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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It just made Guard more attractive as an ally. 180 points gets you 5 Command Points. It's completely unfair to armies that don't have that access and frankly I shouldn't need a second codex out of principle for my army to function.

They could just put Guard into every Imperium Codex I suppose, but that would mostly just drive out troops that are actually getting to see the table because the super cheap battalion makes the second premium battalion possible. Almost everyone has access to CP at near Guard prices; Imperium is just fractured into a billion codexes for historical reasons. Chaos has Cultists, Tau have Strike Teams, Orks have Orks. Really, the only factions that are lacking in this regard are Eldar, who don't need any help, and Necrons, who are probably the one big outlier in this as far as I'm concerned.

I think the whole system of detachment based CP is proving to be fail.

First, limiting CP is boring. The challenge of CP ought to be what stratagems you choose to use each turn, not if you have enough to use. We have tons of strats that barely get any use at all because we just can't afford them.

I think the whole CP system would work much better if they were based on units. So instead of getting CP from detachments, you get CP from each unit you take. This way different units could provide different amounts and could be another balancing factor. For example, a guardian squad could give 1CP each, a Tac squad could give +2 CP, and guard infantry platoons could give .5CP per squad. The amounts could also vary based on the size of the squad. HQs could then determine your max CP cap. So if you want a large pool, you need a bunch of them.

Detachments were originally about giving an extra bonus if you had a certain configuration of units. In 8th, they are more about force org and CP. But given how they work, they don't really limit force org in a direct way, only softly through CP. And having there be a trade off between Force Org and CP is lame and not fun. If we need force org to stop bad unit combinations, or to force some list diversity, then we should have it., But it should not be tied to CP. But I think this is still better handled on a per unit level. We're also seeing stuff like the tau commander restriction and rule of 3, but they aren't really addressing the overall problem. It'd be better if each data sheet listed how many of the unit could be taken in a normal sized game (~2,000 and below.)

So to summarize: Each units data sheet says how many can be taken, and how much CP they provide. Each HQ says how much they expand the CP cap by. Detachments go back to being a bonus for certain units if you take a certain combo of them (and perhaps other restrictions like keeping them near each other.)

But it's probably too drastic a change for them to make. So within the current system, I'd just like to see everyone get more CPs in general. Stratagems are fun to use, add tactical depth, and are generally already limited by their costs and use per turn.

Logically it makes sense to me that armies like guard or tyranid would have more CP.

THe problem I have is the ability to steal or recycle is something they should not be able to do. The guard one is particularly obscene.

I'd be inclined to get rid of all of the warlord traits /artefacts that offer the chance to regenerate CP. Everyone always takes them. Then certain armies get given the opportunity to steal/recover their own as a general rule applied to their warlord (I'd also limit it to all detachments being from the same warlord's faction). This means you can more specifically apply the bonus as a balancing factor AND you open up the warlord traits/artefacts lists to see more varied lists.

Note: not all elite armies would have this applied. IK for example should be inherently limited.

I also think one faction should only be able to generate CP. Detachments from other factions do not get to generate CP. All detachments from the chosen faction do.

I agree that the CP refunding/stealing needs to be removed. It's just obnoxious.

CassianSol wrote:
I also think one faction should only be able to generate CP. Detachments from other factions do not get to generate CP. All detachments from the chosen faction do.

Literally does nothing to combat the biggest abusers, unless you lock the generated CP to that faction, which doesn't fix anything either because two of the three "abuse" batallions (Guard and Dark Eldar, the third being Renegades) unlock extremely powerful stratagems. When you're paying 36 points for Imperial CP and 38 for dirty Xenos Scum CP, it doesn't matter if you lose the 1500 point cost CP from your Custards.

Under your suggestion, I can take 2 guard battalions and say my CP generation faction is ASTRA COPYWRITUM, and then stick in Marines, Custodes or some Knights.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I agree that the CP refunding/stealing needs to be removed. It's just obnoxious.

CassianSol wrote:
I also think one faction should only be able to generate CP. Detachments from other factions do not get to generate CP. All detachments from the chosen faction do.

Literally does nothing to combat the biggest abusers, unless you lock the generated CP to that faction, which doesn't fix anything either because two of the three "abuse" batallions (Guard and Dark Eldar, the third being Renegades) unlock extremely powerful stratagems.

Under your suggestion, I can take 2 guard battalions and say my CP generation faction is ASTRA COPYWRITUM, and then stick in Marines, Custodes or some Knights.

... and can only use that chosen faction's strategems. Apologies for missing that out, it makes a big difference.

Fundamentally I don't have a problem with the idea of Guard generating a lot of CP so long as it is used to fuel Guard units*. No other army has a big problem with this(We haven't seen enough of DE to say for certain). If anything the case should be to rewrite the Guard codex.


