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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?

Or, perhaps no army should have the ability to regen CP? Make spending CP on stratagems an actual decision rather than an automatic process.

It also makes it much more balanced for those armies that can't regen CP.

I think CP regen is better than more starting CP, but the game really wants players to have a good chunk of CP over the game. I'd rather it was a flat amount rather than random though, simply because regen based on use is self sustaining.

Tyel wrote:
Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.

Only people in cou ntries where you play at stores can't just ad hoc change the rules they play with, plus even in a small group the chance of you opponents saying yes to a rule that buffs your army are low, specially if their army is doing ok, or worse the house rule would make their army weaker. And the idea of people buying units or whole armies just so someone with a weaker army gets a chance could be a thing probably, if you happen to sleep on money.

The game should be fixed not by making good stuff that works bad to a point no one uses it or the nerf is so inconsequential people run the stuff anyway, but by making the crapy stuff good enough people want to play with it. Don't nerf IG, SOUP , make other stuff good. What if your army got really nice extra set of rules if all detachments in it were astartes, and I mean something really good and not plus 1 to Ld? Maybe an all ig army gets free tranches, you could go even deeper with that and make detachment rules that only work for Astra militarum, that are also cadian. There could also be stuff similar to what DE have , and army could get special rules if it includes a tempestus, Inq and sob detachment, and give it extra rules, maybe even relics Tec. They could put those rules online or in to WD, am sure it would boost the sales.

Karol wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.

Only people in cou ntries where you play at stores can't just ad hoc change the rules they play with, plus even in a small group the chance of you opponents saying yes to a rule that buffs your army are low, specially if their army is doing ok, or worse the house rule would make their army weaker. And the idea of people buying units or whole armies just so someone with a weaker army gets a chance could be a thing probably, if you happen to sleep on money.

The game should be fixed not by making good stuff that works bad to a point no one uses it or the nerf is so inconsequential people run the stuff anyway, but by making the crapy stuff good enough people want to play with it. Don't nerf IG, SOUP , make other stuff good. What if your army got really nice extra set of rules if all detachments in it were astartes, and I mean something really good and not plus 1 to Ld? Maybe an all ig army gets free tranches, you could go even deeper with that and make detachment rules that only work for Astra militarum, that are also cadian. There could also be stuff similar to what DE have , and army could get special rules if it includes a tempestus, Inq and sob detachment, and give it extra rules, maybe even relics Tec. They could put those rules online or in to WD, am sure it would boost the sales.

That isn't a good idea, to force excessive powercreep into the game, if you brought every army up to that level of power the game would be over after the roll of for first turn and sieze as nothing survives turn 1 with sufficient strength.

Ice_can wrote:

That isn't a good idea, to force excessive powercreep into the game, if you brought every army up to that level of power the game would be over after the roll of for first turn and sieze as nothing survives turn 1 with sufficient strength.

Yeah, I'd rather see nerfs than buffs (some stuff needs buffs of course,) especially to the offence. The game is actually way more fun when both players are playing 'underoptimised' armies, as half of your force is not vaporised in the first turn so there is some room for actual tactics.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

That isn't a good idea, to force excessive powercreep into the game, if you brought every army up to that level of power the game would be over after the roll of for first turn and sieze as nothing survives turn 1 with sufficient strength.

Yeah, I'd rather see nerfs than buffs (some stuff needs buffs of course,) especially to the offence. The game is actually way more fun when both players are playing 'underoptimised' armies, as half of your force is not vaporised in the first turn so there is some room for actual tactics.

What you mean people might actually have to worry about Possitioning and objectives rather than can I get first turn and wipe my opponent from the table in 3 turns.
But that's not the 8th edition way.

I agree with the sentiment in principle, but I think there's too much to nerf.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with the sentiment in principle, but I think there's too much to nerf.

Good adjustments generally require a bit of both.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with the sentiment in principle, but I think there's too much to nerf.

People keep saying that but really there is two main things driving the top two levels of competitive lists.

1 The infinite CP farm codex nerf this and Imperial Soup drops a lot of power

2 Soup in general has no downside, remove the battel forged bonus CP for the 3 super factions of Imperium, Choas and Aeldari.

With those 2 things you probably have a good number of mono codex's and soups if not balanced atleast at semi competative level, its no longer a landslide victory in turn 2.

