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.

Getting rid of the supreme command detachment would accomplish most of the goals the “rule of three” was intended to fix (as well as some it can’t) in my opinion.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.

I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'

FWIW, this doesn't actually affect the way the guard farm works.

I'm more hoping for some sort of adjustment to CP/Stratagems. I think clarifying CP battery's would be helpful also. Or removing them from the game.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.

I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'

FWIW, this doesn't actually affect the way the guard farm works.

True, it really should be "one roll per turn". Even if it was "one roll per turn per source" it'd still slow the farm way down to a crawl compared to the gallop it helps regain CP at.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.

I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'

FWIW, this doesn't actually affect the way the guard farm works.

It stops the doubling up of the Guard Farm with Veritas Vitae.

Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

There are a lot of possible fixes to this:

1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.

2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems

4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.

Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

No. But it would allow future codexes to get (more sensible) CP regeneration on their own without designers worrying they'll create abusable situations like the Veritas Vitae. The current way to just not give newer books like Space Wolves any CP-regen whatsoever isn't really helping either in making those 200 points of guard less attractive.

Spoletta wrote:
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:

1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.

2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems

4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.

Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.

Grand strategist specifically (outside of other general rules on CP regeneration) should probably be either 6+ on every CP spend or a 5+, but roll only one die per Stratagem played.

Having it on an army that can field Battalions and Brigades more easily than .. say .. Eldar or Space Marines .. would be balancing enough compared to (current versions) of Labyrinthine Cunning, the Marines Master Strategist or whatever it's called, etc...

edit: Reading comprehension failed

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

No. But it would allow future codexes to get (more sensible) CP regeneration on their own without designers worrying they'll create abusable situations like the Veritas Vitae. The current way to just not give newer books like Space Wolves any CP-regen whatsoever isn't really helping either in making those 200 points of guard less attractive.

Spoletta wrote:
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:

1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.

2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems

4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.

Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.

Grand strategist specifically (outside of other general rules on CP regeneration) should probably be either 6+ on every CP spend or a 5+, but roll only one die per Stratagem played.

Having it on an army that can field Battalions and Brigades more easily than .. say .. Eldar or Space Marines .. would be balancing enough compared to (current versions) of Labyrinthine Cunning, the Marines Master Strategist or whatever it's called, etc...

CPs have to be limited, right now imperium lists have unreasonable amounts of them and this is creating situations with factions and models that are perfectly fine on paper, but are overboosted by abundance of resources and become problems.

 blackmage wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists

Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"

what you would suggest to fix spam without the rule of 3? just curious

"we reccomend the supreme command detachment not be used in matched play"

Seriously, 90% of the worst spam I hear about would be fixed by simply not allowing that one detachment.

BrianDavion wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists

Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"

what you would suggest to fix spam without the rule of 3? just curious

"we reccomend the supreme command detachment not be used in matched play"

Seriously, 90% of the worst spam I hear about would be fixed by simply not allowing that one detachment.

Nonsense. Some of the worst offenders were the 9-10 plaguecrawler lists, Dark Reapers obviously, etc.., etc..

It's not even only about balance. Encouraging players to switch things up and not go gimmicky quite so easy is a good thing in itself for the health of the game.

Spoletta wrote:

CPs have to be limited, right now imperium lists have unreasonable amounts of them and this is creating situations with factions and models that are perfectly fine on paper, but are overboosted by abundance of resources and become problems.

Not really. Everyone has the ability to generate 13 CP pretty trivially these days apart from probably Necrons. The ugly thing about the Guard farm is:
1) Grand Strategist being strictly better by getting a die for each CP spent instead of each strategem
and
2) The Aquila providing a way to efficiently steal CP in an army that can also regenerate it.

 LunarSol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

CPs have to be limited, right now imperium lists have unreasonable amounts of them and this is creating situations with factions and models that are perfectly fine on paper, but are overboosted by abundance of resources and become problems.

Not really. Everyone has the ability to generate 13 CP pretty trivially these days apart from probably Necrons. The ugly thing about the Guard farm is:
1) Grand Strategist being strictly better by getting a die for each CP spent instead of each strategem
and
2) The Aquila providing a way to efficiently steal CP in an army that can also regenerate it.

And 13 is probably fine in a 2000 point list with limited regen.

Guard-battery + Veritas Vitae with a Castellan/Smash-Captain list routinely spend 30 - 40 CP in a game. More if they mirror-match.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Getting rid of the supreme command detachment would accomplish most of the goals the “rule of three” was intended to fix (as well as some it can’t) in my opinion.

agreed when you look at most of the spam lists out there, most involve HQ spam. be it Hive Tyrants, custodes Bike captains. etc

BrianDavion wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Getting rid of the supreme command detachment would accomplish most of the goals the “rule of three” was intended to fix (as well as some it can’t) in my opinion.

agreed when you look at most of the spam lists out there, most involve HQ spam. be it Hive Tyrants, custodes Bike captains. etc

then you will find again 9 Pbc 15 obliterators and 6 flyrants anyway, no thx that kind of enviroment is unhealthy for the game.

