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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It effectively bans soup.

This is a feature, not a bug.

And many people think that banning FW would be a feature. But we don't like that either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
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?

Yes, something like this would be good. Five points is kinda lot though. Maybe three? Or maybe it should scale with the size of the game? +1 CP for every 500 points for monoarmies?

 Crimson wrote:
And many people think that banning FW would be a feature. But we don't like that either.

The two are not at all the same. Banning soup accomplishes a legitimate game design goal of preventing the destruction of faction identity. Your army is your army, with all of its strengths and weaknesses, you don't get to turn half the game into an over-homogenized mess where the only question is which melee elites you're going to pair with your IG CP battery. Banning FW accomplishes nothing, which book a rule is printed in has nothing to do with how it functions in the game. It's equivalent to banning all units printed on page 76 of their respective codices, because page 76 is third-party fan rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

The two are not at all the same. Banning soup accomplishes a legitimate game design goal of preventing the destruction of faction identity. Your army is your army, with all of its strengths and weaknesses, you don't get to turn half the game into an over-homogenized mess where the only question is which melee elites you're going to pair with your IG CP battery. Banning FW accomplishes nothing, which book a rule is printed in has nothing to do with how it functions in the game. It's equivalent to banning all units printed on page 76 of their respective codices, because page 76 is third-party fan rules.

Stop this nonsense. We've been over this, this 'faction identity' exists only in your head. You already have powerful melee elites in your IG codex in form of Ogryns or Bullgryns. You can have your giant FW tanks and I want to have my Primaris Space Marines fighting next to the tiny guardsmen because it looks cool.

Maybe the easiest way to fix the current easy CP generation problem is to remove the restriction that all your forces need to share a keyword. Then, there's no inequality between any of the factions. One could use their PBCs, void ravens, and 200 points of IG. There's no faction identity to worry about as it is, so what difference would it make, functionally?

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It effectively bans soup.

This is a feature, not a bug.

And many people think that banning FW would be a feature. But we don't like that either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
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?

Yes, something like this would be good. Five points is kinda lot though. Maybe three? Or maybe it should scale with the size of the game? +1 CP for every 500 points for monoarmies?

When they 1st talked about factions in 40k and how they were working, i honestly thought you would get more bonuses/Buffs for playing mono and less for mixing, i was really excited until i saw there was no buffs b.c you can have a detachment and still gain full rules.

I really hope GW moves towards a system where we can have both Mono and mix armies but you are given incentive to not ally, allies are fluffy, but its extremely hard to balance 1000's of units and rules when you can fill the army with only the Best of the Best and you have 0 reasons to take 99% of all units.

I like soup, but i dont like the idea you can cherry pick every BiS unit in the game under 1 army.

Another idea is to have +2 CP's for each faction shared with another detachment, you have 3 SM detachments you gain +4CP, you have 2 SM and 1 IK;s then you gain +2

jaxor1983 wrote:
Maybe the easiest way to fix the current easy CP generation problem is to remove the restriction that all your forces need to share a keyword. Then, there's no inequality between any of the factions. One could use their PBCs, void ravens, and 200 points of IG. There's no faction identity to worry about as it is, so what difference would it make, functionally?

I would rather see the other direction. Soup kitchen is closed. Nobody gets soup now. Its been over a year since 8th released and soup has never stopped being an issue. Even when CP didn't matter soup was king. When only half the armies had codices, soup was king. The problem is soup. If you take away CP batteries then soup will just switch to options that either less CP intensive or can make use of the CP they can get. Its going to take a substantial nerf to dethrone soup. Something along the lines of losing access to all strategems, all chapter tactics, and all faction warlord traits/relics. A nice alternative would be a few soup strategems in CA so their CP still has a purpose. A dozen or so each for Aeldari/Ynnari, Imperium, and Chaos that can only be used by soup. Generic ones that can be used by all armies would work too. Naturally, exceptions for things like Inquisition and the assassins will still exist.

