrelevant, the more CP you have the less valuable they become.

The only fail with this change is that they didn't increased the amount of CP's for Dark Eldar Patrols to 3 patrols for 6 CP or 6 for 15 CP.

Actually it really hurts Adeptus Custodes because anything that's not an Outrider/Supreme Command for us is operating at less than tournament level (basically everything not on a Bike can't compete). Now the necessity is on us to find an ally to farm even more because the CP gap between those who do and don't will be significantly worse.

The detachment change does absolutely nothing to existing armies that did not leverage the two changed dets. You can continue to play with the same dets, and some of your opponents may enjoy more CP than you. So are you complaining that the BN/BDE is now appealing for you to bring models that you normally wouldn't? Making sure I am clear on it... you want more CP and are posting because you have to spam less jetbikes?

Sounds like the change is working as intended

Uhh, no. You have this wrong. CP is a resource, right? When your opponent gets more resources but you don't, that nerfs you indirectly.

The Custodes version of a battalion is as unimpressive as ever and is a guaranteed way to lose at a tournament level at the list building stage. So, Custodes NEED to find a battalion in order to avoid the indirect nerf and they NEED to get it from allies because their version will cost them the game.

So the change is making soup more mandatory for Custodes, which hurts them on a mono level.

You keep saying "tournament level" as if that means something.

What "tournament level" are we talking here? The most TOP of the TOP tournament level where only 5% of the stuff in the game is viable? Yeah, bikers are "fine" in that tournament level. But compared with 90% of the rest of the game spamming Shield-Captains on Bikes is bonkers.

Even spamming regular squads of Bikers is bonkers agaisnt most of the game. Thats why a Adeptus Custodes list spamming bikes (And even using normal guardians) ended up... 8 in Adepticon? I don't remember. If a unit is spammed and end up in the top 20 at Adepticon that unit is not "balanced". Is pretty dam powerfull.

If we are talking middle of the road "tournament level", where you see something like the top half of the units of the game, then Custodes armies can absolutely compete with normal Guardians.

Only people that plays in the TOP of the TOP competitive metas would call Adeptus Custodes Guardians Squads weak. They are only lacking agaisnt hordes, and combined with bikers thats isn't even a problem. Deepstrike a big blob of 10 Custodes Guardians of just walk across the board, they can work both ways in a enviroment where games last up to turn 5-6.

 Galas wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Actually there were a ton of reasons to increase the amount of CP's for batts and brigades.

It helps armies like Adeptus Custodes, Space Marines, Necrons, etc... that have problems building big detachments.
It makes Astra Militarum less of a neccesity to farm CP.

It opens other options for Astra Militarum armies to have different relics and warlord traits because the difference between having 15 CP or 20 CP is irrelevant, the more CP you have the less valuable they become.

The only fail with this change is that they didn't increased the amount of CP's for Dark Eldar Patrols to 3 patrols for 6 CP or 6 for 15 CP.

Actually it really hurts Adeptus Custodes because anything that's not an Outrider/Supreme Command for us is operating at less than tournament level (basically everything not on a Bike can't compete). Now the necessity is on us to find an ally to farm even more because the CP gap between those who do and don't will be significantly worse.

Yeah... but thats another problem that has nothing to do with this change. I play Custodes too. But what you are describing is a problem with the internal balance of the Codex.

It is actually a perception problem - there are plenty of competitive units in the Custodes codex. The army that made top 8 at Adepticon has infantry units for example.

I know. But for many people if a unit is 5% less mathemathically efficient it is thrash even if it has many other uses that aren't based in pure math strenght.

It bottom line rewards certain builds and punishes others. Not all Vanguard and Outrider detachment are super killy elite spam lists that needed nerfing. Deathwing is tough enough as it is, now I just concede more CPs to my opponent. Same with Ravenwing.

Deathwing was never competitive.

 Galas wrote:
You keep saying "tournament level" as if that means something.