*Although I think IG have a weird overlap where they have hero abilities, regiment abilities, orders and CPs all layered up to make what should be standard units have abilities far beyond reason.

Personally I would like to see everyone start with the exact same number of CP's regardless of deployment type or size of game. Something like 15 points each. My reason being that it would give players the chance to use the different stratagems. At the moment I see the same three (depending on codex) pretty much used each game and it would be nice for players to get to use their various stratagems a lot more.

 Primark G wrote:
AM has access to way too much and can virtually have an unlimited amount. I would love to the see the guard cp farm is banned or at least nerfed.

They literally have too much. They can't generate enough use for them.

Whatever you do must be careful. Mono IG isn't problem. Problem is ally system. Guardsmen etc aren't problem on their own but when you can use them to generate CP and cheap bodies for other armies fixing their weakness...But if you nerf that you can hit very easily too hard on pure guard which already is more of upper middle class level.

I think in normal, casual settings, it's been a big improvement. The 180 point guard CP farm tack-on is something you never really see outside of competitive tournament games because simply put nobody (at least in the group I play with) is interested in painting and buying 32 guardsmen just to broadcast to the group that they're an overcompetitive jerkbag.

People who play guard and other horde armies have gone from "functionally unlimited" to "Functionally unlimited" but people who play elite armies have gone from 6 to 8 typically, and in my experience that extra couple makes a bigger difference than the difference between a guard army having 12 vs 15.

I'm not a fan of the new system as I feel it has pushed me to use armies that may not be particularly attractive to me due to the opportunity to get command points. My first 2 armies for 40K were Iyanden wraith host and Ravenwing. One was mostly using Elite slots, the other Fast Attack. So now I get told to add some Rangers and Guardians, or add some SM scouts to get my CPs. In the latter case, it's no longer a Ravenwing army as such.

It has stifled the detachment choice for sure and doesn't work. Played vs a chaos Brigade who every turn was able to pump out the +1 to wound, dreadnought one, and hellforged one on units plus rerolls etc. It was basically that all these units had additional special rules...which my army could not replicate. It was almost like having an additional 200-250pts in his list.

So no, not a fan.

Personally I think it is a beneficial bonus, but would like to see all of the "specialist" detachments get +1, including Patrol...

the_scotsman wrote:
I think in normal, casual settings, it's been a big improvement. The 180 point guard CP farm tack-on is something you never really see outside of competitive tournament games because simply put nobody (at least in the group I play with) is interested in painting and buying 32 guardsmen just to broadcast to the group that they're an overcompetitive jerkbag.

People who play guard and other horde armies have gone from "functionally unlimited" to "Functionally unlimited" but people who play elite armies have gone from 6 to 8 typically, and in my experience that extra couple makes a bigger difference than the difference between a guard army having 12 vs 15.

In all honesty Guard having cheap troops and hence silly CP isn't the main part I object to.
Its the totally broken regenerate on a 5+ and steel from the enemy on a 5+ that is supper broken.
Few competitive lists don't start with a IG battalion CP farm with grand strategist and kurov's some may drop one but one of those is almost always auto include.

Pure guard having 14+ CP isn't the main issue its that they finish the game with double digits.
Thats what makes them so utterly ridiculous 200 points for +5CP and regen and steel on a 5+ auto include. For extreme levels of broken combine with custodes 1CP power strategums and broken game.

I think the higher CPs for battalions and brigades is a good thing.

I'd like all the CP farming to go and be replaced with "taking this gives you 2 extra CP" or something like that.
I also think the stratagem system has been a work in progress - and its obviously not balanced faction by faction. Perhaps both could be resolved in 9th edition.

I can sort of see the attraction of "you get all these abilities, you can activate up to 3~ per turn", thereby getting past the whole system, but I can't see that happening.

Ice_can wrote:

In all honesty Guard having cheap troops and hence silly CP isn't the main part I object to.
Its the totally broken regenerate on a 5+ and steel from the enemy on a 5+ that is supper broken.
Few competitive lists don't start with a IG battalion CP farm with grand strategist and kurov's some may drop one but one of those is almost always auto include.

Pure guard having 14+ CP isn't the main issue its that they finish the game with double digits.
Thats what makes them so utterly ridiculous 200 points for +5CP and regen and steel on a 5+ auto include. For extreme levels of broken combine with custodes 1CP power strategums and broken game.

I think it would probably be good to make the 5+ CP regen as a standard part of the game as long as your Warlord is alive. It might even be better to just make it so you get +2 CP at the start of each round if your Warlord is on the table. It's a little too much of an only option as far as Warlord traits are concerned currently.