I think BOLS might be right with this article.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/09/40k-gw-hints-at-command-points-per-detachment.html

With the Mini dex's pushing to you can only use CP from a detachment on the Stratagems for that detachment, the game changes if that comes out in a CA. I hope that if the CP is saved/Made by a CP generators that it is then bound to the detachment that generated it.

It completely removes the current cheeseball, Guard, Castellen, Smash Capts, as your Castallen won't even be able to rotate shields, and the Smash Captains are almost as bad.

Not sure if it affects the Eldar side.

The only issue I have with restricting CPs to only be used for the detachments that generate them is that I don't want to keep track on that.
Keeping track of my own is easy. Keeping track of my opponents, however, might be a nightmare.
I have a hard enough time keeping track of all the special abilities and snow flake rules for the huge variety of factions that exist that I just don't have the time or resources to "study" and memorize every little detail for.

I have very bad experiences with opponent "cheating" because they didn't know there own rules. I used to have all the Codices when they were all soft cover and I was single with no kids. So I was able to call out when something wasn't being done right and have that discussion with my opponent.
Now? Forget it. I have to just accept my opponents word unless something truly feels fishy. Otherwise we spend more time reading each other's books than actually playing

Adding a division of CPs that can only be spent on the detachment that generates it would just elevate my level of suspicion that an opponent my accidentally use the wrong CPs.

A better fix is that the only detachments that can generate CPs are those that share at least 2 factions keywords with the WL (so the WL's detachment and any others that are the same factions)
That would instantly eliminate using Guard as CP battery for the rest of the Imperium without nerfing mono-Guard.

-

CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

Reemule wrote:
I think BOLS might be right with this article.
Not sure if it affects the Eldar side.

That will Nuke Ynnari to only using the the three out of the Rule Book. Shouldn't bother just allies Eldar and DE too too much.

Command points are okay as they are.

Some other things require work instead, such as the spamming of units.

 RedCommander wrote:
Command points are okay as they are.

Some other things require work instead, such as the spamming of units.

Spamming of units has been fixed. You can only take 3 unless they are Troops
Fixing how CPs are generated has the side affect of reducing Troop spam too.

-

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

Yeah, the way I've always envisioned it is that detachments that have the same keyword can still share CP. So if you took 2 detachments of UM and one IG you would only have 2 CP pools one for IG and one for UM. This makes sense from a rules standpoint (we have a keyword system so its easy to impliment) and from a thematic sense "hey we have a lot more points in army x than army y so we can do more cool army x stuff than army y stuff"

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

Custodes can not generate their own CP. Their battalion is 650 points. The idea is the ease of generation is unfairly distributed. Armies with cheap HQ and troops do it to easy comparably. This is a fact. I am not engaging it this debate. It is unfair. Everyone knows it. Moving on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

#1 and #2 are inherently linked. If BA or custodes can't generate enough CP in a mono army. What makes you think they can do it with a single detachment??? They can't. Units are more powerful with stratagems. Units that can't use stratagems because they don't have CP are not as useful. It kills allies.

Guilliman is an ultra marine. That will never be an issue. Guilliman supporting knights or custodians just dies. He can only use CP on himself in that case - worthless.

And as I've said the book keeping issue isn't with your own book keeping, it's with keeping up with your opponents book keeping.

The solution needs to keep allies viable, but completely remove using allies as CP batteries.
Moving CP generation away from detachments and more heavily on being Battle Forged goes a long way towards this solution.

-

I'm not an expert on other forces, but sticking to what I do know...

As a Knight player I need to be aware and ready to play games where I have access to 9 CP. And No more. (I can't see a good way in a 2K game to get more than 9 with my forces)

With my Ultramarines I can get to 12 very easily a number of ways. So I need to be ready to play with 12.