What "tournament level" are we talking here? The most TOP of the TOP tournament level where only 5% of the stuff in the game is viable? Yeah, bikers are "fine" in that tournament level. But compared with 90% of the rest of the game spamming Shield-Captains on Bikes is bonkers.

Even spamming regular squads of Bikers is bonkers agaisnt most of the game. Thats why a Adeptus Custodes list spamming bikes (And even using normal guardians) ended up... 8 in Adepticon? I don't remember. If a unit is spammed and end up in the top 20 at Adepticon that unit is not "balanced". Is pretty dam powerfull.

If we are talking middle of the road "tournament level", where you see something like the top half of the units of the game, then Custodes armies can absolutely compete with normal Guardians.

Only people that plays in the TOP of the TOP competitive metas would call Adeptus Custodes Guardians Squads weak. They are only lacking agaisnt hordes, and combined with bikers thats isn't even a problem. Deepstrike a big blob of 10 Custodes Guardians of just walk across the board, they can work both ways in a enviroment where games last up to turn 5-6.

What on Earth are you talking about? No Custodian Guard made the top 16. No Custodes made the top 8.

One Astra Mitarum list that took 3 Bike Captains was 10th. That's it.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Only 2 in the top 8 were even Imperium.

Geoff, the Custodian Guard guy, came in 22nd.

https://www.adepticon.org/results/

Yes, we are talking top tier competitive because that's how you should balance. Any deficiency that exists at lower levels but not the top level can be attributed to player ability. It's at the top you see if actual MECHANICS are biased.

Here they were. Those Guardians cost him. Guardians are way too expensive for what they do. Same with Allarus (and we have like 6 pages of math in the Custodes thread to prove the latter).

 Primark G wrote:
Deathwing was never competitive.

Exactly, but apparently GW feels that those types of armies don't need CPs because they are too good. Blanket changes are seldom good.

No, you shouldn't only balance at top tier competitive, you should try to balance at all levels. Top tier competitive only show you 10% of the units of the game.

Theres something between Top level and Low level that is called mid level, where most of the game falls.

I don't disagree Allarus are too expensive for what they do. I disagree Guardians are too expensive for what they do.

They are expensive to kill hordes, they aren't to kill elite units. I have seen all of that math, and I can't disagree with the fact that of course theres other units that are mathemathically more efficient than them. But that does not mea the problem is with Guardians.

Besides, being 22nd in Adepticon is still an impresive place to be.

I thought it was silly that they wanted to reduse soup and allow elite armies more cp, so they make souping across sub factions to take the already ubiquitous non-elite units all but mandatory while providing more cp to non-elite armies.

My tau list didn't need more cp (brigade or bat/van/spear) but anyone who dislikes fire warriors is now "suffering" worse than before with a measly 6cp.
My chaos list was not doing well before (out/sup com/super heavy) at 5cp. Every stratagem was a crucial decision. That hasn't changed but the opponents are better off and my termites now have less impact or cost a cp to start upfield.

If van/spear/out/sup were +2, patrol +1, battalion +4, brig +10. I would be happier. Guess I'll play kroot as cultists.

 Galas wrote:
No, you shouldn't only balance at top tier competitive, you should try to balance at all levels. Top tier competitive only show you 10% of the units of the game.

Theres something between Top level and Low level that is called mid level, where most of the game falls.

I don't disagree Allarus are too expensive for what they do. I disagree Guardians are too expensive for what they do.

They are expensive to kill hordes, they aren't to kill elite units. I have seen all of that math, and I can't disagree with the fact that of course theres other units that are mathemathically more efficient than them. But that does not mea the problem is with Guardians.

Besides, being 22nd in Adepticon is still an impresive place to be.

22nd at Adepticon does not indicate balanced, however.

If you balance top tier, you balance all tiers. That was my point. This got explained a lot in SC2 too, but let me try to adapt it:

If you're a Wood Tier player and you lose to a T1 BA Assault, you might throw up your arms and cry "That's OP! Nerf T1 Assaults / BA!", but this would be wrong. A more skilled player, say a Silver Tier, would say "Well no, you can counter that, you just need to deploy screens to push out your opponent's arrival". It looks unbalanced to you cause you're Wood Tier, but it's not unbalanced.