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

There are a lot of possible fixes to this:

1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.

2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems

4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.

Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.

I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP
>Blue dice detachment two CP
>Green Dice Detachment three CP
Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board

But then, how many CP do my Corsairs get (who must take Aux detatchments)?

I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.

2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

There are a lot of possible fixes to this:

1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.

2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems

4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.

Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.

I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP
>Blue dice detachment two CP
>Green Dice Detachment three CP
Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board

Because not all strategums are owned by a detachment, is a CP re-roll from the IG battalion CP, the Slamguinius battalion CP or the Castellen CP?

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems this would certainly reduce the amount of Company commanders ordering around Blood Angles Captain's.

Ice_can wrote:

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.

2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes

1) Mono AM lists aren't competitive really anyway, so I don't care how many CP they have. 2 AM Battalions +1 jump captain? Cool... I'm alright with that. A single knight? again, totally cool with that. Giving up your 3rd detachment for a single models seems perfectly ok to me, if you really think that makes the list super competitive.

2) Except 3 detachments means 3 daemon princes total unless you are choosing to not go with battle forged lists, yes?

It's certainly better than what we have today, and much better than the nonsensical triple token tracking ideas

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

#2 breaks all Primaris armies because we only have 1 FA and 1 HS option right now. That'd mean spamming patrol detachments to even build an army.

Ice_can wrote:

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.

2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

There are a lot of possible fixes to this:

1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.

2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems

4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.

Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.

I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP
>Blue dice detachment two CP
>Green Dice Detachment three CP
Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board

Because not all strategums are owned by a detachment, is a CP re-roll from the IG battalion CP, the Slamguinius battalion CP or the Castellen CP?

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems this would certainly reduce the amount of Company commanders ordering around Blood Angles Captain's.

That's easy what are you using the reroll on.
If you're rerolling a shot.... what detachment shot it
If you're rerolling an armor save..... what detachment is the save going to
If you're rerolling a spell...... what detachment rerolled it
It's actually super easy

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

So you've managed to not fix any of the problems, create a number of WORSE problems, and double down on a rule that didn't work in the first place.

1. All this does is kill off any chance of ever seeing a non-guard imperial army, a chaos army, or any of the smaller faction xenos army from ever doing better than 2-2 at events again. You might as well burn all the various flavors of space marines alongside Custodes for how god awful they would end up in this situation. Meanwhile Ynnari+Dark reapers+ Altaioc only needs slight tweaks to be basically unaffected at the same time that every list in the game that could compete with it gets DECIMATED.

2. This is the single worst idea ever suggested in the history of 40k. This is a gimmick 1-off tournament rule, not a way to build a game. Firstly WHY THE feth would you have troops and transports ignore the rule? That doesn't make any sense! We've already had MANY instances of troops AND transports being broken AF so far THIS EDITION and you want to kill off any option to counter them? How THE HELL are you supposed to counteract 6 units of 30 boys with ONE mortar squad? You've just made any cheap, good, or spammable troop so broken they would make 7 flying hive tyrants look like 3 squig herders. Secondly, the majority of units are pointless as a one off, and even the ones that ARE good as one offs preclude bringing OTHER one offs. I would never bring 1 predator and 1 dev squad and 1 stormhawk, I would bring 120 ork boyz, since the only thing in the ENTIRE GAME that can deal with 120 ork boyz at that point is ANOTHER 120 ork boyz.

Thirdly, You'd absolutely destroy smaller factions. Custodes would be unplayable. Sisters of battle would have to bring EVERY UNIT in their index to even be able to field 2000pts and wouldn't EVER be able to bring more than 2 detachments because they only have 3 HQs and they'd have to run a brigade just to have enough troop slots to be able to hit 2k points.Grey knights go from the worst army in the game to the worst army in ANY game EVER created. They'd be so far off the powercurve you'd have the freakin Yu-Gi-Oh people going 'yeesh, at least none of the stuff we made is THAT bad.' Deathguard become unplayable, Thousands sons goes from memeing about being Tzaangor and friends to actually BEING just Tzaangor. It would be a catastrophy. Oh, and it STILL doesn't hurt altaioc+Dark reaper+shining spears much.



Automatically Appended Next Post:


Cool, try to actually keep track of your opponent doing that in a tournament game. It opens the door to a lot of unintentional and intentional cheating, creates stupidly unnecessary book-keeping and will just be worked around anyway. It also still ONLY addresses IMPERIAL armies. Eldar armies would change maybe 200pts of their lists and Altaioc/DE/Ynnari would still work basically the same.

The one thing I'm expecting is no changes to my precious Grey Knights. They are perfectly balanced against other GreyKnight armies. Don't chance what's not broke.

valdier wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.

