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.

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the detachments that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

Absolutely, to me. Kill soup/CP regen first, then check if IG is still OP. If it is, then we can adjust IG. I suspect it won't be OP, others suspect it will, but at least for my part the argument will be fully resolved with me in the "IG is OP" camp if this happens.

Wouldn't a large nerf to the IG CP toys have a similar impact?

I like CP being restricted to the generating detatchment in theory. But I think it's more overhead than it's worth.

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't a large nerf to the IG CP toys have a similar impact?

Maybe, but then you're nerfing them for the sake of soup. Wouldn't it make more sense to nerf soup? Then you're also future-proofed in case people find a new CP-generator.

I mean, IG can certainly generate a ton of CP, but it rarely does them much good. They have relatively few good stratagems and in general just don't have many ways to spend the amount of CP they generate.

It only becomes a problem when Soup is involved and those CPs can be spent on stratagems for other factions, which would normally have very limited CP.

Bharring wrote:
I like CP being restricted to the generating detatchment in theory. But I think it's more overhead than it's worth.

It's not ideal but still seems better than the alternative.


That said, one thing I will say is that I'm not a fan of CP regeneration abilities in general. I think either CP should be built around regenerating CPs (in which case it should be a part of the core mechanics - not limited to certain factions/abilities), or else there should just be no regeneration at all. I say this for internal balance as much as external - in that it's depressing how CP-regeneration artefacts or warlord traits are almost always leagues better than the alternatives.

So, if you want to scrap *all* CP regeneration (not just the IG abilities), I'd be okay with that.

However, I still think that we need some actual downsides to Soup armies.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Been saying that from the start, every data that is being pulled right now is polluted by the broken CP mechanic. We can't say anything for sure before that is fixed.

And no, guards being mathematically better than alternatives has not been demonstrated in this thread. There were some improbable show offs with no actual meaning.
I could easily make one in which termagants are the most broken troop in the game, because math in this game doesn't mean much if you don't analyze extremely specific situations. You can calculate the average wounds of x vs y, but calculating the performance of a model in relation to it's cost is something that requires days of math from a professional. Making mathematical models for this game is a real challenge, don't take it lightly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't a large nerf to the IG CP toys have a similar impact?

Maybe, but then you're nerfing them for the sake of soup. Wouldn't it make more sense to nerf soup? Then you're also future-proofed in case people find a new CP-generator.

I mean, IG can certainly generate a ton of CP, but it rarely does them much good. They have relatively few good stratagems and in general just don't have many ways to spend the amount of CP they generate.

It only becomes a problem when Soup is involved and those CPs can be spent on stratagems for other factions, which would normally have very limited CP.

Bharring wrote:
I like CP being restricted to the generating detatchment in theory. But I think it's more overhead than it's worth.

It's not ideal but still seems better than the alternative.


That said, one thing I will say is that I'm not a fan of CP regeneration abilities in general. I think either CP should be built around regenerating CPs (in which case it should be a part of the core mechanics - not limited to certain factions/abilities), or else there should just be no regeneration at all. I say this for internal balance as much as external - in that it's depressing how CP-regeneration artefacts or warlord traits are almost always leagues better than the alternatives.

So, if you want to scrap *all* CP regeneration (not just the IG abilities), I'd be okay with that.

However, I still think that we need some actual downsides to Soup armies.

If as a start we have all the "regenerate CP" abilities work only on the CPs spent on stratagems of that faction, you limit the issues with it a lot and give a bonus to non soup troops, in the form of more CPs (all your CPs will be spent on stratagems that can regenerate).

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Been saying that from the start, every data that is being pulled right now is polluted by the broken CP mechanic. We can't say anything for sure before that is fixed.

And no, guards being mathematically better than alternatives has not been demonstrated in this thread. There were some improbable show offs with no actual meaning.
I could easily make one in which termagants are the most broken troop in the game, because math in this game doesn't mean much if you don't analyze extremely specific situations. You can calculate the average wounds of x vs y, but calculating the performance of a model in relation to it's cost is something that requires days of math from a professional. Making mathematical models for this game is a real challenge, don't take it lightly.