Conversely, a Silver Tier player might dominate his/her local Silver meta with Custodian Guard spam, because his/her local meta is full of melee units. His/her friends say "Custodian Guards OP!" but when he/she goes to a tournament, that person gets curbstomped by an AM army with Manticores and Infantry that just bogs everything down holding objectives till he/she gets destroyed. It's not that Custodian Guard were OP, it's that the local meta was using the wrong tactics.

So when the lower tiers complain about stuff, that's not an indication that anything is actually broken but just that they need to improve. When the top tier is complaining (or showing by spamming something), then you can't just say "Ah, this is fixed if the players just get better at the game" because there is no one better. This is the top. So you balance to correct.

Now 40k is so list focused that there's an argument to make that our 'top' players aren't really the 'top', but looking at their results is the only real datapoint we have until we figure out a better ranking system.

Audustum wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You keep saying "tournament level" as if that means something.

What "tournament level" are we talking here? The most TOP of the TOP tournament level where only 5% of the stuff in the game is viable? Yeah, bikers are "fine" in that tournament level. But compared with 90% of the rest of the game spamming Shield-Captains on Bikes is bonkers.

Even spamming regular squads of Bikers is bonkers agaisnt most of the game. Thats why a Adeptus Custodes list spamming bikes (And even using normal guardians) ended up... 8 in Adepticon? I don't remember. If a unit is spammed and end up in the top 20 at Adepticon that unit is not "balanced". Is pretty dam powerfull.

If we are talking middle of the road "tournament level", where you see something like the top half of the units of the game, then Custodes armies can absolutely compete with normal Guardians.

Only people that plays in the TOP of the TOP competitive metas would call Adeptus Custodes Guardians Squads weak. They are only lacking agaisnt hordes, and combined with bikers thats isn't even a problem. Deepstrike a big blob of 10 Custodes Guardians of just walk across the board, they can work both ways in a enviroment where games last up to turn 5-6.

What on Earth are you talking about? No Custodian Guard made the top 16. No Custodes made the top 8.

One Astra Mitarum list that took 3 Bike Captains was 10th. That's it.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Only 2 in the top 8 were even Imperium.

Geoff, the Custodian Guard guy, came in 22nd.

https://www.adepticon.org/results/

Yes, we are talking top tier competitive because that's how you should balance. Any deficiency that exists at lower levels but not the top level can be attributed to player ability. It's at the top you see if actual MECHANICS are biased.

Here they were. Those Guardians cost him. Guardians are way too expensive for what they do. Same with Allarus (and we have like 6 pages of math in the Custodes thread to prove the latter).

You love the dawneagle but it has underperformed yet you say it is the only choice. It has not magically become any more competitive. The new FAQ hasn’t helped either.

Audustum wrote:

What on Earth are you talking about? No Custodian Guard made the top 16. No Custodes made the top 8.

One Astra Mitarum list that took 3 Bike Captains was 10th. That's it.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Only 2 in the top 8 were even Imperium.

Geoff, the Custodian Guard guy, came in 22nd.

https://www.adepticon.org/results/

You might want to check your news sources. Geoff made it to the second round of the Championship the next day with his Custodes List.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/03/adepticon-40k-top-8-lists-meta.html

Just sent this email to the FAQ feedback team:

'Hi there,

Just a quick message regarding a change in the new FAQ. Coming from a player who's played for about 15 years, usually several times a week, and plays both competitively and casually.

First of all just want to say that I'm a fan of 90% of the "new GW" but there are a few kinks that still need ironing out.

The proposed CP change really needs to be rethought and defies its own logic. On the warhammer community post which highlighted/announced the changes it said "The only issue was, Command Points were often in short supply, especially for ‘elite’ style armies."