I feel I can make both of these work for me. Are you implying Custodes can't get to 9?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

Custodes can not generate their own CP. Their battalion is 650 points. The idea is the ease of generation is unfairly distributed. Armies with cheap HQ and troops do it to easy comparably. This is a fact. I am not engaging it this debate. It is unfair. Everyone knows it. Moving on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

#1 and #2 are inherently linked. If BA or custodes can't generate enough CP in a mono army. What makes you think they can do it with a single detachment??? They can't. Units are more powerful with stratagems. Units that can't use stratagems because they don't have CP are not as useful. It kills allies.

Guilliman is an ultra marine. That will never be an issue. Guilliman supporting knights or custodians just dies. He can only use CP on himself in that case - worthless.

Once again if an army like custodes is underpowered because of lack of CP you can easily fix them by A. giving them more CP B. reducing the cost of their strategems. Its not only an easy fix but adds another category that you can institue balance through instead of just points cost

Reemule wrote:
I'm not an expert on other forces, but sticking to what I do know...

As a Knight player I need to be aware and ready to play games where I have access to 9 CP. And No more. (I can't see a good way in a 2K game to get more than 9 with my forces)

With my Ultramarines I can get to 12 very easily a number of ways. So I need to be ready to play with 12.

I feel I can make both of these work for me. Are you implying Custodes can't get to 9?

Yeah they can get 9. IG gets 15 CP for 500 points. Tau get 18 without breaking a sweat at 2000 (just taking all the units they want anyways). Hugely unbalanced.

Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

I have to disagree with your points here
#1- The amount of bookkeeping is minimal and no more than tracking wounds over multiple characters. While it is a technical "increase" its so minimal i feel it makes a poor excuse for excluding it
#2- It doesn't "gut" allies. You still receive added flexibility and strength by being able to choose units over multiple books. It simply adds a drawback that is "less points spent on army x= less CP to spent on army x. There needs to be a drawback to soup or soup will always be 100% better then mono
#3. Every army can generate its own CP so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If an army is found to need more CP you can simply increase the amount that faction generates per detachment or reduce the cost of its strategems. Any mono dex that's already struggling is also unaffected by this change and soup builds power levels are lowered so the gap has effectively been decreased day 1 without a single change. More balance changes can be added as needed once they see where the meta has settled

Actually Assasins and Sisters of silence can't generate CP for themselfs. GW allowed then to be taken in understrength vanguards, but with 0CP.

Reemule wrote:
Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

That's part of what makes those armies balanced. Guard & Tau can generate loads of CP, but there strats are meh.
Knights, Eldar and some Marine factions have really good Strats, but generally can't get in the double-digits for CPs, so they can't use them all.
But when you have Guard generating tons of CPs that can be used on those really good Knight Strats, then you have an issue.

You make it so that only the WLs detachment can generate CPs (and those detachments of the same factions as the WL) and you fix the problem.
CPs can still be shared amongst detachments (so no extra book keeping) but you aren't able to "plug holes" in an armies weaknesses as easily.
Allies are still useful for what they can do (Assassins), but you don't bring them to generate CPs

-

Reemule wrote:
Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

Guard players keep saying they have terrible strategums, but they do have some worth whike strategums, heck just being able to spam comman point re-roll if used correctly is powerful.

If they do implement this change I'd like to see the CP for bats (4) and brigs (8) brought back down and the supplemental detachments brought up (2 cp for vanguards, outriders...).

I still think it is a much worse solution than charging per detachment. It is also going to lead to some interesting issues with keyword interactions but I'll just keep crossing my fingers over here and hope that GW doesn't implement such a dumb rule...

bananathug wrote:
If they do implement this change I'd like to see the CP for bats (4) and brigs (8) brought back down and the supplemental detachments brought up (2 cp for vanguards, outriders...).

I still think it is a much worse solution than charging per detachment. It is also going to lead to some interesting issues with keyword interactions but I'll just keep crossing my fingers over here and hope that GW doesn't implement such a dumb rule...