From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with the sentiment in principle, but I think there's too much to nerf.

People keep saying that but really there is two main things driving the top two levels of competitive lists.

1 The infinite CP farm codex nerf this and Imperial Soup drops a lot of power

2 Soup in general has no downside, remove the battel forged bonus CP for the 3 super factions of Imperium, Choas and Aeldari.

With those 2 things you probably have a good number of mono codex's and soups if not balanced atleast at semi competative level, its no longer a landslide victory in turn 2.

From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.

There's a pretty large number of weapons out there that make power armor units virtually useless. That's what I was referring to.

Martel732 wrote:
There's a pretty large number of weapons out there that make power armor units virtually useless. That's what I was referring to.

Actually that's never been the biggest issue I've had with marines or sisters or anything in power armour. It that the bolter stats don't really work in 8th more than power armour.

Ice_can wrote:

From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.

There are too many codexes in the game for mono-codex to provide meaningful data. Funny enough, we probably have more codexes in the top 11 with soup than we would without. There's 10 codexes represented there, which in a mono-codex world would be an incredible top 11. Cut out soup and I'd expect we'd only get 3-5 tops in there, and they'd probably large be the same obvious problems we're arguing about now.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's a pretty large number of weapons out there that make power armor units virtually useless. That's what I was referring to.

Actually that's never been the biggest issue I've had with marines or sisters or anything in power armour. It that the bolter stats don't really work in 8th more than power armour.

We can debate quite a while about which sin is worse. Anecdotally, DW marines perform better on their turn, but give up points faster on the opponent's turn, as none of their benefits are defensive in nature. Power armor has a better history than the bolter, and so that's why I personally am focusing on that.

Ice_can wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?

Because Guard get cheap acess (sic) to CP and one of the best regeneration traits.

Which, if we view IG on their own, isn't bad design - if an army starts with a lot of a resource and has few Strategems they're likely to want to use as the game goes along (I've got to be honest, most of the IG ones got a "Huh..." when I looked through them just now), then the value of traits or relics which regen that resource is lowered. I'm sure this was pointed out above, but I'm re-iterating it.

If you want to remove them from the book, they do need to be replaced with something, too.

What was the rationale for the CP increase for Batallions and Brigades, btw?

An Actual Englishman - I don't think I've seen too many people who would disagree with removing CP regeneration mechanics full stop - though again, you'd need to replace those entries in the appropriate books. I'm curious, though - outside of Imperial Soup, are combinations of these abilities causing problems? And assuming GW wanted to keep the CP regen mechanic in the game (for some reason), would a cap of 1 source per army not be the simplest fix?

Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.

There are too many codexes in the game for mono-codex to provide meaningful data. Funny enough, we probably have more codexes in the top 11 with soup than we would without. There's 10 codexes represented there, which in a mono-codex world would be an incredible top 11. Cut out soup and I'd expect we'd only get 3-5 tops in there, and they'd probably large be the same obvious problems we're arguing about now.

If you'd quoted the whole thing instead of 1 part the idea was to make the top mono codex's and soup and equal or atleast close enough power level for mono and soup lists to be semi competative list as not all armies are allowed to soup. So requiring people to soup to be competitive excludes Tau, crons and Orks from competitive settings. I'm not OK with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?

Because Guard get cheap acess (sic) to CP and one of the best regeneration traits.

Which, if we view IG on their own, isn't bad design - if an army starts with a lot of a resource and has few Strategems they're likely to want to use as the game goes along (I've got to be honest, most of the IG ones got a "Huh..." when I looked through them just now), then the value of traits or relics which regen that resource is lowered. I'm sure this was pointed out above, but I'm re-iterating it.

If you want to remove them from the book, they do need to be replaced with something, too.

What was the rationale for the CP increase for Batallions and Brigades, btw?

An Actual Englishman - I don't think I've seen too many people who would disagree with removing CP regeneration mechanics full stop - though again, you'd need to replace those entries in the appropriate books. I'm curious, though - outside of Imperial Soup, are combinations of these abilities causing problems? And assuming GW wanted to keep the CP regen mechanic in the game (for some reason), would a cap of 1 source per army not be the simplest fix?

Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.

