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.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Neatest solution would be to just say "You can only use Stratagems associated with your Warlord's faction".

Leave the idea of "Custodians cost 700+ so should have more CP!" to the balancing of the *actual* stratagems.

For example, a 1 CP strat for Imperial Guard should be weaker than a 1 CP strat for Custards

Yes agreed. This would work as opposed to a CP overhaul which would be a 9th edition thing.

In reference to Custodes and (knights to an equal extent), each army should be able to operate as a mono faction for the most part without being penalised for it. If a player decides to soup, because for example they like having guard in their army, they should not get the benefit of CP and regen at all.

Custodes have their captains as obsec for the reason that they are limited in obsec troops, it stands to reason they should be able to get a CP adjustment due to their elite nature.

I don't know. This is very weird for Imperial Knights now that they lose CPs for having more detachments rather than gaining them,

Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

Except even in pure guard yhe CP isn't spent of buffing Infantry squads its spent on buffing LoW tanks and Scion Comand squads not on joe slow infantry squads.

Also are you going to defend the grand strategist and Kurov's combo of broken?

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. Custodes and Knights were never supposed to have a ton of CP. It's weird that people find it unfair that all armies can't have 15 CP.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. Custodes and Knights were never supposed to have a ton of CP. It's weird that people find it unfair that all armies can't have 15 CP.

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats. The problems is that you rarely see them with few CPs because they add a cheap Guard Battalion to generate CPs.
So you end up with units with powerful Strats and more CPs than they were designed to have.

There are several solutions. Most involve de-incentivizing taking Battalions of different Factions
At the very least, Battalions should go back to only 3CP and being BF should go up to 5 minimum

-

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

It had to be part of the designer's thought process. Knowing how the ally rules work is not the same as assuming everyone will use them. The designers often design from a "players will commit to just this army" standpoint.
They have to. That is the only thing explaining why some factions have better strats than others

-

How to fix CP

1) buy the 200 point guard tax, custodes and knights
2) build and make them look pretty
3) buy a plane ticket to the UK
4) go curb stop at Warhammer world until you brutally defeat one of the GW rule writters
5) ???
6) CP farm nerfed in next chapter approved


Seriously the reason this broken stuff does not get addressed is because the UK does not play like they do in the states the rule writters base it off of what they experience. It's why the big FAQ got pushed back a month, because one of the GW guys went to LVO(iirc it was LVO) and got curb stomped by a flyrant list at which point they nerfed flayrant spam and introduced the rule of 3 data cards.

 Galef wrote:
That is the only thing explaining why some factions have better strats than others

No. The reason is that the writers sometimes accidentally write good strats and sometimes bad.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How to fix CP

1) buy the 200 point guard tax, custodes and knights
2) build and make them look pretty
3) buy a plane ticket to the UK
4) go curb stop at Warhammer world until you brutally defeat one of the GW rule writters
5) ???
6) CP farm nerfed in next chapter approved


Seriously the reason this broken stuff does not get addressed is because the UK does not play like they do in the states the rule writters base it off of what they experience. It's why the big FAQ got pushed back a month, because one of the GW guys went to LVO(iirc it was LVO) and got curb stomped by a flyrant list at which point they nerfed flayrant spam and introduced the rule of 3 data cards.

That wouldn't help as roumer was/is none of the 40k rules team play in competitive events.
It's not a USA vrs UK thing its a non of the rules team play competative and hence can't see why things are broken as they have fluff goggles.

Ice_can wrote:
That wouldn't help as roumer was/is none of the 40k rules team play in competitive events.

I'd probably go with this. The designers write the rules to have fun, not to be competitive. That often means things can be broken because the intent was not to play them in that way.
Basically, we are playing the game wrong and rather than use a bit of restraint in our lists to play them "right", some demand the designers fix the game.
It shouldn't take going to a "competitive" event for the designers to see this, however, they just need a few designers that playtest *trying* to break the game, rather than play fluffy lists and say "yep, the rules are good"

-

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

Imperial units can aura buff other imperial units without also using the CP siphon mechanic. In fact, one might even follow the steps I outlined above in this thread as a simple fix.

