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.

I would be happy to go back to the original 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade.

I think the point I am trying to make is that CP Regen isn't that bad when you actually pay points for it. Like - make it a special trait for super leaders like guilliman/ calgar. Maybe add it as a trait for Tragan from custodes or creed.

It shouldn't be a base ability...I can agree with that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I would be happy to go back to the original 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade.

Yeah honestly that was a really dumb change. When I heard about it - it really felt like they were just saying "well guard has unlimited CP - so lets give everyone unlimited CP"

For all those people claiming that only CP batteries and CP users are the issue - didn't a Nurgle list with a renegade Knight and massive squad of Death Guard terminators win a recent tournament with like 5 CP total and no way to regen? Doesn't that point to a greater problem? A problem of creamy and tomato-ey proportions? (Soup)

I really don't think these creative ideas to limit CP in soup are going to make a massive difference to the prevalence of soup over mono in the competitive scene, if that is the aim.

Bharring wrote:
The majority of CWE special characters actually *do* get no Warlord trait. It doesn't mean CWE doesn't get taken (although those SCs don't get taken).

Eldar get their CP regen from a base autarch ability. They don't start with a million CP though. Plus what's cool is - they can actually take a warlord trait for their autarch.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
For all those people claiming that only CP batteries and CP users are the issue - didn't a Nurgle list with a renegade Knight and massive squad of Death Guard terminators win a recent tournament with like 5 CP total and no way to regen? Doesn't that point to a greater problem? A problem of creamy and tomato-ey proportions? (Soup)

No. Sounds like a fine army.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think the point I am trying to make is that CP Regen isn't that bad when you actually pay points for it. Like - make it a special trait for super leaders like guilliman/ calgar. Maybe add it as a trait for Tragan from custodes or creed.

It shouldn't be a base ability...I can agree with that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I would be happy to go back to the original 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade.

Yeah honestly that was a really dumb change. When I heard about it - it really felt like they were just saying "well guard has unlimited CP - so lets give everyone unlimited CP"

Except it made guard even better for soup lol. They would have been better off just giving some armies more CP

Also I'm fine with some character having CP regeneration as long as its pointed correctly, or they could just give some base bonus so that they can be more easily balanced

Xeno,
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that was a reference to the complaint that two SM characters might not actually have a (useable) warlord trait with a suggested change?

Although the Autarch trait is nice. A lot more limited than most of the regen traits, though. Even if you give them the Uthwe warlord trait.

Aside from CP farms, I would like to see HQs unable to be duplicated in the same army (at least detachment). I find it silly to have 3 Captains a tiny SM army, or 3 Shield Captains on bikes. They should get access to 1, period. Some lesser HQs should be OK to have a second, but most should be 0-1.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yeah honestly that was a really dumb change. When I heard about it - it really felt like they were just saying "well guard has unlimited CP - so lets give everyone unlimited CP"

It was insane. It made cheap guard detachments even more desirable. They should have just bumped the base battleforged bonus.

To do that, most detatchments would need to only require 1 HQ.

Each DE subfaction only *has* 1 HQ. There are 3 total generics available to them, so they'd then need to dip into Special Characters.

T'au are similarly limited. Commander. Ethereal. Fireblade. That's it.

Harlequins, same story.

Corsiars? Well, we should skip them. They have 0. But that's another story.

 Blndmage wrote:

I think you mean Factions, not subfactions.
Factions are Space Marines, Guard, Necrons, etc
Subfactuins are <CHAPTER>, <REGIMENT>, <DYNASTY>

I thought factions would be Imperium, Chaos, Eldar?

I think "factions" and "subfactions" are more or less ill-defined constructs that are used because they communicate clearly what we're trying to say.

Most of the subfaction traits specify that all models in the detatchement have the relevant keyword. Unfortunately, I don't believe they require the detatchement to be built from that keyword. If they did, there'd be a clearer definition to latch onto there.

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that was a reference to the complaint that two SM characters might not actually have a (useable) warlord trait with a suggested change?

Although the Autarch trait is nice. A lot more limited than most of the regen traits, though. Even if you give them the Uthwe warlord trait.

Also - another thing. If you look at Nick Nanavatis list. He does not have CP regeneration and he placed in the top 11. With 0 CP regeneration. He took Yncarne! LOL.

An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.

Bharring wrote:
To do that, most detatchments would need to only require 1 HQ.

Each DE subfaction only *has* 1 HQ. There are 3 total generics available to them, so they'd then need to dip into Special Characters.

T'au are similarly limited. Commander. Ethereal. Fireblade. That's it.

Harlequins, same story.

