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.
Ice_can wrote: This is 2 issues you have combined into one and people are not going to agree untill you break down the issue to the individual root causes
The issue with allies isn't CP, its the plugging a codex's weakness from another codex, meaning that soup usually outperforms a mono codex build.
The issue with Imperial Guard is the rediculous 5+regenerate CP warloard trait and 5+ steel CP relic. Both of those for sub 200 points thats more CP for less points than any other faction in 8th edition. Untill the CP abusing farm is fixed doing anything else to IG is pointless as it won't address the underlying issue.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Your half right IMHO, you limit the ability to abuse the IGCP farm to only IG strategums, but I have seen plenty of pure IG armies gaining CP as the game goes on even when spending CP as fast as they can this seems totally bonkers and god help non IG players when GW introduces more strategums.
Pure IG having tons of command points isn't a problem though because IG strategems are lackluster. This is why you don't see pure guard lists dominating the GTs and IG being taken almost exclusively as a CP farm. The balance of army strategems seems to be that codexes with access to the best strategems have the hardest time generating them. This balance breaks though when you have a combined CP pool with codexes like guard. Simply split the CP up between the forces that generated them and you get back to the balance between strategems in codexes.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Plus - you are right - there is more than one issue. Which favors taking allies even more. Mainly though - you have an overpowered force (like custodes) that needs command points to really shine - but they can't produce them. AM solves 2 problems at once by providing turn 1 screening and backfield objective holding. There is no reason not to do it. That is why it needs to be fixed.
I'm sorry, but that's straight up dumb until you answer more questions about how this works. CP Generated from detachments restricted to that detachment only? So if I bring a brigade of guard and a secondary spearhead, also guard, I can only use 1 cp on the spearhead?
So even mono-force armies get punished because of the fluffy use of Imperial chaff?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/09 20:45:05
I wouldn't say that is a real correlation. Eldar have amazing stratagems and can spam CP if they wanted to. Nids can do it to. You only need to produce what your army can use effectively though.
Tau generate CP easy by spamming commanders-fireblades and firewarriors which aren't even expensive and they are awesome. My tau have 18 command points with firepower at the level of AM.
The thing is - stratagems can only be used once per phase - so including multiple armies allows you to play more different stratagems which also in turn means you need more CP. That is the correlation I see.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Plus - you are right - there is more than one issue. Which favors taking allies even more. Mainly though - you have an overpowered force (like custodes) that needs command points to really shine - but they can't produce them. AM solves 2 problems at once by providing turn 1 screening and backfield objective holding. There is no reason not to do it. That is why it needs to be fixed.
I'm sorry, but that's straight up dumb until you answer more questions about how this works. CP Generated from detachments restricted to that detachment only? So if I bring a brigade of guard and a secondary spearhead, also guard, I can only use 1 cp on the spearhead?
So even mono-force armies get punished because of the fluffy use of Imperial chaff?
The way i imagine it (and i believe most people) is that it would be by detachment keyword. 3 BA detachments... great they all have the matching keyword and can share. 2 IG and 1 BA means that the 2 IG can share but the BA can use their own. 2 Catachan 2 Vallhallan they would have to split it.
This does 3 things for the game
1. Rewards fluffy mono build players with larger total CP pools
2. Still allows fluffy soup players to field what they want and actually fits fluff better (bringing more of a specifically trained soldier allows you to execute more of their maneuvers in a single engagement)
3. Helps balance by restricting CP generation by factions never designed to have that much
How do Eldar spam CP? Archon + Kabs can get you some with Brigades or Battalions, for far more points than IG. But CWE and Harlies do that much worse than Marines, Ynnari are tacked onto one of those, and Corsairs are always negative CP.
If you restrict the command points generated by a detachment to only the detachment that generates them - you fix this problem.
Plus - you are right - there is more than one issue. Which favors taking allies even more. Mainly though - you have an overpowered force (like custodes) that needs command points to really shine - but they can't produce them. AM solves 2 problems at once by providing turn 1 screening and backfield objective holding. There is no reason not to do it. That is why it needs to be fixed.
