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.

Just start at 5 minimum and add 1 for every 200 points you are playing with.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
How would this scale to 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 15,00, 1750?

Is there's a points per CP?

We tested 2500 points with 20 CP. It was more than enough. The exact ratio at 2500 if it is to be the same is like 18.9. So we just gave another CP. 1 cp for 133 points and round up.

So that would make it (rounding 5+ up, not sure if that's what you mean):
500: 4
750: 6
1,000: 8
1,250: 9.39, so 10?
1,500: 11.27, so 12?
1,750: 13.15, so 14?
2,000: 15.03, no way you'd round this to 16
2,250: 17
2,500: 18.80 to 19

Do those sound like valid amounts of CP at each points level?

Not properly tested for lower point games. I would suggest a minimum CP amount. Like say - 6. Then at like 1000 points start following that chart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want an HQ choice for 40 points in Guard, then give us one worth putting pointed items on.

There's no survivability buffs, there's no role altering weapons or gear.

There's no real reason to put any upgrades that aren't just Relics on them.

The ability to make an infantry unit shoot twice while filling HQ requirements is worth at least as much as the unit they are causing to shoot twice. They can also use that ability twice. They are already worth 40 points.

You don't "make an infantry unit shoot twice". You add an additional shot to two specific weapons. Not even "weapon types". Two specific guns get an additional shot.

Honestly, where do you even get your information about Guard from?

I'd also be perfectly fine with them getting access to storm bolters or something nifty like that.

You mean a thing they had access to but now don't?

No thanks. I'd rather see different "versions" of Officers. Grenadier Officers, Mechanized Infantry Officers, etc.

So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

Yeah, sure okay. Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, and Boltgun. Those are the 3 options for Officers. They can't even take a Lasgun.

And let's be honest here: Marine Captains still have a pretty good spread of options between their multiple datasheets, and Primaris Captains are an option too.

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

Nope.

All lasguns and hotshot lasguns in the ordered unit change their Type to Rapid Fire 2 until the end of the phase.

So it literally just lasts for Shooting.

Okay just a wording problem here. I consider taking rapid fire 1 to rapid fire 2 as shooting twice. yeah I know the sarg cant take a las gun. for 1 point he takes a bolter. It wont shot twice but it adds the same firepower.

I'm not hating here. I am all about customization of characters. You should be able to give them anything in the arsenal IMO. Like in the space marine game you can carry a las cannon on captain titus. No problem with that. It was sweet. your issues with customization are not unique. My primaris captain comes with 1 option...power fist or power sword and MC boltgun (which is a crappy weapon for a 70 point bs2 model)

I don't hate CP generation the way it is, but it definitely seems weird that the more complex and varied the army you take, the more CPs you get. Why should 2 battalions in an army give more command options than having just one? You have two command structures. Makes no sense.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So you are complaining that Officers get access the the same kinds of weapons that space marine captains do?

You're going to have to show your work, there. Or are there "Commander Smashfuckers" running about one-rounding units that I'm just missing?

FRFSRF does not let you shoot twice with a lasgun?

Effectively, but not quite. Even still, that combination requires 70 points of models to be able to cause 2 unsaved wounds vs MEQ, and that includes the Marines being presented on a silver platter to the Guard player (within 12" in the open).

TL;DR of your idea: "nerf MSU, make my death star more effective".

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR of your idea: "nerf MSU, make my death star more effective".

What is this? 7th eddition? There is no such thing as a death star anymore. Everything can be killed. Split fire is free. MSU vs large units main disparity is efficiency of stratagems and spells and leadership penalties and total area covered. CP does not need to be dragged into that. In fact - multiple small units should actually be more difficult to command.

What is your answer to this?

If I tried to make a MSU custodes army - could I even make 3 battalions? No they can barely make 2 and that is their entire army? How about imperial knights that can only really make a single detachment? Why should some armies make cheaper battalions to create the same number of command points? Why should I have to bring imperial guard to play imperial knights? It doesn't make any sense.

Yet an army like tau can take 2 battalions and 3 storm surges...or guard 2 battalions and 3 baneblade types. Guess how many command points these armies generate? 5+5+3+3 = 16. Wow...almost exactly the amount my proposed rules give you.

The main thing it does is create a level playing field for armies that can't generate their own command points.

I like this idea overall as it gives everyone a more equal access to CPs and doesn't really reward multiple Battalions with cheap options.