This is definitely true, Guard armies will often have easy access to a dozen or so CPs but armies like Custodes/GK will only be able to get 6 or so.

I completely agree that it is an issue, but cannot understand at all why this 'solution' was chosen. Increased CPs for batallions and brigades will do nothing to help these armies with their difficulty accessing CPs.

A Custodes (the army actually pictured in the article as an example of an army who this change is designed to help) brigade costs an absolute minimum of 3648. That's if they take the cheapest option in every slot with no upgrades. Considering every tournament I've been to in 8th edition is between 1000-2000 points, this "help" is clearly completely useless, and in fact only helps armies like guard/tyranids etc who are already getting plenty of CPs. Battalions are also incredibly difficult for elite armies, but easy for "horde" armies.

There are a few alternatives which, while not perfect, will definitely do more than the current proposition. Either increase the number of base CPs, (e.g. from 3 to 5), or give certain armies special rules that grant them bonus CPs, or give bonus CPs for the detachments other than those designed for / accessible to horde armies.

Thanks for reading and I hope you seriously consider these suggestions. Again, I'm a great fan of your company, but as someone who plays A LOT (and reads even more) I wanted to offer some thoughts.

- Will

 alextroy wrote:

Audustum wrote:

What on Earth are you talking about? No Custodian Guard made the top 16. No Custodes made the top 8.

One Astra Mitarum list that took 3 Bike Captains was 10th. That's it.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Only 2 in the top 8 were even Imperium.

Geoff, the Custodian Guard guy, came in 22nd.

https://www.adepticon.org/results/

You might want to check your news sources. Geoff made it to the second round of the Championship the next day with his Custodes List.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/03/adepticon-40k-top-8-lists-meta.html

You might want to check yours. My second link there is literally the Adepticon results page. I will happily admit his position, like everyones', can bounce around depending on what you want to sort by.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You keep saying "tournament level" as if that means something.

What "tournament level" are we talking here? The most TOP of the TOP tournament level where only 5% of the stuff in the game is viable? Yeah, bikers are "fine" in that tournament level. But compared with 90% of the rest of the game spamming Shield-Captains on Bikes is bonkers.

Even spamming regular squads of Bikers is bonkers agaisnt most of the game. Thats why a Adeptus Custodes list spamming bikes (And even using normal guardians) ended up... 8 in Adepticon? I don't remember. If a unit is spammed and end up in the top 20 at Adepticon that unit is not "balanced". Is pretty dam powerfull.

If we are talking middle of the road "tournament level", where you see something like the top half of the units of the game, then Custodes armies can absolutely compete with normal Guardians.

Only people that plays in the TOP of the TOP competitive metas would call Adeptus Custodes Guardians Squads weak. They are only lacking agaisnt hordes, and combined with bikers thats isn't even a problem. Deepstrike a big blob of 10 Custodes Guardians of just walk across the board, they can work both ways in a enviroment where games last up to turn 5-6.

What on Earth are you talking about? No Custodian Guard made the top 16. No Custodes made the top 8.

One Astra Mitarum list that took 3 Bike Captains was 10th. That's it.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Only 2 in the top 8 were even Imperium.

Geoff, the Custodian Guard guy, came in 22nd.

https://www.adepticon.org/results/

Yes, we are talking top tier competitive because that's how you should balance. Any deficiency that exists at lower levels but not the top level can be attributed to player ability. It's at the top you see if actual MECHANICS are biased.

Here they were. Those Guardians cost him. Guardians are way too expensive for what they do. Same with Allarus (and we have like 6 pages of math in the Custodes thread to prove the latter).

You love the dawneagle but it has underperformed yet you say it is the only choice. It has not magically become any more competitive. The new FAQ hasn’t helped either.

When and where have the bikes under performed? They've done fine where they appeared.