Corsiars? Well, we should skip them. They have 0. But that's another story.

It works just fine really. DE have a specific rule to encourage you to take patrols, you don't need battalions and brigades. A single detachment shouldn't have 2 archons, unless you're going to roll at start of game to see which one murdered the other and took over.

Harlies have 2 HQs, so are fine in each detachment. Could some of the armies do with more HQs, sure, but it would still work and cut down on the duplicate nonsense.

 bullyboy wrote:

Bharring wrote:
To do that, most detatchments would need to only require 1 HQ.

Each DE subfaction only *has* 1 HQ. There are 3 total generics available to them, so they'd then need to dip into Special Characters.

T'au are similarly limited. Commander. Ethereal. Fireblade. That's it.

Harlequins, same story.

Corsiars? Well, we should skip them. They have 0. But that's another story.

It works just fine really. DE have a specific rule to encourage you to take patrols, you don't need battalions and brigades. A single detachment shouldn't have 2 archons, unless you're going to roll at start of game to see which one murdered the other and took over.

Harlies have 2 HQs, so are fine in each detachment. Could some of the armies do with more HQs, sure, but it would still work and cut down on the duplicate nonsense.

There is no reason to take the Patrols in DE.

Bharring wrote:
An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.

That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.

What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.

I agree that DEs should only have 1 Archon, usually. Unfortunately, you're shoehorning all DE lists into Patrol detatchments. And, being limited to 3 detatchements and playing at 2k points, that's severely hampering their listbuilding. Plus, if they can't have more than 1 Archon or whatever, they're required to have one of each subfaction - whether they want it or not - most of the time.

Now, I'd much rather Battalions only required 1 HQ (because sometimes it really is a Captain leading half a Company - there may not be a Chaplain or Libby present). But then we get into much bigger changes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments"
Not lately.

Besides, Ynnari have typically been just a small detatchment in an otherwise (previously CWE, now DE) army. Ynnari just do something of nearly equal power to IG CP shenanigans. They're giving up far less CP regen than an Imperium list would be.

 bullyboy wrote:
Aside from CP farms, I would like to see HQs unable to be duplicated in the same army (at least detachment). I find it silly to have 3 Captains a tiny SM army, or 3 Shield Captains on bikes.

All of the custodes HQs choices are captains, while the marines can take six different captains without duplicating a unit.

Bharring wrote:
I agree that DEs should only have 1 Archon, usually. Unfortunately, you're shoehorning all DE lists into Patrol detatchments. And, being limited to 3 detatchements and playing at 2k points, that's severely hampering their listbuilding. Plus, if they can't have more than 1 Archon or whatever, they're required to have one of each subfaction - whether they want it or not - most of the time.

Now, I'd much rather Battalions only required 1 HQ (because sometimes it really is a Captain leading half a Company - there may not be a Chaplain or Libby present). But then we get into much bigger changes...

No they shouldnt, Archons are abundant in Commorragh and fight for a better/higher standing.

If anything we should have more Archon's, some with WIngs, on Reaver, Skyboard, a beastmaser one, etc.. but we dont for a stupid reason (we dont have the models) Well look at FING Tyranids, they get lots of options without models, Spike Rifles and Nets on gants for an example.

I agree that there should be more Archon *entries*. But I also agree that having 2 in one detatchment should be rare.

I technically disagree with the Wings option (if it were made from the Swooping Hawk kit, thematically, it'd work - but not Scourge), but I'd love for Archons on Bikes and Boards. Beastmasters should be Wyches, if any Beastmaster became an HQ. And if there were a Scourge-winged option, it'd probably be Haemy, which shouldn't be fast...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree that there should be more Archon *entries*. But I also agree that having 2 in one detatchment should be rare.

I technically disagree with the Wings option (if it were made from the Swooping Hawk kit, thematically, it'd work - but not Scourge), but I'd love for Archons on Bikes and Boards. Beastmasters should be Wyches, if any Beastmaster became an HQ. And if there were a Scourge-winged option, it'd probably be Haemy, which shouldn't be fast...

Archons DO have wings in fluff, and reaver bikes, and skyboards, and beasts.

They have everything and anything they want or feel will help them gain power, the is the point of an Archon, to have lots of power and be feared.

Can you point to an example where an Archon had Scourge-style wings in the fluff? I believe you, but am curious.

We're mostly in agreement that they should expand the options available to Archons (although I'd expand that to Princes, Autarchs, and Troupe Masters, among others). Just a minor fluff quibble about one option.

