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.

It just seems like every Imperial army list I see has the notorious battalion with two commanders and three platoons to farm CPs. Maybe GW should release a box kit. Anyways I think it is a super crutch right up there with Slammaguinius and three five man squads of bolter scouts and three Shield-Cappies mounted on Dawneagles. Really makes games boring IMO.

No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.

No, especially with the recent CP increase it really is not needed. Further if you wanted to fix it just errata the WL trait/relic to work differently. Like “whenever you use an A.M. stratagem roll a D6...”. Now it isn’t great at farming for other armies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.

As a long time guard player I agree with this 100%. Infantry Squads are too cheap. It makes mainstay units like Conscripts irrelevant. and the price difference between the IS and Veteran squads means you might as well just run more IS to make up for their crummy BS. I want to be a clear tier of 4 for constripts, 5 for IS, then 6 for veterans. That way you pick the unit you need for the role and not because its cheap and taking another option would be silly. (and yes I know veterans are not troops)

The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.

Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.

How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.

I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.

Toning down allies I think is the best solution.

I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Toning down allies I think is the best solution.

I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.

I REALLY REALLY like this suggestion.

Then how do you spend a CP to bring an Aux to take an Inquisitor or Asssasin or Celestine?

“Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them.”

Great suggestion!!!

Bharring wrote:
The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.

Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.

How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.

I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.

Tacs are worth about 10 compared to a 6 point kabalite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Then how do you spend a CP to bring an Aux to take an Inquisitor or Asssasin or Celestine?

You would have to generate it through another detachment I guess. I don't think that detachment is legal in matched play anyways.

I like the idea of restricting CP to the Detatchment, but it's a huge paperwork headache. If it were simple and brainless to do, generally sounds like a good idea.

But are Relics and Aux Detatchments and such affected as well?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.

Arguably - if they were worthy of a price hike people would be fielding more than the bare minimum.

The problem is that they are cheap CP generation for other stronger units, and entirely caused by CPs being shared between different factional detachments.

@xeno -Nah at that point allies would be worse than mono-faction in most cases because the hit to your CP is huge and potentially crippling.

Aux is legal - in fact, there are some units where it is the only possible way to field them. It's rare, because the 3-detatchment limit usually used.

But the idea that you could spend CP on Aux but not strats seems in keeping with your original idea.

You don’t spend a CP you lose one.

Bharring wrote:
The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.

Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.

How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.

I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.

I actually agree with this assessment, which mean the only "fix" is making marines cheaper. Unfortunately for the fluff players. The 6pt kabalite was really the nail in the coffin.

As much as I hate IG, I voted no on this issue.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Toning down allies I think is the best solution.

I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.

Then you sort of screw over elite armies that use IG. I feel like i'd rather have the flexibility and just make things more of a difficult choice for list building.

Why is that a bad thing?

You might be able to do something along the lines of CP is only generated by your Warlord's faction (keyword binding your Warlord's detatchment), or generated at a lower rate by other detatchments.

A Celestine here or there is cool. A Celestine as an auto-include is not.

There has been some suggestive evidence lately (tourny results, etc) that perhaps things aren't as dire as was thought. But it's not conclusive.

They already fixed Celestine as an auto-include as to bring her now you need to spend a full detachment to do it and either ~80-90 points or a CP

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.

Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.

How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.

I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.

I actually agree with this assessment, which mean the only "fix" is making marines cheaper. Unfortunately for the fluff players. The 6pt kabalite was really the nail in the coffin.

As much as I hate IG, I voted no on this issue.

Adding to this, referring back to the numerous calculations on costing marines, 10 pt is good place for scouts, 11 is good place for marines.

Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.

Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.

Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.

 skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The problem is the crunching down of the spectrum.

Tacs are down to 13ppm. Kabs are 6. Think about that.

How can you justify a Guardsmen at 5 when Kabs are 6? One of the costs of the model inflation is that, as they push model count by dropping points, there's less precision in the variance of points.

I'd love to see 5pt Guard, but it's getting hard to justify that with how other things are getting pointed.