They upped those 2 detachments because, with the new Battle Brothers rule, more people will be tempted to roll with one-faction only armies if they get +2/+3 CPs from them
The smaller ones can be easily used for other factions, thus killing the entire point of the change if they too got more CPs.

superwill wrote:
Just sent this email to the FAQ feedback team:

'Hi there,

Just a quick message regarding a change in the new FAQ. Coming from a player who's played for about 15 years, usually several times a week, and plays both competitively and casually.

First of all just want to say that I'm a fan of 90% of the "new GW" but there are a few kinks that still need ironing out.

The proposed CP change really needs to be rethought and defies its own logic. On the warhammer community post which highlighted/announced the changes it said "The only issue was, Command Points were often in short supply, especially for ‘elite’ style armies."

This is definitely true, Guard armies will often have easy access to a dozen or so CPs but armies like Custodes/GK will only be able to get 6 or so.

I completely agree that it is an issue, but cannot understand at all why this 'solution' was chosen. Increased CPs for batallions and brigades will do nothing to help these armies with their difficulty accessing CPs.

A Custodes (the army actually pictured in the article as an example of an army who this change is designed to help) brigade costs an absolute minimum of 3648. That's if they take the cheapest option in every slot with no upgrades. Considering every tournament I've been to in 8th edition is between 1000-2000 points, this "help" is clearly completely useless, and in fact only helps armies like guard/tyranids etc who are already getting plenty of CPs. Battalions are also incredibly difficult for elite armies, but easy for "horde" armies.

There are a few alternatives which, while not perfect, will definitely do more than the current proposition. Either increase the number of base CPs, (e.g. from 3 to 5), or give certain armies special rules that grant them bonus CPs, or give bonus CPs for the detachments other than those designed for / accessible to horde armies.

Thanks for reading and I hope you seriously consider these suggestions. Again, I'm a great fan of your company, but as someone who plays A LOT (and reads even more) I wanted to offer some thoughts.

- Will

1) Armies are balanced around hypothetical access to CP. The writers know which armies will be in short supply, and which armies will have abundance.
2) Guard CP batteries skewed this, a lot.
3) Elite imperium armies were bringing guard BNs for an extra 3 CP.
4) Giving guard extra CP does very little for them now considering their access to CP recycling and cheap BNs/BDEs.
5) Every army which sleazed on guard to farm CP just got a boost in CP, which can use them a lot better than Guard can.
6) Chaos can do this with cultists.
7) Aeldari can do it with Kabalites and Rangers.

I know the prevailing theme here now becomes: add guard to your army. But you just acquired a shiny new Custodes army, much of which was probably bought within the last 6 months. I'm sure you can spare $100 to buy some trashy guard guys and get that extra CP if it really means that much to you.

If you're really just hellbent on playing pure and not taking advantage of what is available, then all I can say is: you're stuck with what you're got. Willfully ignoring the potential does not mean that there is a problem. Custodes were just not built to bring BN+ detachments without heavy investment. Just like Grey Knights. Just like Blood Angels. Just like Imperial Knights. Just like <insert faction here whose troops cost 12+ points/model without upgrades>.

I'm honestly glad they didn't boost the specialist detachment. Either you get more CP for bringing stuff people clearly don't want, thus partially helping to curb spam... or you get those more efficient models and less CP to be even more effective with them.

I mean in a ideal world where people wouldn't soup, rewarding things like batallions with more CPs for armies like Grey Knight, Custodes, Death watch would totally make sense.

As it stands though all it does is serve to provide soup with more CP for cheap AM detachments.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I mean in a ideal world where people wouldn't soup, rewarding things like batallions with more CPs for armies like Grey Knight, Custodes, Death watch would totally make sense.

As it stands though all it does is serve to provide soup with more CP for cheap AM detachments.

And cut down on special snowflake rules that constantly usurp the core rules... like they did in 7th... which they pointedly wanted to avoid in 8th.

It isn't exactly fair to everyone... but then again, is it fair that just about every Imperium faction has access to 2+ armor saves while Sororitas has to ally in to get something that doesn't die to a gust of wind?