I'd tweak it a bit for simplicity and do the following:
For every 500pts a BF army gains 4CPs. So 2K would net you 16CPs to start with.

Battalions = 0CPs
Brigades = +3CPs as it is difficult to achieve for some armies
Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider/Flyer = -2CPs because you pay to avoid Troop/2nd HQ tax
Command = 0CP, but an army can only every have 1 Command detachment. It doesn't make sense that having more leaders is LESS command points.

I would also combine both Super Heavy/LoW detachment into a single option as follows:
1-5 LoW = 0CPs, -1CP for each LoW taken after the 1st
So if you take all 5 LoW, it is -4CPs. At 2K, the army still has 12CPs, which is more than a similar LoW detachment can currently get without help.

-

 Galef wrote:
I like this idea overall as it gives everyone a more equal access to CPs and doesn't really reward multiple Battalions with cheap options.

I'd tweak it a bit for simplicity and do the following:
For every 500pts a BF army gains 4CPs. So 2K would net you 16CPs to start with.

Battalions = 0CPs
Brigades = +3CPs as it is difficult to achieve for some armies
Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider/Flyer = -2CPs because you pay to avoid Troop/2nd HQ tax
Command = 0CP, but an army can only every have 1 Command detachment. It doesn't make sense that having more leaders is LESS command points.

I would also combine both Super Heavy/LoW detachment into a single option as follows:
1-5 LoW = 0CPs, -1CP for each LoW taken after the 1st
So if you take all 5 LoW, it is -4CPs. At 2K, the army still has 12CPs, which is more than a similar LoW detachment can currently get without help.

-

I like those Ideas. I will try them out.

True it doesn't make sense that command detachment costs you points...but really - spamming HQ's is one of the strongest tactics in the game. Maybe if the detachment forced you to take the elite slot - i would be okay with 0 cp.

 Xenomancers wrote:

True it doesn't make sense that command detachment costs you points...but really - spamming HQ's is one of the strongest tactics in the game. Maybe if the detachment forced you to take the elite slot - i would be okay with 0 cp.

Agreed, which I why I'd limit the Command detachment to 1 per army. Combined with the limit of 3 of any single datasheet and I think it should be fine. Requiring the Elite might be good too.

-

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR of your idea: "nerf MSU, make my death star more effective".

The second half of that acronym here is pretty clear - you obviously didn't read it.

The only things you could call "death stars" in the present game are basically mega-buffed superheavies...which all receive -3pts per LOW in Xeno's system.

I usually disagree with Xeno when their logic is faulty, but it is kind of tough to see much of a downside for this system. Besides, I suppose, nearly every army getting very similar CPs...but that's not a bad thing either.

If you gave me free latitude to design a system, it'd either be something like this, or it'd be a system whereby the percentage of your army made up of the various roles determines your CP (more troops = more CPs whether those troops are 10 custodes or 50 guardsmen). But, honestly, we have a nearly zero chance of gw making their customers do percentage math in the current edition.

The current CP system is asinine for the same reason that playing a mission based on "kill points" is asinine. "A unit" can be anywhere from 10 points to 2000+ points in 40k, why would you EVER base ANY SYSTEM on "hey, how many units ya got???"

If you don't understand how having more HQs could give you fewer CP, you've never had too many cooks in the kitchen!

I'm not in favor of the Brigade giving CP. I thought the intention was to move to an always-pay version. If you instead had Battalions and Brigades both cost 1, you'd have a situation where both were useful for different reasons.

Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not in favor of the Brigade giving CP. I thought the intention was to move to an always-pay version. If you instead had Battalions and Brigades both cost 1, you'd have a situation where both were useful for different reasons.

It is far, far easier for most armies to build Battalions than Brigades. Brigades require FA/Elite/HS, which not everyone wants to take and are often forced to take the cheapest throw-away options
Therefore, the Battalion should be the standard that doesn't require paying CPs, whereas using a Brigade already requires a ridiculous amount of "tax" units and therefore should give you a reward in CPs. All other detachments should pay CPs to use (save potentially the Command for reasons stated above)

Brigades should absolutely have incentive to play, otherwise a Battalion would be the only "larger" detachment anyone would play. 2 Battalions give you essentially the same "slots" as 1 Brigade, but doesn't require you to take all the FA/Elite/HS options that you may not want/cannot afford.

You also need some detachments be 0CP, otherwise it's impossible to have the full CPs a BF army would generate.