2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes

1) Mono AM lists aren't competitive really anyway, so I don't care how many CP they have. 2 AM Battalions +1 jump captain? Cool... I'm alright with that. A single knight? again, totally cool with that. Giving up your 3rd detachment for a single models seems perfectly ok to me, if you really think that makes the list super competitive.

2) Except 3 detachments means 3 daemon princes total unless you are choosing to not go with battle forged lists, yes?

It's certainly better than what we have today, and much better than the nonsensical triple token tracking ideas

You've just shown you have No idea of the actual issues effecting balance in a remotely competitive setting.

Your second response shows your totally out of touch with the game, you realise there is more than 1 deamon prince datasheet you can have something stupid like 17 demon princes and notnhave broken the rule of 3 so your rule doesn't stop them being spammed either.

ERJAK wrote:

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

So you've managed to not fix any of the problems, create a number of WORSE problems, and double down on a rule that didn't work in the first place.

1. All this does is kill off any chance of ever seeing a non-guard imperial army, a chaos army, or any of the smaller faction xenos army from ever doing better than 2-2 at events again. You might as well burn all the various flavors of space marines alongside Custodes for how god awful they would end up in this situation. Meanwhile Ynnari+Dark reapers+ Altaioc only needs slight tweaks to be basically unaffected at the same time that every list in the game that could compete with it gets DECIMATED.

2. This is the single worst idea ever suggested in the history of 40k. This is a gimmick 1-off tournament rule, not a way to build a game. Firstly WHY THE feth would you have troops and transports ignore the rule? That doesn't make any sense! We've already had MANY instances of troops AND transports being broken AF so far THIS EDITION and you want to kill off any option to counter them? How THE HELL are you supposed to counteract 6 units of 30 boys with ONE mortar squad? You've just made any cheap, good, or spammable troop so broken they would make 7 flying hive tyrants look like 3 squig herders. Secondly, the majority of units are pointless as a one off, and even the ones that ARE good as one offs preclude bringing OTHER one offs. I would never bring 1 predator and 1 dev squad and 1 stormhawk, I would bring 120 ork boyz, since the only thing in the ENTIRE GAME that can deal with 120 ork boyz at that point is ANOTHER 120 ork boyz.

Thirdly, You'd absolutely destroy smaller factions. Custodes would be unplayable. Sisters of battle would have to bring EVERY UNIT in their index to even be able to field 2000pts and wouldn't EVER be able to bring more than 2 detachments because they only have 3 HQs and they'd have to run a brigade just to have enough troop slots to be able to hit 2k points.Grey knights go from the worst army in the game to the worst army in ANY game EVER created. They'd be so far off the powercurve you'd have the freakin Yu-Gi-Oh people going 'yeesh, at least none of the stuff we made is THAT bad.' Deathguard become unplayable, Thousands sons goes from memeing about being Tzaangor and friends to actually BEING just Tzaangor. It would be a catastrophy. Oh, and it STILL doesn't hurt altaioc+Dark reaper+shining spears much.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

Asmodios wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

valdier wrote:
I would like to see:

1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).

2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.

That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.

So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.

2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

There are a lot of possible fixes to this:

1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.

2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems

4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.

Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.

I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP
>Blue dice detachment two CP
>Green Dice Detachment three CP
Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board

Because not all strategums are owned by a detachment, is a CP re-roll from the IG battalion CP, the Slamguinius battalion CP or the Castellen CP?

3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems this would certainly reduce the amount of Company commanders ordering around Blood Angles Captain's.

That's easy what are you using the reroll on.
If you're rerolling a shot.... what detachment shot it
If you're rerolling an armor save..... what detachment is the save going to
If you're rerolling a spell...... what detachment rerolled it
It's actually super easy

Cool, try to actually keep track of your opponent doing that in a tournament game. It opens the door to a lot of unintentional and intentional cheating, creates stupidly unnecessary book-keeping and will just be worked around anyway. It also still ONLY addresses IMPERIAL armies. Eldar armies would change maybe 200pts of their lists and Altaioc/DE/Ynnari would still work basically the same.

I mean if you really can't keep track of three different resource pools I don't even know how you have the ability to play warhammer at all. I cannot grasp the idea of saying "yeah detachment A is going to use strategem B so that takes me from 5CP to 4CP for that detachment" is somehow too complicated. I mean I guess we have to change ever model in the game to 1 wound a piece..... heaven forbid you had to know which character was missing some wounds... it might be too much.

Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.

text removed.
Reds8n

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.

No. But it would allow future codexes to get (more sensible) CP regeneration on their own without designers worrying they'll create abusable situations like the Veritas Vitae. The current way to just not give newer books like Space Wolves any CP-regen whatsoever isn't really helping either in making those 200 points of guard less attractive.

I'd bet money that happened because SW are based on vanilla marines who also have no CP regeneration whatsoever, and not because GW recognizes CP regen as an issue.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.

Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.

Look where we're at right now.