Celebrate the differences, invite friends to the party/

Audustum wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Audustum wrote:

What on Earth are you talking about? No Custodian Guard made the top 16. No Custodes made the top 8.

One Astra Mitarum list that took 3 Bike Captains was 10th. That's it.

https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Only 2 in the top 8 were even Imperium.

Geoff, the Custodian Guard guy, came in 22nd.

https://www.adepticon.org/results/

You might want to check your news sources. Geoff made it to the second round of the Championship the next day with his Custodes List.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/03/adepticon-40k-top-8-lists-meta.html

You might want to check yours. My second link there is literally the Adepticon results page. I will happily admit his position, like everyones', can bounce around depending on what you want to sort by.

Yes. Which is why if you go back and sort the Adepticon results by Battle Points you will see he was 16th and that is why he played in the Day 2 Champion Tournament and made it to the Top 8. He was 22nd Overall, but 16th in Generalship after tiebreakers. So, Top 8 Custodes List with Custodian Guard.

I've even listed to him on the Chapter Tactics podcast where he called the Custodian Guards an important part of his list that makes it actually work.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

1) Armies are balanced around hypothetical access to CP. The writers know which armies will be in short supply, and which armies will have abundance.
2) Guard CP batteries skewed this, a lot.
3) Elite imperium armies were bringing guard BNs for an extra 3 CP.
4) Giving guard extra CP does very little for them now considering their access to CP recycling and cheap BNs/BDEs.
5) Every army which sleazed on guard to farm CP just got a boost in CP, which can use them a lot better than Guard can.
6) Chaos can do this with cultists.
7) Aeldari can do it with Kabalites and Rangers.

I know the prevailing theme here now becomes: add guard to your army. But you just acquired a shiny new Custodes army, much of which was probably bought within the last 6 months. I'm sure you can spare $100 to buy some trashy guard guys and get that extra CP if it really means that much to you.

If you're really just hellbent on playing pure and not taking advantage of what is available, then all I can say is: you're stuck with what you're got. Willfully ignoring the potential does not mean that there is a problem. Custodes were just not built to bring BN+ detachments without heavy investment. Just like Grey Knights. Just like Blood Angels. Just like Imperial Knights. Just like <insert faction here whose troops cost 12+ points/model without upgrades>.

I'm honestly glad they didn't boost the specialist detachment. Either you get more CP for bringing stuff people clearly don't want, thus partially helping to curb spam... or you get those more efficient models and less CP to be even more effective with them.

What an interesting interpretation. So you believe that all their talk about giving elite armies more CPs was actually just them saying "don't play elite armies, ally in spam"? And that they really WANT everyone to play soup and are trying to encourage it, rather than discourage it as they clearly said and showed with their other rules changes?

Let's face it, this is simply a case of them coming up with a terrible and illogical solution to a problem. They say they want to support elite, solo faction armies, and did something which "in theory" could help, but in practice is actually not useful.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/19/the-big-faq-words-from-the-playtesters/

Michael: Many players will initially read Brigade Detachments getting 12 CP and Battalion Detachments getting 5 and think “Well that’s silly, now Astra Militarum can have even more!”. This was an initial reaction during testing, too, but upon deeper analysis it’s a bit irrelevant. The issue with Command Points was the narrow range of armies that could get “enough to do what they really wanted/needed to”, while others already had more Command Points than they could realistically use. We could have chosen to in some way limit their Command Point access, but all that would do is make all armies struggle to generate enough CP. Instead, we increased the number of points generated by Battalion and Brigade Detachments. This both encourages fielding armies that “look like armies” with a healthy dose of officers and troops, and enables most factions and builds to generate more than enough CP by fielding at least a Battalion Detachment.

And he's right. CP become less valuable the more you have. The problem elite armies had wasnt that they didn't had 15-20 CP. It was that they didn't had the CP they wanted to do the things and tactics they wanted to do. Once you have "just enough" CP for what you are trying to make, the rest are just a devalued extra.