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.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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."

I wasn't moving the goalposts. Just simply adding to the discussion that you don't see space marine players trying to squeeze out a cheep battalion because there is literally no point - their stratagems are trash tier. The discussion above had to do with someone saying that there is a link between command point generation ability and stratagem power level. There is not - IMO. Tau, nids, and Eldar disprove that rather easily - both generate command points without interrupting their desired army comp and have very powerful stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:

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

Adapt or move on.

Valid and legal do not mean balanced.

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.

Their ancient.

I mean that helps with guard taking the warlord, but not really in the use of guard as a cheap CP source for a larger elite army. So it punishes more evenly allied forces and favors those that just bring the allies as a screen and cheap CP.

There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.

I don't think a solution that completely eliminates the possibility of allies is a solution.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.

Personally I liked that a lot more than what we have now. Maybe a modified version that allowed a single allied detachment with much greater limitations than the FOC. Something like our current patrol detachment? I don't think allies should be removed from the game.

Ice_can wrote:

Also exactlly which unit in the custodes codex has an ability that buffs keyword Astramilitarum.

Good point. It buffs any Imperial ally, but I guess the important bit is that its really only allies that can benefit from it. IG is the obvious pick but its available to others. It's just that Marines don't notice until they start getting hit with AP -3 or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.

Which means you'd better hope you're one of the codexes that does have weaknesses and everyone else can just hope they get better next edition.

I think everybody is thinking about this all wrong.

*que inspirational music*

I have never seen a Space Marine use a CP.

I have never seen a Nid use a CP.

I have never seen a Daemon use a CP.

I have never seen a Warlord use a CP.

I don’t think anyone else has either.

I don’t think anyone has seen a model use a CP.

I have only seen Players use CP.

The Players that make the lists, the Players that control the models. The Players that decide it is time to use a CP.

The Players that will feel the anguish of defeat, the tension of intellectual combat, the PRIDE OF VICTORY.

I don’t think I have ever seen a model, or a group, or multiple groups of models do anything.

I don’t think CP benefits an army, but rather, the Player behind the army.

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.

Units should be costed in the context of the army.
Imperials should pay hugely for fast hover tanks if they have them at all.
Eldar should have fast hover tanks and should pay out the yang for land raider equivalents.
Orks should have lots of tough cc and low bs unreliably shooting and should rely heavily on leaders for army wide mechanics.
Tau should have paper thin cc and extremely reliable shooting and should also rely heavily on leaders for army wide mechanics.
Eldar should have expensive but ultra cool everything due to waning supplies (wave serpents should be more expensive to reflect this fact, I think) and lots of specialty stuff to reflect their once sprawling civilization, and many of these units should operate well without relying on leadership.
GK should be similar, for different reasons, and more expensive...

Anyways, point being that an eldar land raider should cost more points than a space marine land raider for example.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.

No Detachments, No Flyers, Ultramarines Only, Final Destination.

Is the problem with the IG CP Farm really the 5 CP you get for the 200 point Battalion?

Isn't the problem really the ever present Grand Strategist Warlord Trait and Kurov's Aquila Relic that always come along with the detachment?

Why not stop trying to fix the symptom (IG have the best CP farming ability) and attack the disease (the ability to gain CP when a Stratagem is used)?

For example, force the Warlord to be a model in the faction with the most points assigned to it. Or outright ban every Warlord Trait and Relic that allows you to gain Command Points on a dice roll after the game starts.

 alextroy wrote:
Is the problem with the IG CP Farm really the 5 CP you get for the 200 point Battalion?

Isn't the problem really the ever present Grand Strategist Warlord Trait and Kurov's Aquila Relic that always come along with the detachment?

Why not stop trying to fix the symptom (IG have the best CP farming ability) and attack the disease (the ability to gain CP when a Stratagem is used)?

For example, force the Warlord to be a model in the faction with the most points assigned to it. Or outright ban every Warlord Trait and Relic that allows you to gain Command Points on a dice roll after the game starts.