I'm sorry, but that's straight up dumb until you answer more questions about how this works. CP Generated from detachments restricted to that detachment only? So if I bring a brigade of guard and a secondary spearhead, also guard, I can only use 1 cp on the spearhead?
So even mono-force armies get punished because of the fluffy use of Imperial chaff?
That is a good point.
The wording would have to change to something like this then. "Command points generated by a specific faction keyword - can only be used by that faction keyword. Example - Command points generated by Chapter Ultra marines keyword detachment - can only be used for friendly Ultramarine keyword detachment units."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/09 21:07:27
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Bharring wrote: How do Eldar spam CP? Archon + Kabs can get you some with Brigades or Battalions, for far more points than IG. But CWE and Harlies do that much worse than Marines, Ynnari are tacked onto one of those, and Corsairs are always negative CP.
Well mean you know how to do it. It will cost a little more with eldar units because they are better units but you can easily fit 3 batallions or a brigade and a batallion into a CWE force. harder for DE but if you are willing to go the tripple threat - 3 battalions is doable. Plus they have a good CP generator as well.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Bharring wrote: To clarify the proposal most common on that vein:
All CP generated by detatchments can be utilized by units in detacthments that share the keyword the detatchment was built on.
So 2 CWE detatchments can share CP, but the DE detatchment can't use those CP. The base 3 would be up for anyone, though.
Is that an accurate representation of the suggestion?
Yes - Exactly.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Per CWE doing CP Battalions - not a lot of factions can't do that for the same or fewer points (GK, IK, Custodes, Harlies, Corsairs are the only factions worse off that way that come to mind). Even Marines do it cheaper.
Bharring wrote: Per CWE doing CP Battalions - not a lot of factions can't do that for the same or fewer points (GK, IK, Custodes, Harlies, Corsairs are the only factions worse off that way that come to mind). Even Marines do it cheaper.
The point difference is negligible. Space marine stratagems are trash though so there is that.
rangers are 60 = 180
warlocks are 55 = 110
290 batallion
Scouts 55 = 165
tech marine = 114
279 batallion
Plus - in the end - you are limited to 3 detachments in matched play - so really it is just about the ability to afford it in your army comp - not the ability to do it the cheapest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/09 21:13:55
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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?
We dont specifically, but more broadly speaking, most factions (barring stuff like Harlequins) are designed as self contained forces fully playable without allies, their Stratagems are specific to their units and costed to such units, and when built as self contained forces usually operate within a range of CP availability that differs from other armies built as self contained forces as well, and access to allied CP's and CP batteries is wildly inconsistent.
Allies are part of the game
a very poorly implemented part of it.
and in theory the CP stuff is as designed.
Looking at the actual execution in codex books, it does not appear CP sharing was ever considered much.
but I think restricting CP to generating faction is cumbersome and basically kills allies
Just because you cant use 10CP generated by a Guard army on your Space Marines or Sisters?
Most armies arent reliant on stratagems, especially not on spamming them, except those that go out of their way to abuse certain mechanics and are built in a specific manner to do just that. Having a CP battery from another faction shouldnt be taken as a given, especially when so many lack such access.
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.
To some degree thats not unfair, but thats also because GWs implementation of "allies" is atrocious, even in matched play it is little more than "take whatever you want from wherever you want in whatever quantity you want if they share a fluff keyword then they get to share a bunch of game mechanics to boot". Between the allies rules and detachment allowances, you really can make almost any combination and mishmash of units perfectly legal to field, which leads to lots of problems.
Aside from armies built specifically to abuse CP generation, i dont see what great harm restricting CP's to at least just the factions that generate them does.