1) Choose a faction keyword, excluding those mentioned in the 'Battle Brothers' beta rule.

2) CP is only generated from detachments where every unit contains that faction keyword.

3) Strategems may only be used on, and relics may only be chosen for, units with that faction keyword.

If one wants to use strategems (or relics) to make superman even better, one must pay the tax to bring superman caliber troops units.

jaxor1983 wrote:

Imperial units can aura buff other imperial units without also using the CP siphon mechanic. In fact, one might even follow the steps I outlined above in this thread as a simple fix.

1) Choose a faction keyword, excluding those mentioned in the 'Battle Brothers' beta rule.

2) CP is only generated from detachments where every unit contains that faction keyword.

3) Strategems may only be used on, and relics may only be chosen for, units with that faction keyword.

If one wants to use strategems (or relics) to make superman even better, one must pay the tax to bring superman caliber troops units.

A simpler fix that potentially acheives the same goal it as follows:
An army only has access to Strats and Relics from the same codex as the army Warlord.
Likewise, CPs can only be generated from detachments that share at least 1 keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids as defined by the Beta rule.

So adding a Guard Battalion to generate CPs for Knights would be worthless

-

 Galef wrote:
A simpler fix that potentially acheives the same goal it as follows:
An army only have access to Strats and Relics from the same codex as the army Warlord.
Likewise, CPs can only be generated from detachments that share at least 1 keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids as defined by the Beta rule.

So adding a Guard Battalion to generate CPs for Knights would be worthless

Dear Athe, no, this is insane! Just give soups three or so CPs less and remove the CP regen from the game. That's all that is needed, no need to nuke the soup from the orbit.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
A simpler fix that potentially acheives the same goal it as follows:
An army only have access to Strats and Relics from the same codex as the army Warlord.
Likewise, CPs can only be generated from detachments that share at least 1 keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids as defined by the Beta rule.

So adding a Guard Battalion to generate CPs for Knights would be worthless

Dear Athe, no, this is insane! Just give soups three or so CPs less and remove the CP regen from the game. That's all that is needed, no need to nuke the soup from the orbit.

Agreed. I didn't say it was a better fix, just simpler.

I truly feel the best fix would be to take Battalions back down to 3CPs, have BF grant 3-5 CPs from the start and armies that share 2+ Faction Keywords on all units get an additional +3CPs. It would make soup still viable, but would not be the ONLY answer. Armies like Necrons or only uising Marines would be able to get about the same total CPs as soup lists.
CP regen is another issue. I like the idea of turning those rule into just +1CP for the game and that's it.

-

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?
Does not Gaurd have access to 500+ point units in their own codex? Where custodians don't? What is this "buff unit rate" nonsense. It's a complete fabrication not grounded in fact of any kind.

You mean to tell me that eldar have a "buff unit rate" that has something to do with their ability to generate command points and stratagem power? No - it's doesn't - they have amazingly efficient and powerful stratagems with easy command point generation as well.

By your logic. Greyknights should have amazing stratagems - actually they are the most expensive and crappy in the game. The game is unbalanced - and the command point structure is poorly designed. That is why they are unequal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How to fix CP

1) buy the 200 point guard tax, custodes and knights
2) build and make them look pretty
3) buy a plane ticket to the UK
4) go curb stop at Warhammer world until you brutally defeat one of the GW rule writters
5) ???
6) CP farm nerfed in next chapter approved


Seriously the reason this broken stuff does not get addressed is because the UK does not play like they do in the states the rule writters base it off of what they experience. It's why the big FAQ got pushed back a month, because one of the GW guys went to LVO(iirc it was LVO) and got curb stomped by a flyrant list at which point they nerfed flayrant spam and introduced the rule of 3 data cards.

Designers out of touch with their own game. Truly sad. Pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Yes, those armies are indeed meant to have less CP and thus have more powerful Strats.

I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

It had to be part of the designer's thought process. Knowing how the ally rules work is not the same as assuming everyone will use them. The designers often design from a "players will commit to just this army" standpoint.
They have to. That is the only thing explaining why some factions have better strats than others

-

I think you are being to generous and understanding here. I can think of a lot of other reasons why some armies have betters stats than others. IE - power creep - bias - incompetence.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?
Does not Gaurd have access to 500+ point units in their own codex? Where custodians don't? What is this "buff unit rate" nonsense. It's a complete fabrication not grounded in fact of any kind.