I think we should remove the warlord trait and replace it with something else. Then nerf the relic to only work on 6+, like everyone else.

Do you then also have to ban the Blood Angels relic and other similar abilities?

I think GW needs to peel back some restrictions (3 of unit max, which does not stop nurgle/tzeentch/regular daemon prince x9)
Not add more

I think strategems and relic acces should be restricted to warlord/main faction. (à la AoS).

Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)

Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).

No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.

 Ordana wrote:
Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)

Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).

No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.

I'm not so sure. A bunch of screening bodies to do the dirty work of camping objectives and eating Smites while still actually bringing some useful firepower to the table is also pretty damn powerful. Add to that the extra firepower from the Basilisks the IG Battalion inevitably brings and it's a bit of a no-brainer for competitive armies. The CP regen/stealing is obviously very powerful too but I'm not convinced just nerfing that would prevent the CP farm detachments.

CP farm detachments will happen because armies want a bunch of CP.
The point is to make Guard not have the best CP recursion in the game in a factor of 2 or more.

You can literally double the cost of everything in the Guard book and you will still see minimal detachments everywhere because Grand Stratagist + Kurov's aquilla is that good.

Drop the marines to 10 pts. If you look around it's actually a good price. Fire warrior is 7, tzaangor is 7. A marine for 10 pts would be just right, not even close to overpowered and would generate more incentive to play an all marine army instead of splashing over to IG.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
There is a solution but nobody wants to accept it: single 5th edition FOC with a LoW slot added (capped at 33% of your point total). No allies, no multiple detachments, no CP farming, all of it is gone. You get one FOC from one codex and you live with its weaknesses.

I don't think a solution that completely eliminates the possibility of allies is a solution.

Of course it is. Allies need to go. It was a terrible decision from the beginning, and it's time to end the lunacy.

Though I guess if you really insist on having allies the problem could be fixed with some restrictions. You start with a single 5th edition FOC, and may add one of the following: a single LoW from the same codex as your primary detachment, a fortification detachment, or an allied detachment of up to 25% of your point total. Your two detachments may not share buffs of any kind (including stratagems), the allied detachment generates no CP, and all CP must be allocated to one detachment at the beginning of the game (effects that recover CP do not change this allocation). And the faction keyword system is removed entirely, any codex may ally with any other codex. You can now take allies if you really want them for fluff reasons, but you can't pick out the best buff units from multiple sources or use a token IG detachment as a CP battery.

(Though TBH the CP mechanic is stupid as hell and should be removed as well, rather than trying to make it work with a proper detachment system.)

If the choice is between banning allies or nerfing IG because they're too useful as allies, I'd go with the former.

I'd far rather armies be forced to work on their own than have IG nerfed to hell because Girlyman players use them as CP-farms or bullet-sponges.

I posted a thread about this when the big FAQ came out, but this was my solution:

Work out your main faction by working out which keyword is carried by the units totalling the highest points value in your army, ignoring Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid.

Detachments that do not have the keyword of your main faction do not generate CP. They still cost CP if they have a negative cost.

So you want to bring Guardsmen as cheap screens for your predominantly space marine army? Sure, go for it! But you're not getting bargain CP in the deal too.

Slipspace wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)

Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).

No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.

I'm not so sure. A bunch of screening bodies to do the dirty work of camping objectives and eating Smites while still actually bringing some useful firepower to the table is also pretty damn powerful. Add to that the extra firepower from the Basilisks the IG Battalion inevitably brings and it's a bit of a no-brainer for competitive armies. The CP regen/stealing is obviously very powerful too but I'm not convinced just nerfing that would prevent the CP farm detachments.