It is terrible design in an edition when one of the selling points was allies, also if guard strategums have to be so bad to compensate for the insane CP levels in that codex isn't that also bad game design too.
I disagree that those two have to be replaced actually as they aren't mandatory choices, they need to be removed from matched play but can be left in as open or narrative play only options.

Ice_can wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.

There are too many codexes in the game for mono-codex to provide meaningful data. Funny enough, we probably have more codexes in the top 11 with soup than we would without. There's 10 codexes represented there, which in a mono-codex world would be an incredible top 11. Cut out soup and I'd expect we'd only get 3-5 tops in there, and they'd probably large be the same obvious problems we're arguing about now.

If you'd quoted the whole thing instead of 1 part the idea was to make the top mono codex's and soup and equal or atleast close enough power level for mono and soup lists to be semi competative list as not all armies are allowed to soup. So requiring people to soup to be competitive excludes Tau, crons and Orks from competitive settings. I'm not OK with that.

I don't think you should require to soup to be competitive, but most of the soup armies are pretty fractured on their own compared to the Xenos stuff. Personally, it feels like all of those, but Orks in particular would hugely benefit from self soup. Sticking with the Ork mindset, it would be fantastic to see Clans for Orks that meaningfully made each branch of their model selection work. Make one focus on Mechs where another is the Green Tide kind of thing and another all about bikes and buggies. Orks have all the variety they need for each of these to work in separate detachments and effectively "soup" with themselves.

 Dysartes wrote:

Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.

This is not the case. The Custodes are definitely intended to work with allies, they have rules which sole purpose is to boost other imperial units. Knights are also designed to work with allies, until recently they shared a book with Ad Mech.

 Crimson wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.

This is not the case. The Custodes are definitely intended to work with allies, they have rules which sole purpose is to boost other imperial units. Knights are also designed to work with allies, until recently they shared a book with Ad Mech.

I think it's more of an issue of power creep than anything else. Stratagems get consistently better as codex come out. AM were made in the era where codex stratagems just aren't that great.

Tyel wrote:
Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.

nothing change in your garage, also if they "nerf" soup armies or anything else in matched play, keep play narrative and you can do anything you want, dont u?
Btw guys forget they ever limit allies or force to play mono codex, allies means money for GW they will never fix it, last but not least, local tournaments usually aren't so boring, you see a wide variety of lists, just avoid big tournaments like NOVA BAO or LVO and you ll be fine,

Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12. And, further, i would limit stratagem usage to the faction that earned it. Lastly, limit 1 dice roll per stratagem spent to regen, and also, take away rolling when your opponent spends a CP.

Many of the problem units are enabled by strong stratagems. For instance, Shining Spears. Of course they're also enabled by Ynnari but that's a legitimate problem with Ynnari in general. Their mechanic is far too strong, always has been.

Mono faction armies SHOULD be able to farm for their CPs. That would be the reward. Armies that have 2 different Faction Keywords should only gain CP for their Primary Detachment. You could even suggest that the Primary detachment is the one the Warlord is selected from.

 Marmatag wrote:
Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12. And, further, i would limit stratagem usage to the faction that earned it. Lastly, limit 1 dice roll per stratagem spent to regen, and also, take away rolling when your opponent spends a CP.

Many of the problem units are enabled by strong stratagems. For instance, Shining Spears. Of course they're also enabled by Ynnari but that's a legitimate problem with Ynnari in general. Their mechanic is far too strong, always has been.

Something like "Battalions give 1 CP for every 150 points spent on it, brigades give 1 CP for every 100 points spent on it"? I think that i like it.

This wouid make a really organic army like a full 2000 brigade have 23 CPs, and the current IGbattalion, BAttalion, knight lists to have around 10.

By also putting an "IG only stratagems"on grand strategist, it could work.

 Marmatag wrote:
Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12. And, further, i would limit stratagem usage to the faction that earned it. Lastly, limit 1 dice roll per stratagem spent to regen, and also, take away rolling when your opponent spends a CP.

Many of the problem units are enabled by strong stratagems. For instance, Shining Spears. Of course they're also enabled by Ynnari but that's a legitimate problem with Ynnari in general. Their mechanic is far too strong, always has been.