If they do implement this change, they should actually leave the CPs as they are printed in the book (so Bats go back to 3), but then up the amount of CPs Battle Forged gives (3 per 500pts, or 3 generated each turn, or something)
As BF CPs would be shared, it wouldn't be so restrictive as the CPs generated (and used) per detachment and outright eliminates the "need" to farm CPs from other detachments.
Even though it creates the situation of an opponent "forgetting" which CPs belong where

-

CP’s are going to be tied to factions. The writing is on the wall. You can argue until the cows come home but that looks like the fix GW is going to go with first. Adjust and move on. The focus now should be how to address how that will impact armies and how other changes will be needed to combat these issues.

Asmodios wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
CP being locked to detachment has a lot of bad consequences.

#1 - it creates more book keeping. I for one hate book keeping.
#2 - it pretty much guts allies and specifically archetypes that are designed to work with allied units. For example - Guilliman (grants CP you can't use if you have allies), dominus knights(sheild stratagem cant be used because you have no CP for it), and Custodians (lots of allied interactions).
#3 - it does nothing to help armies that can't generate their own CP.

Basically it's the first idea I had. Because it is the most obvious. I thought about it - realized it's one of the worst solutions possible because it addressed only 1 issue (OP soup) but creates more problems than it solves. There are much better solutions. I realize GW probably already printed CA so all this discussion is meaningless. But - it really isn't. My hope is that TO who are looking to create a better competitive environment might catch wind of this idea and implement it. Or at the very least - I hope A few players try this in their local stores and maybe a few players games got better as a result.

@#2, Again the case is overstated, I think, as I haven't seen the actual rules yet. Specifically, With the Dominus Knights. You can run enough to get them some CP and have access to that Stratagem. It will be something that you will need to put some consideration into.

If I had any concerns I'd like there to be a specific mention that is you bring more than 1 detachment of the same faction, they could share CP. So if I bring a Battalion of Ultramarines, and a supreme command to bring in Gulliman, I think there should just be a single CP pool.

Also that would answer your Book Keeping concern as well.

Yeah, the way I've always envisioned it is that detachments that have the same keyword can still share CP. So if you took 2 detachments of UM and one IG you would only have 2 CP pools one for IG and one for UM. This makes sense from a rules standpoint (we have a keyword system so its easy to impliment) and from a thematic sense "hey we have a lot more points in army x than army y so we can do more cool army x stuff than army y stuff"

That is probably not an issue, with the way they warded the new mini codici they have tied it to "Faction stratagems", so an SM detachment will generate CPs for SM stratagems.

Galef wrote:And as I've said the book keeping issue isn't with your own book keeping, it's with keeping up with your opponents book keeping.

The solution needs to keep allies viable, but completely remove using allies as CP batteries.
Moving CP generation away from detachments and more heavily on being Battle Forged goes a long way towards this solution.

-

Yeah, but the more CPs you tie to just being battleforged, the more you defeat the purpose of CPs, which are a way to reward organic armies.

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Having CP doesn't imply effectiveness... Guard having more CP they have to spend on Guard Stratagems isn't that terrifying.

Same with Tau.

What are you worried about?

Guard players keep saying they have terrible strategums, but they do have some worth whike strategums, heck just being able to spam comman point re-roll if used correctly is powerful.

Sure, they have some good one, but they can't burn 9 CPs on a model like a BA or an IK can do, and the average level of their stratagems is surely not the eldar level.

As I've said in every other thread started about CP issues, GW is NOT going to develop some all new formula for distributing CPs. It's just not going to happen.

Try it out as a house rule for a tourny if you like, but GW is going to make the simplest solution, using the fewest words as possible. So far the only believable change would be to relegate CPs to its associated detachment. Cuts down on Guard farms and is easy to explain. Stop with the convoluted instructions. There's not going to be a major change. Just a clarification.

I’ll think this is a bad change if we see mono themed Guard and Tau forces with loads of CP winning tourney’s. And I don’t think I’ll actually be that sad. It would be a nice change of pace.