Its a combination of point costs, the massive CP farm, and the fact that guardsmen are actually useful screens. If you had to take a battalion of grey knights to get the same double CP recuperation it would be far less splashable. The other option is to outright remove ally restrictions. Let the pro scene and WAAC players have disgustingly unfluffy armies without worrying about which alliances have the best soup since they all can have the same thing. If a unit is overpowered or undercosted to the point to where it is exactly like how Riptide Wings were in every army's list then the current FAQ and Chapter Approved system is in place to deal with the specific problem units. The last option is to just get rid of allies altogether with some limited exceptions like assassins who have permission to join a few select armies without penalty or Chapter Tactics. Plenty of units already have army specific versions of it, so why not have a few at the Imperial/Chaos level.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Drop the marines to 10 pts. If you look around it's actually a good price. Fire warrior is 7, tzaangor is 7. A marine for 10 pts would be just right, not even close to overpowered and would generate more incentive to play an all marine army instead of splashing over to IG.

Yeah not so much....A sister of battle is 9 points and has S3 T3, and WS4. SO for 1 point marines should get +1 WS, S and T? Fire warriors are S/T 3 with a 4+ save, BS 4+, and WS 5+(?) so for 3 points a marine should get +1 Save, S, T, BS, and +2 WS?

A marine is literally twice as durable against S 4 shooting than a fire warror, More than twice as durable against S3, 1.5 times as durable against S5, 1.9 times against S6 and 7. Shoots 16% better, fights 33% better to hit and wounds easier. That has to have some value more than a 43% points increase. Now 13 might be a bit much but it is closer than 10. The big issue is 40ks points are not granular enough to represent things very well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
If the choice is between banning allies or nerfing IG because they're too useful as allies, I'd go with the former.

I'd far rather armies be forced to work on their own than have IG nerfed to hell because Girlyman players use them as CP-farms or bullet-sponges.

Unfortunately the former is not an option due to how the game has come to be designed were several factions don't function as stand alone armies.

You really don't need to Nerf Guard to hell. You need to do 2 things. 1.) Require your warlord come from the faction with the highest point total in your army, 2 .) limit relics to only being in the faction of your warlord even with the stratagem. IG is still useful as allies, but don't provide a super boost of CP, unless you want to invest a ton of points. Right now the CP far produces 5 CP + (lets say you take a battalion of your main army and maybe a 1 CP detachment for 14 CP, and your opponent is around the same) a potential of on average another 9 CP. SO 200 points is bringing about 14 CP to the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
Instead of swinging a ban hammer have you considered looking at WHY its always Guard. (hint, its not just point costs)

Nerf Grand Stratagist and viola, guard is still a good option but no longer auto include and other cheap battalions get more room (Marines with scouts, AdMech).

No other CP recuperation is per CP on a 5+. Just change it to 1 6+ per Stratagem and you remove the main incentive for Guard allies.

The Ultra Marines Warlord Trait is on a 5+ per CP. Most other CP regen is per stratagem though not per CP.

So, here's a question - should armies have different amounts of CP in the first place?

I wonder if it would make more sense for every army to have a few CPs (maybe 1 + an additional 1 per 500pts or something) that regenerate each round.

Breng77 wrote:

A marine is literally twice as durable against S 4 shooting than a fire warror, More than twice as durable against S3, 1.5 times as durable against S5, 1.9 times against S6 and 7. Shoots 16% better, fights 33% better to hit and wounds easier. That has to have some value more than a 43% points increase.

Just a point, but a Fire Warrior does have a much better gun than a SM. I don't know if it's enough to make SMs worth just 3pts more, but I think it's worth noting.


EDIT:

Breng77 wrote:

You really don't need to Nerf Guard to hell. You need to do 2 things. 1.) Require your warlord come from the faction with the highest point total in your army, 2 .) limit relics to only being in the faction of your warlord even with the stratagem.

I'd be fine with that.

 vipoid wrote:
So, here's a question - should armies have different amounts of CP in the first place?

I wonder if it would make more sense for every army to have a few CPs (maybe 1 + an additional 1 per 500pts or something) that regenerate each round.

Breng77 wrote:

A marine is literally twice as durable against S 4 shooting than a fire warror, More than twice as durable against S3, 1.5 times as durable against S5, 1.9 times against S6 and 7. Shoots 16% better, fights 33% better to hit and wounds easier. That has to have some value more than a 43% points increase.