-

But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

the_scotsman wrote:
But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

It couldn't work with only 1 detachment. It could work with a limit of 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Way too restrictive. You should be able to make armies with extensive use of allies. Ad Mech and Imperial Knights. Inquisition and everything Imperial. Ynnari and friends. Major problem with allies is the CP, especially CP regeneration. Once that is handled, allies are fine.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

It couldn't work with only 1 detachment. It could work with a limit of 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Not one detachment total. One of each detachment. Your army can have one battalion. One outrider. One supreme command. etc. Any number within the points limit.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Way too restrictive. You should be able to make armies with extensive use of allies. Ad Mech and Imperial Knights. Inquisition and everything Imperial. Ynnari and friends. Major problem with allies is the CP, especially CP regeneration. Once that is handled, allies are fine.

Maybe the only 1 per army isn't necessary then. Imperial soup's primary issue is CP gen. Eldar soup is more about super synergies. Like...Doom with splinter rifles and dessie is absolutely insane.

There needs to be some sort of limitation on allies. Picking and choosing the best combos out of 15 codex should have some negative associated with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
But...a brigade also gives you 6 slots in all roles without costing you CP.

I think this system works if you limit armies to one of each detachment. It doesn't work quite as well if you're not.

It couldn't work with only 1 detachment. It could work with a limit of 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

Kind of like in 7th - could take a single allied detachment - which was basically a patrol.

What if we expand on that idea. We make a special detachment called an allied detachment - it looks like a patrol detachment - you can only take one of them and it gives you -2 CP to your base. I think that would work really well? What do you think?

No.

Why not? To punitive? Not punitive enough?

Not one detachment total. One of each detachment. Your army can have one battalion. One outrider. One supreme command. etc. Any number within the points limit.

I'm down with that. That actually would give a brigade a purpose.

So, screw DE and their 3-Patrol nonsense?

I think the intention of the system is to *allow* certain detatchments to be spammed. As in, you can take almost exclusively Outriders to do an SM Bike Company or Windriders or Speed Freaks. You just get almost no CP.

Bharring wrote:
So, screw DE and their 3-Patrol nonsense?

I think the intention of the system is to *allow* certain detatchments to be spammed. As in, you can take almost exclusively Outriders to do an SM Bike Company or Windriders or Speed Freaks. You just get almost no CP.

In my OP I made concession to this kind of special detachment rule. Knight lance and DE patrols were my examples - they should be -0 command points.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

 LunarSol wrote:
Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

Seconded.

 LunarSol wrote:
Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

People whine constantly about my army and how it's unbalanced. We have people who don't understand or even misrepresent the details of the army to justify their complaints of imbalance.

So while I have no qualms about people running Guard and Marines together, I do have qualms about my army having suffered significant changes because there's a mechanism in place(auxiliary detachments) that is supposed to be for this kind of stuff yet somehow it's able to be completely sidestepped for people to abuse with "soup" lists.

You shouldn't be able to bolster Marines with a super cheap Detachment of Guard to fill out CPs. End of story. You want Guard and Marines? Cool! You get a CP generation penalty.

 LunarSol wrote:
Or you know, you can stop trying to kill soup completely just because it offends you to see Guard and Space Marines together?

Humm - no one wants to kill soup completely. It certainly needs some kind of penalty or something.

What offends people is a custodes army (10,000 year old masters of war) needing to take IG batallions (25 year old newbs) to get "command points". Lets be real here. Aint no one playing space marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Soup is not as big of a problem as armies not being able to produce their own command points without it. At least with imperial factions IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:


What offends people is a custodes army (10,000 year old masters of war) needing to take IG batallions (25 year old newbs) to get "command points".

Then just give Custodes a way to have the CP they need without IG! And ban IG from having infinite CP. 5CPs for 200 points is not a huge deal, infinite CP for 200 points is.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hey, you want an even easier way to do it?

Make it so that the single FOC auxiliary choices can be the only real way for you to ally things in.

That's actually a really good idea.

Here's a more finessed version:

A Battle-Forged Army has to feature the same Army keyword(Astra Militarum, Tau Empire, etc) on all of its Detachments. Any other Army units added to the army, in order to remain Battle-Forged, must be Auxiliary choices with the exception of certain Factions that replace those keywords.

Boom. Soup is solved fairly well, with the exception of Genestealer Cult and their wonkiness right now. But that can be fixed too by adding the Guard stuff into the GSC book proper.

Seconded. This is a great way to handle it, much more than a clunky rework of the entire CP system/8th edition.