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

In all honesty Guard having cheap troops and hence silly CP isn't the main part I object to.
Its the totally broken regenerate on a 5+ and steel from the enemy on a 5+ that is supper broken.
Few competitive lists don't start with a IG battalion CP farm with grand strategist and kurov's some may drop one but one of those is almost always auto include.

Pure guard having 14+ CP isn't the main issue its that they finish the game with double digits.
Thats what makes them so utterly ridiculous 200 points for +5CP and regen and steel on a 5+ auto include. For extreme levels of broken combine with custodes 1CP power strategums and broken game.

I think it would probably be good to make the 5+ CP regen as a standard part of the game as long as your Warlord is alive. It might even be better to just make it so you get +2 CP at the start of each round if your Warlord is on the table. It's a little too much of an only option as far as Warlord traits are concerned currently.

Thing is Ultramrines can only regen on 5+ no stealing
Choas can steel on a 5+ no regen
Tau can regen 1 per strat and steal 1 cp per strategum.
None of the above feel broken in terms of CP.

Its the stacking 5+ and 5+ meaning if you start with say 14 CP not unreasonable for a guard or soup list. You get +4 due to grand strategist & unless your opponent is CP starved they'll spend say 9 thats another +3, grand strategist on 6 of those gives you another +2 which should allow you to get +1 from the last 3.

Thats generated 10 CP over the starting CP.

Tau would get +2 from their own +1.5 from the enemy +.5 from the generated CP so they generated 4CP

Ultramarines start with 12 and regain +4 CP then another +1CP from that so generated 5CP.

Regenerating CP isn't the issue its guards broken combo.

 Kharneth wrote:
I agree with OP.

This is the way I'd like to see it designed:

Battle-forged: +5 CP
Patrol: +1 CP
Battalion: +3 CP
Brigade: +6 CP

This would have been much better. It would have achieved their stated goal just as well without encouraging ally CP batteries. It would have also been better for thematic lists such as bike or wraith armies.

Ice_can wrote:

Regenerating CP isn't the issue its guards broken combo.

You'll not get an argument from me. I would not be sad to see the Aquilla changed and/or the Warlord trait brought down to the same level as other similar abilities (regen 1 per strategem, not CP spent).

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Regenerating CP isn't the issue its guards broken combo.

You'll not get an argument from me. I would not be sad to see the Aquilla changed and/or the Warlord trait brought down to the same level as other similar abilities (regen 1 per strategem, not CP spent).

The irony is thats what it was in the codex then GW FAQ'd it to every CP

Realy the best fix would be to changed Grand strategist to do something different like prepositioned resources. Your warlord has been strategically studying the enemy forces and has predicted their next pontential attack points.

One deployment zones have been chose but before deployment you can deploy either 3 infantry units or 1 vehical unit.
Lords of War may not be prepositioned, they are too rare and valueable to pontential be in the wrong battlefield.

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Regenerating CP isn't the issue its guards broken combo.

You'll not get an argument from me. I would not be sad to see the Aquilla changed and/or the Warlord trait brought down to the same level as other similar abilities (regen 1 per strategem, not CP spent).

Kurov's Aquila already is one CP per strategem. Were you thinking of changing it another way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Regenerating CP isn't the issue its guards broken combo.

You'll not get an argument from me. I would not be sad to see the Aquilla changed and/or the Warlord trait brought down to the same level as other similar abilities (regen 1 per strategem, not CP spent).

The irony is thats what it was in the codex then GW FAQ'd it to every CP

Realy the best fix would be to changed Grand strategist to do something different like prepositioned resources. Your warlord has been strategically studying the enemy forces and has predicted their next pontential attack points.

One deployment zones have been chose but before deployment you can deploy either 3 infantry units or 1 vehical unit.
Lords of War may not be prepositioned, they are too rare and valueable to pontential be in the wrong battlefield.

Page 138 – Kurov’s Aquila
Change the second sentence of rules text to read:
‘Whilst the bearer is on the battlefield, roll a D6 each
time your opponent uses a Stratagem.’

That is the FAQ for Kurov's. It is still one per Strategem, not CP

 Formosa wrote:
I think its pretty obvious at this point we will be getting themed detachments ala 7th, but these give extra CP for a themed army, so for example a Deathwing one that can only use the Deathwing keyword, has 6 elite slots, a special rule and more CP...


Mark my Words... its coming

I'm surprised no one commented on this. I really feel this would go a long way to combat spam, CP imbalance and getting armies on the table that look like armies.

Downside is we would have to trust GW to cost the CP batteries correctly and I'm not sure that is possible. Knowing GW they'd do something like "each squad of [insert underselling/new unit] = 10 cp, each squad of tactical sm = .0001 cp"

I would love to reward more thematic armies (ironhand dreads, ravenwing bikers) but adding another level of "balance" from GW makes me nervous.