Just a point, but a Fire Warrior does have a much better gun than a SM. I don't know if it's enough to make SMs worth just 3pts more, but I think it's worth noting.


EDIT:

Breng77 wrote:

You really don't need to Nerf Guard to hell. You need to do 2 things. 1.) Require your warlord come from the faction with the highest point total in your army, 2 .) limit relics to only being in the faction of your warlord even with the stratagem.

I'd be fine with that.

True on the FW gun, it is better, hence why I also used the Sister, same gun 9 points for worse stats. Given everything I think marines might be 11 points mostly based off the cost of scouts, you would essentially be trading 1 point of armor for infiltrate at equal cost. Not sure that feels right either, but as I said points are not really granular enough on low point models as every point is a huge swing I've long though GW should multiply points by a factor of 10 to give them more precision. IMO marines should probably cost 1.5-1.75 times what a FW costs based on their stats Which would be 10.5 - 12.25 points.

 vipoid wrote:
So, here's a question - should armies have different amounts of CP in the first place?

Yes. The whole point of the CP mechanic was to be a balancing factor for the new detachments. If you take a 5th edition style FOC, with a balanced mix of units from the various FOC categories and a strong core of troops you get a lot of CP. If you take a bunch of heavy support units and nothing else just because you figured out that a particular tank is overpowered you get minimal CP. If you take a single unit from a random codex you get negative CP.

Of course the CP mechanic in general sucks and should be thrown out, but if you operate under the assumption that you're going to keep it then different armies should absolutely have different levels of CP.

Maybe GW could do a thing where a player has to pick 1 main faction keyword and they're the only CP you get. So they can still get CP for IG armies but not from their support. This way they can still farm but not as much.

Would only getting the faction stratagems of your Warlord be enough?

I'm thinking beyond IG - for the game as a whole.

Sure, you could take an IG battery with Custs/SM/Nids/Chaos, but if it's your HQ, now your SM/Custs/Nids/Chaos get none of *their* stratagems. But you could still take an IG force shored up by some Space Marines. Or a Custodes force backed up by IG.


The IG Battery forces would then still have tons of CP if they take an IG warlord, but what are they going to spend it on?

I doubt there'll be a change anytime soon, of course. Seems like there's vast disagreement on even whether one is needed.

Like the obvious majority of people, I think it's mostly fine as is.

I would support tournaments doing their own composition rules if they feel they want to veer towards the thematic, stylish, mono codex "everything looks like an army" battles.

See SN Battle Reports' "No Retreat" in Gibraltar... their rules pack specifically states what you can and can't have to ensure the armies meet the style they want.

for example:

Armies must be comprised of a single faction with the following armies being broken down further. (Note:
Whenever a specific codex is mentioned within this section it is assumed to also include the Index and Forge
World units of the same army)

Codex Space Marines
- Must contain one or two detachments solely comprised of units with the “Adeptus Astartes” keyword
- May contain a detachment solely comprised of units with the faction keyword “Inquisition”
- May contain a detachment solely comprised of units with the faction keyword “Questor Imperialis”
- Only one Chapter Type Keyword allowed within the entire army (e.g. Blood Angels, White Scars, etc)

and so on for each Codex.

Then the tournaments like LVO that want to be the best of the best of the best type affairs can stick with the current Chaos/Aeldari/Imperial soups.

It's really not a big issue unless you are sat there with 2000 points of Necrons thinking its not fair that you don't win your local RTT's. But that's not really a problem for the Matched Play game.

The irony is that people used to complain that we never saw Space Marines and Imperial Guard fighting side by side.

 Nurglitch wrote:
The irony is that people used to complain that we never saw Space Marines and Imperial Guard fighting side by side.

Yeah, you GW can't win.

There were calls to re-allow allies, when they weren't allowed, and now there are calls to re-ban them, when they are allowed. Sometimes I wonder if GW's own inconsistency has doomed themselves; if they had just allowed Allies from the beginning, the people who didn't like the idea wouldn't still be playing the game. (Yes, technically they did through Inquisition but that doesn't count as real allies because *handwave*).