I will wait with baited breath for your termagant example. Comparing the performance of one model to another model that is similarly priced does not take days of math from a professional when programs like excel exist.

Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

An easy fix would be a detachment with less than 500 points spent on it doesn't generate CP.

Then, another fix would be that you can only make one CP regeneration roll per stratagem. So if you spend 1 CP you can roll 1 dice, not 3.

But that's entirely different than Guard being too strong. Bringing 500 points of guard is absolutely not a downside, that faction is very, very strong.

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

I disagree. It's a very 'gamey' build (if you'll excuse the term), and one which makes no sense whatsoever in terms of flavour.

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

I disagree. It's a very 'gamey' build (if you'll excuse the term), and one which makes no sense whatsoever in terms of flavour.

So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

 Marmatag wrote:
So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

I like aspects of it and prefer it to the formations in 7th.

However, I'm really not keen on it being used to determine starting CPs.


EDIT: To be honest, I find myself wondering whether the detachment system is the best way to be building armies. Do you think a percentage system might be better? Or maybe just let people build armies freely but have restrictions on individual, non-troop units. Maybe a reward for taking a higher percentage of troops or such?

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

I like aspects of it and prefer it to the formations in 7th.

However, I'm really not keen on it being used to determine starting CPs.


EDIT: To be honest, I find myself wondering whether the detachment system is the best way to be building armies. Do you think a percentage system might be better? Or maybe just let people build armies freely but have restrictions on individual, non-troop units. Maybe a reward for taking a higher percentage of troops or such?

Something like in order to unlock the CP from a formation, you have to spend a minimum of 100 times the CP rewarded in that formation. So a guard battalion would need 500 points invested to produce 5CP.

It doesn't solve the problem of guard being generally undercosted/overpowered as a faction, but at least it stops people from taking the minimum.

 Marmatag wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

I disagree. It's a very 'gamey' build (if you'll excuse the term), and one which makes no sense whatsoever in terms of flavour.

So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

There is no "formation system" in 8th edition. We have detachments.

Formations are a totally different beast, which are part of the book proper and tend to be balanced accordingly.

Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

But they are different, a Detachment is just a modified FoC, Formations are Must take units......

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

I kind of like this system better than formations - but CP just needs to switch to a flat rate that every army starts with and stratagems need to have equal power levels across armies. Honestly I don't think any armies stratagems are out of line except some IK and DE and CWE strats are too strong and some SM and GK strats are too weak.

Outside of that - having a flat rate of say 15 CP to start the game would fix almost every problem with soup. Then we can just focus on what units need point changes.

Taking soup should be about synergies and covering weakness - not about taking cheap CP units so you can run your own codex better. It should also cost you CP to include allies. Not but - but some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Taking a unit to use the tyranid infantry shoot twice for 2 CP stratagem is just as must take as any formation was for a tyranid army or any other army. It's the same thing IMO.

The inferiority complex is strong in this thread

 Xenomancers wrote:
Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

I kind of like this system better than formations - but CP just needs to switch to a flat rate that every army starts with and stratagems need to have equal power levels across armies. Honestly I don't think any armies stratagems are out of line except some IK and DE and CWE strats are too strong and some SM and GK strats are too weak.

Outside of that - having a flat rate of say 15 CP to start the game would fix almost every problem with soup. Then we can just focus on what units need point changes.

Taking soup should be about synergies and covering weakness - not about taking cheap CP units so you can run your own codex better. It should also cost you CP to include allies. Not but - but some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Taking a unit to use the tyranid infantry shoot twice for 2 CP stratagem is just as must take as any formation was for a tyranid army or any other army. It's the same thing IMO.

They are not the same thing..... not at all......

Just b.c they share 1 aspect of each other doesnt mean they are the same, a Hamburger shares the same animal as a steak, it doesnt mean they are the same thing.

A formation is a set list of certain units that you MUST take with no other Units as options allowed, a Detachment is a FoC that has been modified and you can take literally any units within those small restrictions.