You mean to tell me that eldar have a "buff unit rate" that has something to do with their ability to generate command points and stratagem power? No - it's doesn't - they have amazingly efficient and powerful stratagems with easy command point generation as well.

By your logic. Greyknights should have amazing stratagems - actually they are the most expensive and crappy in the game. The game is unbalanced - and the command point structure is poorly designed. That is why they are unequal.

Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

So yes, they do have 500 point units in the codex, almost no stratagems can be applied to them (and the ones that do are not that good). Theres only 2 off the top of my head that would specifically affect a baneblade in a meaningful way. 1 gives it 2+ to hit in melee (whoopee) and the other +1 BS (which is good, but is a vostroyan stratagem which means you cant be cadian or catachan on the baneblade making the regimental doctrine/chapter tactic useless)

Point is, im not trying to say guard is UP, soup is fine or any nonsense like that. Im just trying to say Peregrines claim makes sense when you look at the IG stratagems. They only provide small buffs and even when applied to the large 500 point models its not as impactful as custode or IK ones

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

 Billagio wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do so many people in this thread not understand that CP totals are supposed to be unequal? Different armies having different amounts of CP is a feature, not a bug. A MSU army like IG will have lots of CP, but each CP will have a small effect. An elite army will have fewer CP, but each CP will have a bigger effect. Spending 1 CP to buff a 300 point unit adds more power to your army than spending the same 1 CP to buff a 50 point unit. In the end spending lots of CP to add up small effects vs. spending few CP on more powerful effects balances out. Giving each army the same CP total just rewards elite/death star armies that can maximize the power of each CP spent at the expense of MSU armies that no longer get a CP advantage to make up for their lack of per-CP power.

The problem with IG (and similar cheap MSU options) is not that they get a lot of CP, it's soup abuse. You buy a bunch of CP at the discount "buff your 50 point infantry squad" rate, but then you spend them at the higher "buff your 300 point unit" rate. Remove the ability to use CP outside of the faction that produced them (or just ban allies entirely, which is the better solution) and that problem goes away.

By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?
Does not Gaurd have access to 500+ point units in their own codex? Where custodians don't? What is this "buff unit rate" nonsense. It's a complete fabrication not grounded in fact of any kind.

You mean to tell me that eldar have a "buff unit rate" that has something to do with their ability to generate command points and stratagem power? No - it's doesn't - they have amazingly efficient and powerful stratagems with easy command point generation as well.

By your logic. Greyknights should have amazing stratagems - actually they are the most expensive and crappy in the game. The game is unbalanced - and the command point structure is poorly designed. That is why they are unequal.

Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

So yes, they do have 500 point units in the codex, almost no stratagems can be applied to them (and the ones that do are not that good). Theres only 2 off the top of my head that would specifically affect a baneblade in a meaningful way. 1 gives it 2+ to hit in melee (whoopee) and the other +1 BS (which is good, but is a vostroyan stratagem which means you cant be cadian or catachan on the baneblade making the regimental doctrine/chapter tactic useless)

Point is, im not trying to say guard is UP, soup is fine or any nonsense like that. Im just trying to say Peregrines claim makes sense when you look at the IG stratagems. They only provide small buffs and even when applied to the large 500 point models its not as impactful as custode or IK ones

A vostryn or tallarn shadowsword is nasty being able to outflank an anti titanic unit is very strong.(The knight one is strong but can't be used on FW or Dominus class knights)
Also Can't Jurry rigging be used unlimited times on any LoW to regain all its wounds in a single turn with enough CP?
The re-rolling any dice one per phase is very strong when you have enpugh CP to do it in the move, shooting, charge and fight phase every turn.
Also a pure knight list has what 9CP and will be luck to start the game with 5

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

It doesn't need to be better - both are god mode. Just pointing out there is no "buff unit rate" that codex have. It is completely random and more or less - stratagems are costed based on what is going to use them.
Overlapping feilds of fire and talyern outflank are amazing strats. Overwatch buff is great - crush him is great. Preliminary bombardment is great. Take cover is great (cant you use this on a baneblade too?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

With 3-4 times more command points. Knights get maybe 1 command reroll a game. Gaurd players probably take 12.

