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.

Audustum wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
As an ork player, I kind of still don't understand/care how keywords work, but in the big FAQ, didn't they say that all armies in a detachment must share one keyword in common, and that imperium and chaos didn't count?

If so, doesn't that prohibit you from taking 'allied' guard?

It's on a DETACHMENT bases not an ARMY basis. You can still take a detachment of Astra Militarum and a detachment of Space Wolves in the same army, for example.

The rule was largely put in place to stop things like "I'm going to take a Guard detachment and take Celestine as one of my HQ's without bringing any Sisters" or "I'm going to take all of the best Blood Angels and Space Wolves named characters and put them in a Supreme Command".

I know i've said this before but I'll say it again. I think a good solution to soup would be to simply make it so your general determines your overall "faction" ( i.e. Astra Militarum, Custodes, etc) and if you use stratagems that are not from your faction then they will have a 1-2 CP tax to use them. This way there are no hidden recycle warlords feeding CPs to the custodes jetbikes, one of those guys will have to be general if you want a chance to use their stratagems. Special case armies like Inquisition could be an exception if they are warlord, or better yet they have their own pool of "generic" and not ridiculous stratagems that could work on all imperials (same with ynnarrii).

Also giving a fat bonus of some kind to armies taking a pure mono faction would be nice, like Brigades and Battalions only provide their new full CP value if you have a mono army, if not they could generate the OLD value.

I didn't bother reading the seven pages, but my vote is simple: Declare a primary faction, and gain CPs from detachments of that faction. Allied detachments grant minimal or no CPs.

That's assuming the entire thing doesn't get a complete rework sometime.

 Elbows wrote:
I didn't bother reading the seven pages, but my vote is simple: Declare a primary faction, and gain CPs from detachments of that faction. Allied detachments grant minimal or no CPs.

That's assuming the entire thing doesn't get a complete rework sometime.

Thats an even simpler way to do it! and simple is good, I like it

On one level I'd like to nuke soup into the ground so no one would take it to a tournament. If you want to play around with allies you can - but it shouldn't be a no brainer. Under the current rules it always will be without a major drawback which isn't currently in the game.

This might be a scrub mentality - but I like the idea of being an "X" player and getting the best out of your book. Books should then be buffed accordingly if they are bad rather than being in limbo for fear of buffing the soup that is dominating the current meta.

For the actual game I think the solution to the question is just killing CP farming abilities. As was suggested change them for "you get an extra CP or 2" and see where that gets you. Its clearly far too valuable to the point where its autotake across almost every faction that can do it. The fact Guard can do it more efficiently is a symptom.

I think there is an argument that say a brigade of Marines should offer you a lot more CP than a brigade of Guard - or there should be other detachments that vary by faction - but that just adds more complexity and GW can barely balance as it is. I don't think anyone wants to go back to formations even if the idea originally wasn't the "take 3 of this overpowered unit, give a further bonus" that it became.

Roughly half that have vote are not okay with CP farming.

There would be less CP farming if IG stuff cost more fething points.

Martel732 wrote:
There would be less CP farming if IG stuff cost more fething points.

Well I can't argue with IS being 5 points per model but 6 is too much considering Kabalites exist now. Even then the extra 60 points isn't going to kill the farm.

I mean their HQs and tanks and everything.

IMO Your Warlord choice should dictate what stratagems you have access to as well as dictate what faction you get CP’s for (ie. you onty get CP’s for detachments that share the same faction keyword as your Warlord - Excluding Imperial, Chaos, etc. as stated in the beta rules.)

 Primark G wrote:
Roughly half that have vote are not okay with CP farming.

That is a completely disingenuous reading of the poll results.

Even if we combine two categories as you suggest then the result just indicates no preference amongst the respondents as a whole.

Martel732 wrote:
There would be less CP farming if IG stuff cost more fething points.

Ah yes, nerf pure IG armies to kill off CP farming. Who cares if those IG players have a bad army, they don't matter. Why address the root cause of the issue, the broken ally/keyword system, when you can just kill off IG?

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There would be less CP farming if IG stuff cost more fething points.

Ah yes, nerf pure IG armies to kill off CP farming. Who cares if those IG players have a bad army, they don't matter. Why address the root cause of the issue, the broken ally/keyword system, when you can just kill off IG?

Or that the current CP generation method is broken. Also, I can do the same thing with CSM,TS,DG and Chaos Demons. Perhaps not as well, but its still easy CP and screeners.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Roughly half that have vote are not okay with CP farming.

That is a completely disingenuous reading of the poll results.

Even if we combine two categories as you suggest then the result just indicates no preference amongst the respondents as a whole.

You’re of course correct, but even with absurd interpretations, it’s not like there will ultimately be any meaningful consequences to the poll anyway.

A lot of things have been changed such as flyers can’t hold objectives. You never know.