The damage it does is to armies not designed to abuse those rules. I play Ravenguard allied with sisters, and have 9 CP total in most games. With your change I would have 6 one of which could be spent on sisters... so there is my one re-roll yay....Then my Ravenguard have 5, 3 of which probably get used pregame. So I have 1-3 strats to use during the game yay...sounds fun to me. Further I now need to track 2 separate CP pools, 3 if I went to other detachments. What this rule says to me is, no reason to ally now because it is overly punishing, I’m better off playing pure Ravenguard, and having probably 13 CP I can use on anything in my army.
It is your choice to play a dual army. Plus - if you just take 2 battalions you could have 10 base. You have options.
Which are severely limited by this rule....you have options now too, with you rule the options all become worse then playing mono-armies because doing so severely limits those options.
Nah dude - you could easily build an army with 10 cp. You just don't want to.
Nah dude It severely limits options because to do that I am required to take specific options, that would make the army significantly worse...and I would still have much more limited abuse of my CP (only 5 for the marines to use). So no still far worse to the point that it is not worth doing over playing pure. To get 10 CP I’d still need 6 troops, and 4 HQ choices, have less CP, and less flexibility. So yeah I can build a worse army than I have now and still have worse access to my CP than I have now. So like I said...the I hate allies thread because your suggest change kills them except maybe taking guard the problem the OP was trying to solve you. So you have punished allies, but still not fixed the major complained about ally. Sorry your fix is terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Primark G wrote: It’s unfair that Imperial soup players have a broken means to farm CP. What if they just didn’t take that WLT and relic but no they would never not do it.
EASy to fix-your warlord must be in your faction with the most points. Fixed no more guard CP farm.
What choices are you required to take?
2 batallions
4hq - lias/captain 2x leu
6 troops - 3 scouts -3 intercessors
patrol
Celestine
2x sisters
You got about 900-1000 points to spam whatever units you want. List building getting harder is actually a good thing.
So compared to what I run now hat is 2 additional HQ choices required, and 3 extra marine troop choices, so a minimum of 300 extra points in marines...and no ability to use CP for sisters....so may as well drop the sisters entirely at that point. I think losing the 3 CP bonus would be fine. I don’t think restricting to detachment is a good rule especially when paired with the loss of 3 CP conversely I think you could keep the 3 CP as use for either faction and restrict detachment CP to faction. Both is too far, better to fix the guard CP farm then over nerf allies.
Just take a battalion of sisters then. They don't actually have stratagems yet though so...that might not be worth it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/09 21:14:45
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
@vaktahi- It isn’t just about abusing CP rules, but being significantly hindered on flexibility using CP while also getting docked 3 CP is a bigger nerf than you are giving it credit for. Take my list, for sisters that 1 CP will be reserved for Celestine. So they get no stratagems beyond that single re-roll. The marines are also worse off with less CP than they would otherwise be, so in reality this change is a better nerf to allied elite armies than allying in chaff. To me it renders allies competitively speaking to IG and fluff lists. Almost no other build will be better than a pure list. The point is not wanting to be overly penalized. Like I said I could live with one change or the other not both. Both ring of- I hate allies and they should not be competitive. Better fixes exist.
Kanluwen wrote: Our opinions might not mean much, but quite frankly neither should any of the people like Reecius or the various playtesters. They clearly wanted these abuses to stand and yet they're the ones whining about the tournament scene suffering because of it.
...Where the hell have you gotten this impression? Reecius has been overall positive on the FAQ changes/nerfs, and is especially fond of the new deep strike limitations. The one thing he doesn't like is the new assault rules.
Xenomancers wrote: Just take a battalion of sisters then. They don't actually have stratagems yet though so...that might not be worth it.
Yup then I end up with too many CP for sisters and not enough for marines, unless I just spam troops. Hence the way less options comment. Like I said if I still have the 3 cp that can split eitherway it might work, but still would be wonky to track. I think just penalizing the 3 CP would be fine, then fix the IGCP farm. Or like an said go back to 3 CP for battalions in mixed armies and 5 in pure armies and fix the farm.