You cannot use Take Cover on anything but Infantry.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

It doesn't need to be better - both are god mode. Just pointing out there is no "buff unit rate" that codex have. It is completely random and more or less - stratagems are costed based on what is going to use them.
Overlapping feilds of fire and talyern outflank are amazing strats. Overwatch buff is great - crush him is great. Preliminary bombardment is great. Take cover is great (cant you use this on a baneblade too?)

Overlapping Fields of Fire is a Cadian specific stratagem. Overwatch buff only applies to tanks.

I've already corrected you on these elsewhere, but of course you'll just keep reiterating misinformation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Billagio wrote:


Have you seen the guard stratagems? They are very poor compared to other armies stratagems, and even fewer actually affect the 500 point units in a meaningful way. Most call out specific units or keywords like INFANTRY or LEMAN RUSS etc. Even then, orders are better most of the time. (which also dont affect baneblades).

"Guard have bad stratagems, anything else is fake news." -Guard players

You only need 1 or 2 good stratagems to make the set fantastic.

Outflanking a Shadow Sword is the definition of a god mode stratagem, for example.

It's no better than being able to outflank a Knight. If that's the best stratagem in the Guard codex, then phhrrrbt. We're, at our best, equal to a fairly mediocre stratagem from the Knights codex. Neat.

It doesn't need to be better - both are god mode. Just pointing out there is no "buff unit rate" that codex have. It is completely random and more or less - stratagems are costed based on what is going to use them.
Overlapping feilds of fire and talyern outflank are amazing strats. Overwatch buff is great - crush him is great. Preliminary bombardment is great. Take cover is great (cant you use this on a baneblade too?)

Overlapping Fields of Fire is a Cadian specific stratagem. Overwatch buff only applies to tanks.

I've already corrected you on these elsewhere, but of course you'll just keep reiterating misinformation.

\
Everyone who knows the game - knows exactly what I am talking about dude. They all know I am not spreading misinformation. The stratagems are good. Want to see bad stratagems - open codex space marines or grey knights. Here are some real trash stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You cannot use Take Cover on anything but Infantry.

Thanks for that - I am pretty sure it's been used on a tank against me. I will know next time.

 Crimson wrote:
I don't believe that. GW writers knew how the ally rules work when writing these codices. Custodes book even includes several things that can be used to buff other Imperium units. They were meant to use allies.

They may have been meant to use allies. They were probably not meant to take a minimum 200-point IG detachment with the warlord and CP relic purely as a CP farm, because GW designs around their idea of narrative play and not competitive list optimization. Their idea of an allied IG force would be something like several infantry squads, a LRBT or Basilisk or two, maybe some ogryns or veterans or whatever. And the warlord would certainly be a Custodes hero, because gold marines do not let a mere mortal command them. That sort of list is not the same kind of balance problem as spending 200 points for a CP farm in every elite army.

This does bring a very valid point and very simple way to mitigate CP batteries (slightly). A sentence could be added to page 132 of the AM codex that states something about not letting your warlord be AM if your army contains a character from any of the other imperium factions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
By what metric can you state that command points are ment to be unequal?

The metric is that inequality is an obvious and inescapable consequence of the CP generation rules. When CP is tied to the number of detachments you fill an army with cheap units will fill more detachments, and therefore generate more CP, than an army with more expensive units. Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence, so the fact that they used the current system means that CP inequality is a deliberate choice.

Easier to just errata Grand Strategist to not be strictly better than other traits. Technically reducing errata since it was the errata that broke it in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence, so the fact that they used the current system means that CP inequality is a deliberate choice.

I agree for the most part. It certainly helps explain why Eldar have such good Strats, because unless you soup in cheap Dark Eldar, CWE have a harder time filling Battalions with enough points left for competitive choices.
So they inherently have less CPs, ergo they get better strats.

This obviously isn't consistent across all factions, but there are enough cases to suggest it's deliberate.

-