I actually agree with this assessment, which mean the only "fix" is making marines cheaper. Unfortunately for the fluff players. The 6pt kabalite was really the nail in the coffin.

As much as I hate IG, I voted no on this issue.

Adding to this, referring back to the numerous calculations on costing marines, 10 pt is good place for scouts, 11 is good place for marines.

I think that is probably about as good as we can get in 8th. I concur.

That's the impression I got between tourny results and submitted lists.

The more evidence I see, the better the FAQ seems.

(Edit - that was aimed at the 'they already fixed Celestine' comment)

You can bring her as an aux detachment.

I love the agendas to repoint certain units which is completely off topic. Do us all a favor and stay on topic thanks.

Bharring wrote:
That's the impression I got between tourny results and submitted lists.

The more evidence I see, the better the FAQ seems.

I don't object to the FAQ that much, except that it hit armies that didn't need to be hit. Like GK and BA.

GW should make a token set for sale to represent the CP's that can be used for particular armies. I feel like GW could make more money by offering 'official' book keeping system. I.e. - 'ADVANCE' token, 'MOVED' token, if they ever bring it back, 'PINNED' token etc.

This way, the whole 'oh its going to be a hassle tracking which army this CP is generated from and so and so' issue could be resolved.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.

Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.

Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.

Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have? Allies are part of the game and in theory the CP stuff is as designed. They added CP to detachments to make things like the guard cheap battalion less attractive. My preference on that front would have been having that bonus only in mono-faction builds, but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You can bring her as an aux detachment.

I love the agendas to repoint certain units which is completely off topic. Do us all a favor and stay on topic thanks.

Yes at the cost of a detachment and a CP. That is a hefty tax.

A.T. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No need to ban it. Just make IS 5 points (yes, I realize this will generate controversy - let's not debate it here though). Maybe tweak a few other small items and it becomes less attractive and harder to fit things in.

Arguably - if they were worthy of a price hike people would be fielding more than the bare minimum.

The problem is that they are cheap CP generation for other stronger units, and entirely caused by CPs being shared between different factional detachments.

Ehh - I still think they are underpointed due to the 5+ save - drop it to a 6+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Making Infantry Squads 5ppm isnt going to do much about soup, especially the CP battery issues, most of these armies arent running hundreds of guardsmen, for the CP battery lists, theyll be able to squeeze 30-60pts elsewhere without much issue in an 1850/2k game.

Likewise, banning one faction from being allies but not others doesnt hold any water either.

Simple fix...CP's only get to be used on the detachments or factions that generate them. Suddenly, the allied CP shennanigans ceases to be an issue, factions deal with the CP they were designed to have, and we dont need to get into manipulating points or bans.

Joan do you know how many CP an army was designed to have? Allies are part of the game and in theory the CP stuff is as designed. They added CP to detachments to make things like the guard cheap battalion less attractive. My preference on that front would have been having that bonus only in mono-faction builds, but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies with minimal exception especially if you also take away the 3 you get for battleforged. Sorry but a lot in this thread reads as I hate allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You can bring her as an aux detachment.

I love the agendas to repoint certain units which is completely off topic. Do us all a favor and stay on topic thanks.

Yes at the cost of a detachment and a CP. That is a hefty tax.

The game is not "designed" in the sense you are speaking about. They don't even think about these things. Otherwise we wouldn't have the issues we have now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Toning down allies I think is the best solution.

I think the bonus 3 command points you get for battle forged should only apply to mono build armies. Plus command points should only be allowed to be used to the detachment that created them. More or less that would fix every problem I have with allies. Plus - allies would still probably better than mono factions (If that is the case it is clear to see allies are totally a problem within the game right now). In no way should it be illegal to take allies though - it is a cool thing to be able to do.

Then you sort of screw over elite armies that use IG. I feel like i'd rather have the flexibility and just make things more of a difficult choice for list building.

I mean. Those are the exact armies that need to be screwed. Also - it's a marvel that AM CP generator is actually better than Guillimans (the primarch known for strategy and military management) warlord trait. It's literally insane that the lord of all imperial forces has less command ability than a AM company commander.

It's an entirely valid and legal method of play.

Adapt or move on.