I think the idea was (or should be) either the "you only get 3cp if all your detatchments are based on the same keyword" *or* the "CP granted by a detatchment can only be used by detatchments based on the same keyword", not both.
Primark G wrote: We saw how GW pulled in the reins on soup with the big faq obviously they are not totally cool with it and need to implement further restrictions.
They seem rather cool about this particular interaction though....
BIG FAQ 1
When we originally wrote this
edition of Warhammer 40,000 we wanted to make sure that your army could include appropriate allies. For example,
in an Imperium army, Imperial Guardsmen and Space Marines should be able to fight side-by-side, and in a Chaos
army Chaos Space Marines should be able to burn the galaxy alongside their daemonic minions.
Bharring wrote: Per CWE doing CP Battalions - not a lot of factions can't do that for the same or fewer points (GK, IK, Custodes, Harlies, Corsairs are the only factions worse off that way that come to mind). Even Marines do it cheaper.
The point difference is negligible. Space marine stratagems are trash though so there is that.
rangers are 60 = 180
warlocks are 55 = 110
290 batallion
Scouts 55 = 165
tech marine = 114
279 batallion
Plus - in the end - you are limited to 3 detachments in matched play - so really it is just about the ability to afford it in your army comp - not the ability to do it the cheapest.
I believe this is what they call "moving the goalposts." Your original point gets shot down (that CWE easily generate CP), so you change the argument to "but SM strategems are bad."
EnTyme wrote: And what does that quote have to do with Space Marines being able to use the CP farmed by an Imperial Guard captain?
Just that AM ally very much seems to be the desired way to play Imperium in general and every communication we've had has reinforced it rather than suggest playing codex "pure" is at all intended. It's ironically gotten to the point where I feel like all the anti-ally players need to jump to Warmachine to make room for all the anti-theme players from that game.
It doesn't mean its unbalanced either. I mean, how are IG allied marine lists fairing against Eldar and Nids these days?
Not as well as IG & Custodes lists
Which gets us back to that reinforcing the notion that Imperium should be mixed, given the function of one of the Custodes models is to give Guard a pretty nifty buff.
It doesn't mean its unbalanced either. I mean, how are IG allied marine lists fairing against Eldar and Nids these days?
Not as well as IG & Custodes lists
Which gets us back to that reinforcing the notion that Imperium should be mixed, given the function of one of the Custodes models is to give Guard a pretty nifty buff.
No it just means Custodes are simply more powerful than marines.
Also exactlly which unit in the custodes codex has an ability that buffs keyword Astramilitarum.
I think that Mono lists of any variety should get some sort of bonus, be it CP, or some other nice mechanical thing to make them more unique. This would also bode well for armies that cannot take allies, like Necrons. Furthermore I wouldn't mind if that extended down to the <Regiment/chapter/dysnasty> level as well, not just the big army key word. Armies (with some exceptions, ala Harlequins) have been always built with the idea that they are to be taken in a vacuum, and their weaknesses are balanced by their strength. Allies allow you to plug those holes. If you notice armies that have trouble generating CPs tend to also be armies that have very strong Stratagems. Guard on the other hand have more CPs than they could ever hope to use but also have either oddly specific Stratagems or ones that are....meh.
The inclusion of Guard into other armies with their CP making abilities are part of the problem because they were designed to have maximum "tactical" flexibility in their resource pool (aka we have more men than you have bullets) but they do not have to tools to utilize that resource as effectively as lets say Admech or Custodes. This is where the inherent imbalance occurs.
You guys have suggested a lot of great ideas as well to deal with it. CP for its only detachment is a handy one but it becomes an annoying book keeping issue. I personally like the idea that the only stratagems that can be used at list price are that of the warlord (aka primary, which should be more than 50% of the army). Any allied detachments can use their stratagems beyond the rulebook ones with a +1 CP tax that cannot be recycled. This I think would do well to balance out that abuse and also make allies more of strategy instead of a must have.
17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers