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.

jaxor1983 wrote:
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.

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

I think at the very least there was an initial believe that cheaper stuff should have greater access to CP. The baseline strategems are generally more needed by large weak units in the case of insane bravery or spent less impactfully (rerolling a failed 4+/5+ is less likely to be a CP well spent than a 3+). It didn't take long for Guard to spend all their CP on the tanks though, making it just kind of an advantage all around.

What I can't tell is whether or not GW decided this was less a bug and more of a feature. This demand to take cheap chaff to fuel the big impactful stuff has been double downed on pretty repeatedly as the edition progressed and I'm not really convinced its a bad thing.

The core idea of 15 cp is nice, but I'd rather see something like

4 CP per round, refreshed at the top of each round for each player.

All cp regen/gain items changes to: At the top of each round each player with this item/skill that has the character with the item/Skill still on the battlefield can gain an extra CP for use in this round on a roll of 5+. One attempt per round.

If your force is mono faction, once per game gain 1 CP for a round you chose.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think at the very least there was an initial believe that cheaper stuff should have greater access to CP. The baseline strategems are generally more needed by large weak units in the case of insane bravery or spent less impactfully (rerolling a failed 4+/5+ is less likely to be a CP well spent than a 3+). It didn't take long for Guard to spend all their CP on the tanks though, making it just kind of an advantage all around.

To be fair, the tanks tend to have a few more stratagems that aren't "reactive".

Things like "Aerial Spotters" for Basilisks and Wyverns, "Crush Them!" and "Jury Rigging" for any vehicle, "Officio Prefectus Command Tank" for a Leman Russ, Mobile Command Vehicle for Chimeras--those are all things that you can choose to activate on your turn. There's also "Vortex Missiles" but...those require Deathstrikes.
Those all have a much more (IMO) dramatic "payout" compared to the Guard Infantry oriented stratagems.

Not to say they're bad, just that they're very much reactive rather than active.

What I can't tell is whether or not GW decided this was less a bug and more of a feature. This demand to take cheap chaff to fuel the big impactful stuff has been double downed on pretty repeatedly as the edition progressed and I'm not really convinced its a bad thing.

And it's funny how when I've made suggestions that make the cheap chaff a hindrance rather than a boon, I get told to "stop trying to kill soup!".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

That would certainly free up a lot of time and money to play golf instead, I guess. Let's try it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

I mean you started this nonsense about banning people's armies.

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

Auxiliary detachment is for when you want to bring just unit. It has to be possible to build armies that have large allied contingents.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

I mean you started this nonsense about banning people's armies.

Difference is my route doesn't "ban" anyone's armies. It just makes them hilariously inefficient when they do the current nonsense of bringing one army's stuff to pad out their own's weaknesses.

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

Auxiliary detachment is for when you want to bring just unit. It has to be possible to build armies that have large allied contingents.

Sure, and we can have that when you all stop bringing more allied units than what you claim is your actual army.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Even easier is adding something to the main rulebook that you cannot bring anything outside of Auxiliary(read: 1 unit per choice, with a -1 penalty to your CP total) Detachments from other books.

Even easier solution: let's just ban Guard.

Sure. Let's ban HQ choices too. Maybe LoWs? Oh I know, FAs are pretty OP now!

I mean you started this nonsense about banning people's armies.

In any regards:
The option is right there. We've had those Auxiliary detachments since day freaking one. But why would you take one when you can just throw another faction's stuff in?

Auxiliary detachment is for when you want to bring just unit. It has to be possible to build armies that have large allied contingents.

We'll, you can, the cost is CP, but if you have cheap battalions, you have CP to burn, right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Difference is my route doesn't "ban" anyone's armies. It just makes them hilariously inefficient when they do the current nonsense of bringing one army's stuff to pad out their own's weaknesses.

Oh okay then! Let's just make it so that Guard detachments can never generate any CP. Now that's fair and good fix?

Sure, and we can have that when you all stop bringing more allied units than what you claim is your actual army.

What the feth it matter what people call their army? Some people's armies are soup. Knights with household troops (Skitarii in my case), Inquisitorial taskforces, Ynnari, Craftworlds with Dark Eldar mercenaries, etc.

Ice_can wrote:


2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

while certainly a ridiculous combo, in practice, at least in my games, I never make it through enough CP's in the first place for it to matter most of the time either way, at least with a mono-IG force. If I start with 15 CP's and generate another 8 during a game, but only spend 12, it doesn't actually do anything but leave me with 11 unused CP.

It's definitely an issue in soup lists for armies that otherwise are very limited on CP's, but I think allies/soup has been a major balance issue with the game since they brought it back in 6E.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Difference is my route doesn't "ban" anyone's armies. It just makes them hilariously inefficient when they do the current nonsense of bringing one army's stuff to pad out their own's weaknesses.

Oh okay then! Let's just make it so that Guard detachments can never generate any CP. Now that's fair and good fix?

Sure, let's make it so other armies can do the same. After all, CPs are borked right?

Sure, and we can have that when you all stop bringing more allied units than what you claim is your actual army.

What the feth it matter what people call their army? Some people's armies are soup. Knights with household troops (Skitarii in my case), Inquisitorial taskforces, Ynnari, Craftworlds with Dark Eldar mercenaries, etc.

Why should people be able to whine about my Guard army being used to fill gaps and then protest when I want to prevent them from doing so?

If you want any of those things, you should have a penalty to contend with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

"Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence"
Coming from you that is funny - you believe GW is completely incompotent. I happen to agree with that. They fail at things far more simple than the complexities of building a competitive list. Competitive isn't even in their dictionary - they actually thing people load space marine sargets with powerfists with a flamer and a multimelta in the squad 10 man (combat squaded). Come on dude - this is beyond them. Did you see the commisar nerf? That GW? Nothing is below slipping by them.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

while certainly a ridiculous combo, in practice, at least in my games, I never make it through enough CP's in the first place for it to matter most of the time either way, at least with a mono-IG force. If I start with 15 CP's and generate another 8 during a game, but only spend 12, it doesn't actually do anything but leave me with 11 unused CP.

It's definitely an issue in soup lists for armies that otherwise are very limited on CP's, but I think allies/soup has been a major balance issue with the game since they brought it back in 6E.

What stops you using that 11 CP to jury rig a shadowsword for how many wounds in a single turn?
Just becuase your not using those CP which I don't get as competitive mono guard players seam to find ways to burn through max CP.

I think a better way, rather than beating soup over the head with a brick, would just be dial back the command points and remove CP regen.

you get three for Battleforge and you get additional command points for whatever detachment your warlord is in.

Patrols are worth 0
Battalions are worth 2
Brigades are worth 3
Everyone else is worth 1

From that point, you gain 2 every turn.

The most someone would start with is 6 and that would require the warlord to be in a brigade. Then every player would gain 12 more over the course of the game.

Ice_can wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


2)I don't think I've met any player IRL that believes that the Grand Strategists and Kurov's in a single faction is remotely balanced.
That combo is supper broken and no amount of CP generation changes will rain in that mess.

while certainly a ridiculous combo, in practice, at least in my games, I never make it through enough CP's in the first place for it to matter most of the time either way, at least with a mono-IG force. If I start with 15 CP's and generate another 8 during a game, but only spend 12, it doesn't actually do anything but leave me with 11 unused CP.

It's definitely an issue in soup lists for armies that otherwise are very limited on CP's, but I think allies/soup has been a major balance issue with the game since they brought it back in 6E.

What stops you using that 11 CP to jury rig a shadowsword for how many wounds in a single turn?
Just becuase your not using those CP which I don't get as competitive mono guard players seam to find ways to burn through max CP.

In open/narrative play, nothing I guess, but that's a relatively minor issue among the things possible in that style of play, and I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

 Iur_tae_mont wrote:
I think a better way, rather than beating soup over the head with a brick, would just be dial back the command points and remove CP regen.

you get three for Battleforge and you get additional command points for whatever detachment your warlord is in.

Patrols are worth 0
Battalions are worth 2
Brigades are worth 3
Everyone else is worth 1

From that point, you gain 2 every turn.

The most someone would start with is 6 and that would require the warlord to be in a brigade. Then every player would gain 12 more over the course of the game.

Honestly, the best thing they can do is go to the Age of Sigmar system when it comes to how CPs are generated.

You get 1 each round, and you can pool them up.
You get a one-time additional boost of CPs for each Warscroll Battalion that you've fielded.
Since WBs cost points as well there's another bit there.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

Yup all strategems can only be used once a turn in matched play. But a shadowsword is probably sitting in the backfield so even if it is Jury Rigged, its going to be about to shoot its intended target.

For guard strategems, you could burn through CP but most of the time you are doing just for the sake of it rather than it be part of a core strategy. Guard strategems are one of the tamest sets as far as I can tell, the only one remotely powerful is Vengence for Cadia and that is Chaos specific. Heck just using it for Command rerolls you could get through it if you wanted.

That screws the Inquisition who only have HQ & Elite choices.

 Ecclesiarch 616 wrote:
That screws the Inquisition who only have HQ & Elite choices.

The "Vanguard Detachment" exists. HQs & Elites, bam.

 Smirrors wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

Yup all strategems can only be used once a turn in matched play. But a shadowsword is probably sitting in the backfield so even if it is Jury Rigged, its going to be about to shoot its intended target.

For guard strategems, you could burn through CP but most of the time you are doing just for the sake of it rather than it be part of a core strategy. Guard strategems are one of the tamest sets as far as I can tell, the only one remotely powerful is Vengence for Cadia and that is Chaos specific. Heck just using it for Command rerolls you could get through it if you wanted.

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Ice_can wrote:

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Sorry my bad. Not sure what you mean about the second part, i thought it was clear enough what start meant but clearly not.

 Smirrors wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Sorry my bad. Not sure what you mean about the second part, i thought it was clear enough what start meant but clearly not.

It's been done to death in the ymdc section
Short version start of your turn is pre your movement phase, what phase comes before you movement phase? No such phase exsists.
So RAW start of turn strategums are outwith a phase to be limited by the once per phase rule. Its cheesey but rules correct.

Ice_can wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

I'm assuming if we're talking about competitive play we're talking Matched Play, and under those rules you can't just spam Jury Rigging and can only use it once per turn at the start of the turn (unless I'm forgetting something), so you can't burn through those CP like that, and if you wanna have a Shadowsword do nothing for a turn to heal 1 wound, your opponent will probably thank you.

Yup all strategems can only be used once a turn in matched play. But a shadowsword is probably sitting in the backfield so even if it is Jury Rigged, its going to be about to shoot its intended target.

For guard strategems, you could burn through CP but most of the time you are doing just for the sake of it rather than it be part of a core strategy. Guard strategems are one of the tamest sets as far as I can tell, the only one remotely powerful is Vengence for Cadia and that is Chaos specific. Heck just using it for Command rerolls you could get through it if you wanted.

Once per phase not turn, at the start of your turn is dubious as to being a phase or not a phase and hence any at the start of your turn strategums are currently not RAW limited.

Jury Rig wrote:
Use at the start of your turn. Select an Astra Militarum Vehicle from your army. It cannot move, charge or pile in this turn, but immediately heals 1 wound.

It tells you when you use it. It's the start of your turn.

There's no ambiguity here.

 Ecclesiarch 616 wrote:
That screws the Inquisition who only have HQ & Elite choices.

Not really, You'd start out with 4 command points and gain another 12 over the course of the game, giving you 16 in total.

Without spamming the ever-loving heck out of Guard, your Inquisition army isn't getting 16 in a game right now.

Or you take a Battalion of any imperial faction and have someone there be your warlord and you'd get 5 to start and 12 over the course of the game for a total of 17.

Thats not an issue I think that will come up much, 90% of players wont even think of it, Id never even heard of it, and that sounds like a rather absurd hill to try and die on for a rules argument in a pickup game while any given TO is probably unlikely to view favorably unless theyre a veteran of specficic web forums.

So, while I think the combo is abusable, within a mono-IG force thats already bringing lots of CP's, it's not offering much that isn't already taken care of by existing mechanics most of the time.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Sure, let's make it so other armies can do the same. After all, CPs are borked right?

No because the theme was to gome with insane bs suggestions which disproportionately punish certain armies.

Why should people be able to whine about my Guard army being used to fill gaps and then protest when I want to prevent them from doing so?

Because Guard's CP generation is too good, soup or no soup. I have no problem with bringing Guard allies in general, I do that mysels, I just don't take grand strategist or Kurov's Aquila.

If you want any of those things, you should have a penalty to contend with.

Small penalty perhaps, yes. But what you suggest is not reasonable. -1 Cp per one unit is not reasonable, and as there is a detachment limit in use in many games, that would mean max two allied units. It effectively bans soup. Furthermore, It would still allow Yvraine &Reapers or grand strategist & Kurov's Aquila commander to be allied. So it would punish the people who want to make flavourful varied armies, but would leave the worst cheese untouched.

 Crimson wrote:
It effectively bans soup.

This is a feature, not a bug.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
"Even GW can't be stupid enough to fail to notice this consequence"
Coming from you that is funny - you believe GW is completely incompotent. I happen to agree with that. They fail at things far more simple than the complexities of building a competitive list. Competitive isn't even in their dictionary - they actually thing people load space marine sargets with powerfists with a flamer and a multimelta in the squad 10 man (combat squaded). Come on dude - this is beyond them. Did you see the commisar nerf? That GW? Nothing is below slipping by them.

The point is that even if you aren't a competitive player the fact that different armies get different amounts of CP is extremely obvious. You don't have to play competitively, you just have to write a few lists of any kind to realize that CP is not uniform across all armies. There is absolutely no way GW failed to notice this fact. It's like saying that GW didn't realize that space marines had a 3+ save, and that passing saves on a 4 on a D6 roll was a consequence of putting "3+" in the rules.

We dont need to ban soups, IMO just give bonus to mono armies. Why not give 5CP to a mono army consisting of just 1 Faction?