You're applying the definition of formation as it applies in 7th edition. That is not what the word fundamentally means. Time to get over it.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're applying the definition of formation as it applies in 7th edition. That is not what the word fundamentally means. Time to get over it.

There is no Formations in 8th, there is no words or rules for them, you are trying to use a word that all 40k players know of to make stupid arguments, stop trying to make stupid arguments.

Formations are a 7th thing, not an 8th thing.

When talking about formations it will ALWAYS be refereed to 7th formations, EDIT: Unless 8th comes out with them, but i dont see that happening at all due to 7th.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're applying the definition of formation as it applies in 7th edition. That is not what the word fundamentally means. Time to get over it.

You misspoke. It's not a big deal. Detachments aren't Formations, but Formations were Detachments.
Since Formations don't exist in 40k anymore, there's no argument that realistically should be using them in anything but hypotheticals as a way to curb some of the CP nonsense that exists now.

You play AoS. Haven't you noticed yet that CP spam isn't anywhere near as hellaciously bad there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

No. That's not even remotely the same thing.

One thing(formations) might be:

Blarghity Bloo Attackerydoods
Two units of Boomsticks
One unit of Fireguys
A Firestick Guy

Fwoosh!: The Fireguys can shoot their Firesticks when the Boomsticks get charged by enemy units and support with Overwatch.

The other might be:

Detachment
2 Troops
1 HQ
0-2 everything else

Restricted units != "must takes". This is a wonderful example of your disingenuous and downright fallacious arguing style.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

I kind of like this system better than formations - but CP just needs to switch to a flat rate that every army starts with and stratagems need to have equal power levels across armies. Honestly I don't think any armies stratagems are out of line except some IK and DE and CWE strats are too strong and some SM and GK strats are too weak.

Outside of that - having a flat rate of say 15 CP to start the game would fix almost every problem with soup. Then we can just focus on what units need point changes.

Taking soup should be about synergies and covering weakness - not about taking cheap CP units so you can run your own codex better. It should also cost you CP to include allies. Not but - but some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Taking a unit to use the tyranid infantry shoot twice for 2 CP stratagem is just as must take as any formation was for a tyranid army or any other army. It's the same thing IMO.

On the proposed rules forum I suggested a CP system similar to this
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/761692.page
This system gives you flat CP depending on how many points you have in a faction (so taking other factions reduces CP), it still uses detachment CP bonuses, but they are cut down to pre FAQ (to still encourage larger detachments). I also would include the rule Marmatag suggested about limiting CP generation to detachments with 500+ points, but modify it to your largest detachment, so you would have to bring much more IG to get the regeneration and if a newly created faction can also generate CP you can't stack them with IG.

There are a number of "Detatchemnts cost CP" suggestions floating around Proposed Rules. I like them. But those are other threads.

I would be curious to see what GW considers the point value of 1 command point to be, relative to each codex.

I doubt they've done that kind of math, but they absolutely should have. Because free CP is like free points, at the end of the day.

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

An easy fix would be a detachment with less than 500 points spent on it doesn't generate CP.

Then, another fix would be that you can only make one CP regeneration roll per stratagem. So if you spend 1 CP you can roll 1 dice, not 3.

But that's entirely different than Guard being too strong. Bringing 500 points of guard is absolutely not a downside, that faction is very, very strong.

If you change this rule from 500+ to largest detachment, you could further increase the battery cost to 668 (1001 if only 2 detachments) This would hurt soup and wouldn't hurt IG that much.

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see what GW considers the point value of 1 command point to be, relative to each codex.

I doubt they've done that kind of math, but they absolutely should have. Because free CP is like free points, at the end of the day.

They don't consider it "relative to each codex". It's relative to the points played.

It's 50pts:1CP

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I doubt it since 3 10-man squads work just as well as 1 30-man squad. That and no babysitter required.

Are you one of those "morale doesn't exist" guys, too?