But why would there be 2+ Archons in a single detatchment? Shouldn't it be showing a single Kabal? Wouldn't one have murdered the other already? Now, separate detatchments make sense - competing gangs. As for on the tabletop, I won't hold it against a DE player because it's the fluffiest DE can reasonably get right now.

Bharring wrote:
Can you point to an example where an Archon had Scourge-style wings in the fluff? I believe you, but am curious.

We're mostly in agreement that they should expand the options available to Archons (although I'd expand that to Princes, Autarchs, and Troupe Masters, among others). Just a minor fluff quibble about one option.

But why would there be 2+ Archons in a single detatchment? Shouldn't it be showing a single Kabal? Wouldn't one have murdered the other already? Now, separate detatchments make sense - competing gangs. As for on the tabletop, I won't hold it against a DE player because it's the fluffiest DE can reasonably get right now.

I understand what you mean in a detachment, but BC GW didnt want to give DE any other HQ's worth a damn and the Patrol for DE is complete trash, its not viable to change it to limited 1.

I dont have page numbers or books for them, but there are many times they call to having using Wych tools for themselves, I know for a 100% fact that there are "Named Archons" with Reavers/Skyboards/Beasts the Scourge Wings i cant remember any Named Archons, just referring to Archons using them.

DE really needs a Generic HQ, and a Scourge HQ would be perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add, the Archon that made the Tantalus was a Wych Reaver 1st and started the Red Grief (If i remember his name is Something like Sarchon Grief) if i remember correctly.

Archons can be from any background, but once they are Archons they are fully a Kabal (That i never understood)

Cool.

Yes, GW did screw a lot of fluffy army builds with their upscaling of detatchments and hatred of any whiff of kitbashing. Fortunately the DE codex, of all things, slightly relaxed this - IIRC, their HQs can equip weapons found in the corresponding Troops boxes. Compare that to the Autarch and... yeah...

I hope GW relents on this anti-kitbashing crusade, but I really doubt it. At best, DE hopefully showed them what being less than a stickler about it can do.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.

That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.

What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.

Nick has talked about how Ynnari don't need CP in interviews when he won with only 8CP.

Something like "well, if you think about it should cost 3 CP everytime I fought again, and 2CP everytime I shot again, I actually used 30 CP that game."

The Ynnari ability is just so broken that CP hardly matter.

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.

That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.

What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.

Nick has talked about how Ynnari don't need CP in interviews when he won with only 8CP.

Something like "well, if you think about it should cost 3 CP everytime I fought again, and 2CP everytime I shot again, I actually used 30 CP that game."

The Ynnari ability is just so broken that CP hardly matter.

That is a good way to think about it tho.

Ynnari just needs a Codex so they can put in datasheets they want and ones they dont, and then can point cost them to not ruin DE/CWE/Quins, this also means you cant share stratagems with those units, so you can also add in the stratagems from the 3 books they want.

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.

That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.

What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.

Nick has talked about how Ynnari don't need CP in interviews when he won with only 8CP.

Something like "well, if you think about it should cost 3 CP everytime I fought again, and 2CP everytime I shot again, I actually used 30 CP that game."

The Ynnari ability is just so broken that CP hardly matter.

They trade out their army traits though...You know...-1's to hit that is like 20 CP a turn if you look at it that way. Ynnari is obviosuly strong but eldar as a whole are just strong and don't really need a lot of CP. They actaully win more than imperial soup too. Really - I'm suprised the army with 12 harlie bikes didn't win it all. You know how badly those units wreck a castelan? PLUS they don't care about smash feth.

They should really be charging it turn 1. With a double move and shooting it too. Then from there - they can keep the knight locked in CC.

Regarding Imperial Guard, what if, rather than raising the cost of Infantry, we instead brought back Platoons?

Now, suddenly, you can't just fill a troop slot with a single Infantry Squad. Instead, you'd need to have 2 Infantry squads and a Platoon Commander for each troop slot.

I suspect you could even get away with 3pt Conscripts in this instance - since they couldn't be used to fill troop slots themselves (you'd take them as an extra in a Platoon), and you'd need the aforementioned 2 Infantry Squads and a Platoon Commander just to unlock 1 unit of them.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
If anything we should have more Archon's, some with WIngs, on Reaver, Skyboard, a beastmaser one, etc..

"They actaully win more than imperial soup too."
7/11 IoM soup.
1/11 DE soup w/Ynnari
1/11 DE soup w/CWE
1/11 DE soup w/Harlies

More than twice as many IoM in the top 10 than Eldar, so what's your basis for 'win more than Imperial Soup'?

"You know how badly those units wreck a castelan?"
Not well enough at Nova, apparently.

"PLUS they don't care about smash feth."
Then why did they all lose to it?