The problem is the Craftwords codex is designed with Ynnari in mind, units were overpriced and blatantly bad because the designers fear soul burst balance.
Ynnari benefits from units that do a lot of damage fast and sadly the best CW units do exactly that. CW detachments are taken only for the stratagems and extra CP.
Most of the relics are meh and don`t work well with +3 toughness characters, you can`t give them to the phoenix lords. Battle focus don`t work with heavy weapons and wraithguards/wraithblades and wraithlords don`t have it anyway. Tough expensive units don`t have invul save, dont have battle focus so even they can benefit in most cases more from Ynnari then the CW attributes.

DE codex is good and is viable without Ynnari, power from pain is very good, relics and warlord traits have nice synergy with the rest of the army. So DE players are not forced into the Ynnari path.

The problem is the Craftwords codex is designed with Ynnari in mind, units were overpriced and blatantly bad because the designers fear soul burst balance.
Ynnari benefits from units that do a lot of damage fast and sadly the best CW units do exactly that. CW detachments are taken only for the stratagems and extra CP.
Most of the relics are meh and don`t work well with +3 toughness characters, you can`t give them to the phoenix lords. Battle focus don`t work with heavy weapons and wraithguards/wraithblades and wraithlords don`t have it anyway. Tough expensive units don`t have invul save, dont have battle focus so even they can benefit in most cases more from Ynnari then the CW attributes.

You're partly right. Some CW units (such as Wraith*) can benefit heavily from Ynnari as other units that can dish out a lot of damage like Dark Reapers and Fire Dragons. That's why CW and Ynnari can make it to the top in tourneys.

 Marmatag wrote:
Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.

Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.

 grouchoben wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.

Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.

It's overly complicated. For no reason. Just start with a base number like I have suggested and give negatives for not taking battalion and brigades. Give negatives for allies. It accomplishes everything we want.

Allies would be an inherent negative - as you'd want to take as few detatchments as possible. This would make Soup not strictly better. Although fine tuning would need to be done to make Soup and Mono on an even playing field, the 'Detatchments Cost CP' structure gives you a toolbox to start tuning that.

Bharring wrote:
Allies would be an inherent negative - as you'd want to take as few detatchments as possible. This would make Soup not strictly better. Although fine tuning would need to be done to make Soup and Mono on an even playing field, the 'Detatchments Cost CP' structure gives you a toolbox to start tuning that.

Yes - exactly.

Then maybe we can make some adjustments to how regen works. Or where you can play stratagems from. Perhaps stratagems not coming from your warlords faction should cost +1 CP. Perhaps we should have limits on the number of stratagems you can play outside of your warlords detachment.

This will mean there is a sweet spot for allies. You might have a sweet spot - the ally combo might be better...but it costs more CP...is it really worth it? Decisions = balance.

 grouchoben wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.

Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.

This is sarcasm right?

 SHUPPET wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.

Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.

This is sarcasm right?

I hope it is sarcasm, because it is an horrible idea.
Marines, necrons. knights and custodes are the only armies that don't have cheap bataillon. You want to penalize every other army, because they are cheaper than your army...
People are not looking at solutions to the problems that nova showed, they are just wanting to push their pet agenda at this point:
People that never liked allied want to make that unplayable
Some that play pure marines, dont want anyone to have more cp

When the problem is cp regeneration, and certain combos that allows to blow insane amount of cp in a turn.

First problem is easy to fix.
Second problem has several solutions that need a lot of testing ( I am for getting an initial smaller pool of cp, then some each turn that can't be carried over. Or a rule that a unit can only use one strat a turn maybe, but that would be very very hard to put in play...)

I always like it when people assume I benefit wholly from the suggestions I make, because it hurts their army.

Armies I field competitively at 2000 points:
Tyranids
Dark Eldar

Armies i field casually at 2000 points:
Ultramarines
Chaos Space Marines
Grey Knights

You'll notice that Tyranids and DE have dirt cheap battalions, if I want them.

There is no reason for someone to bring
Archon
Archon
kabx5
kabx5
kabx5

On top of their CWE + Ynnari soup, for the 5 CP and access to Vect. It's dumb. My suggestion would require they flesh this detachment out, in order to generate enough CP to even Vect something once. This could be done with Transports, ravagers, etc, but it's still increasing the footprint of that aspect of your force.

I would also be perfectly fine with this not generating any CP for the CWE soup army, period. But, that seems a bit scorched earth to me.