???
How did you get that conclusion? I was literally showing you that morale mattered. Conscripts have worse morale and larger squads, which means a commissar is required for them to try to match infantry squads' base morale. If anything you're the one ignoring morale when proclaiming larger squads as categorically better.

In order to guarantee a squad rout, you need to kill 8 guardsmen in each infantry squad, for a total of 24 killed. If you feel like taking a little chance you can stop at 7 killed per squad and hope the other player doesn't roll low. So 21 killed minimum there.
For conscripts, you only need to kill about 15-16 to guarantee a rout of the rest of the squad. Bringing a commissar bumps that to about 18.

So at the end of the day you've spent more points to buy less shooty and less durable troops.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see what GW considers the point value of 1 command point to be, relative to each codex.

I doubt they've done that kind of math, but they absolutely should have. Because free CP is like free points, at the end of the day.

They don't consider it "relative to each codex". It's relative to the points played.

It's 50pts:1CP

For AoS thats true, but some of the DE and tyranids CP's are a complete waste, the Haemonculus Stratagem, Crucible of Malediction was a free wargear, and now it cost 2CP, most players never used it anyways, or Soul Trap, something that might get once a game, it used to cost 10pts now is 1CP, or Tyranids Sporefield.... it cost 3CP let them DS/Scout pregame, but the FW ones do it for free, if the SPorefield was 3 units of Spore AND that rule without any reinforcement points it might be worth it, as it is now, you better off using the FW spores b.c they cost the same and have that stratagem as a rule so you dont waste 3CP.

The CP's are ridiculously unbalanced between themselves. GW has no idea how to balance them.

Ice_can wrote:
Rangers should be 8ppm I agreed with you on that pages back.

I don't think anyone else has.

Ice_can wrote:
The reason no-one is complaining about neophytes being +1LD is it isn't worth a full point to most player's.

That's fine... but +1L is not all that neophytes get. Even if it was +1L... neophytes are still guardsmen with +1L and should be nerfed... It is quite literally the definition of unfair otherwise.

Ice_can wrote:
Your picking on the things neophytes have while ignoring what they loose for those things. I'll break it down for you

gain the ability to deepstrike in exchange for no regiment traits

and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squadas points are payed per model why does the number you can take count towards the value of the individual model

Their charictors have aura buffsthey get fixed aura's not orders

Things dont have to be the same to be equals.

1. The ability to deepstrike is an amazing tactical flexibility that often times has more value than a regimental trait. I'd gladly sacrifice even the cadian/catachan traits if my entire army could deepstrike. You do have something of a point here though.

2. The ability to take more than 10 men in a squad has massive value. It allows you to make big blob tarpit units that can recieve buffs from auras all at once. I would be running all of my infantry squads in blobs if I could for the purposes of orders, the ability to tarpit, and the reduction in killpoints it offers. Hell, this is so good for guard that it is a stratagem that costs CP!

3. Auras are arguably better than orders. They can effect an infinite number of units as long as a single model of that unit is within 6" as opposed to guard orders that can only effect 1 or 2 units.

I think the guardsmen-neophyte comparison is valid. Neophytes are everything guardsmen are except better at 5ppm and you can't just ignore that without getting called out for being a hypocrite. Neophytes are in no way worse then guardsmen at anything.

I'm sorry for being so stuck on this but holy crap the cognitive dissonance is REAL. And people are actually trying to DEFEND the idea that neophytes should be better.

 alextroy wrote:
Until GW starts putting base costs on units with additional cost per model added, there is not enough difference between Infranty Squad Guardsman and Neophyte Hybrids.

Better leadership is good and so is Cult Ambush, but not 1 point per model good, especially when only half the units in your army get to use Cult Ambush anyway.

Then neophytes should lose their +1L, cult ambush, and ability to blob squad. If guardsmen are going to 5ppm it's entirely intolerable that neophytes are literally guardsmen (same stats, same weapons, same everything) except better in many ways and worse in no way.

Where's the outrage over neophytes? Right... there is none because everyone is so busy hating guardsmen they are completely blind to everything else.

Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.