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.
Xenomancers wrote: [
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Well, not sure if it "kills" them, but isn't that kinda the point. Competitively, people use allies to cover the weakspots of respective armies. You don't ally Blood Angels artillery with Imperial Guard Smash-Characters after all. So their needs to be a balancing downside of some sort to be, literally, balanced compared to a mono-list army that does not cover it's inherent weakness with an ally. Less fungible CP and a risk of losing them might fit the bill.
It even makes thematic sense, of a sort, as commanding a more diverse force of Marines, Knights and Guardsman, say, should be harder and less intuitive than a "mono force" that's trained together forever.
Marmatag wrote: No, adjusting imperial guard has to be the starting point, for any of these solutions.
Then, you need to adjust soup.
I disagree. The only thing wrong with the CP regen abilities is them stacking.
If you remove that, the next biggest issue becomes some factions having access to way too many CP for the points you pay for them.
Once you fix that, the issue becomes it's always better to have more factions vs only one.
Once you fix that, you can balance the individual factions.
I agree with you CP stacking needs to be addressed. The proposed everyone starts with 15 cp and takes negatives based on army comp removed these other issues.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Because it makes it pretty pointless to ally in IG anymore, and makes armies that have three roughly even factions really hard to play, and it still doesn't solve the problem of some factions not being able to generate CP very well.
How so. you still have an ass load of bodies, decently strong options for cheap shooting. from what i recall decent double shot tank options for specific regis, only thing i dont know is what you would use those CP for.
also who cares if you cant generate more CP on some armies. yall ever thing you should be able to play the game without using CP as such a crutch? or that not armies should have to use them as a crutch.
It's just overly restrictive for no reason when better solutions clearly exist, and it handicaps most soup lists a lot, which shouldn't be anyone's goal.
There isn't anything wrong with blood angels units in a guard army bring as effective as they are in a BA army. But there is something wrong guard giving BA way more CP than normal. If a BA army would always have more or similar CP to a IG+BA army, this problem would be solved.
Xenomancers wrote: [
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Well, not sure if it "kills" them, but isn't that kinda the point. Competitively, people use allies to cover the weakspots of respective armies. You don't ally Blood Angels artillery with Imperial Guard Smash-Characters after all. So their needs to be a balancing downside of some sort to be, literally, balanced compared to a mono-list army that does not cover it's inherent weakness with an ally. Less fungible CP and a risk of losing them might fit the bill.
It even makes thematic sense, of a sort, as commanding a more diverse force of Marines, Knights and Guardsman, say, should be harder and less intuitive than a "mono force" that's trained together forever.
Think about it from a business sense for GW. Allies make them money - the solution has to not crush allies.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Marmatag wrote: No, adjusting imperial guard has to be the starting point, for any of these solutions.
Then, you need to adjust soup.
I disagree. The only thing wrong with the CP regen abilities is them stacking.
If you remove that, the next biggest issue becomes some factions having access to way too many CP for the points you pay for them.
Once you fix that, the issue becomes it's always better to have more factions vs only one.
Once you fix that, you can balance the individual factions.
I agree with you CP stacking needs to be addressed. The proposed everyone starts with 15 cp and takes negatives based on army comp removed these other issues.
Yeah I'm 100% on board with your system.
The only reason I mentioned an alternate (cap CP at 12-15) is because it would be an easier bandaid until they can redo the system and it would work almost as well.
It's just overly restrictive for no reason when better solutions clearly exist, and it handicaps most soup lists a lot, which shouldn't be anyone's goal.
There isn't anything wrong with blood angels units in a guard army bring as effective as they are in a BA army. But there is something wrong guard giving BA way more CP than normal. If a BA army would always have more or similar CP to a IG+BA army, this problem would be solved.
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
you can still ally. you still get the benefits of body and fire power. you just cant abuse CP.
literally one of the simplest fixes before out right banning allies.
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.
Its also an issue as different armies have varying levels of power when it comes to actual usable strats. which.... well i dont have Xenos so i cant really say.
seriously though question. what are the most common strats used for each faction?
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.
Even just Imperial Guard, ignoring soup, the CP farming warlord trait and relic are clearly not balanced vis-a-vis the other warlord traits and relics and would need a balancing until you see all traits/relics roughly equally in Guard lists/detachments across tournaments.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
This is basically impossible to meaningfully interpret from the results given the volume of Guard that made up the top lists in a soup capacity. It's possible the Castellan is just that much better than what the Guard can bring, but its just as likely that its a smaller improvement but enough for top players to gravitate towards. Honestly, any one player's results are subject to a lot of specifics. You need to see where their wins and losses came from and rule out things like "well, its just worse than the Knight version". Even when it comes to trending, I don't really like to dig much deeper than Top 8 to look for successful trends unless I'm going to get into the nitty gritty on matchup performances and other specific stats.
I agree with there being a set amount of cp based on points level then "paying" for each detachment if its not part of the primary armies codex.
Makes sense and encourges less soup. Cp regen could then be tied to specific armies, i.e. make the ig one work for ig strats only. Wont address overpowered units, but does address cp abuse, and people trying to cobble stuff together to best abuse the system
Even when it comes to trending, I don't really like to dig much deeper than Top 8 to look for successful trends unless I'm going to get into the nitty gritty on matchup performances and other specific stats.
That's pretty silly. There're easily tens of millions of possible army lists. You can pretty much guarantee that the top 100.000 lists in the ITC make up less than the Top 1% of lists, power-wise. Proper balancing would probably need nerfs to the top 30% of all 40K, probably more lists than even register for ITC in a single year (and a boost to just as many lists at the bottom end of the power scale).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/11 21:10:33
I like your solution Xeno, it definitely needs to be hammered around the edges to cater to certain specific scenarios, but the idea itself seems solid to me.
Things to look out for:
-Units like Assassins or Sisters of Silence, or Legion of the Damned - units who can only be allied in, and really can't fill out a detachment. These types of units may need some small special rule noting that an allied detachment of one of them does not remove CP.
-Units like Tau Commanders, who are currently limited to 1 per detachment. Unless you want to roleplay infighting between 2 or 3 Commanders all gunning for the glory, it would probably be pretty unfun losing CP to take them.
Overall though, I like the idea, and it is fairly easy to scale - if it turns out one number is too much, or too little, the number can just be altered, rather than rejiggering everything.
Even when it comes to trending, I don't really like to dig much deeper than Top 8 to look for successful trends unless I'm going to get into the nitty gritty on matchup performances and other specific stats.
That's pretty silly. There're easily tens of millions of possible army lists. You can pretty much guarantee that the top 100.000 lists in the ITC make up less than the Top 1% of lists, power-wise. Proper balancing would probably need nerfs to the top 30% of all 40K, probably more lists than even register for ITC in a single year (and a boost to just as many lists at the bottom end of the power scale).
Aiming for perfect balance is a pipe dream, even for a game with a tenth of the options 40k has. The best you can hope is that each faction can find a place in the meta. Honestly, as diverse as 40k is it would be a miracle if every Codex made an appearance as a part single list of the top 8 across something like 5 major tournaments. The idea that every possible list is somehow viable is beyond even the best game designers. Also, there's just not that much to learn from things at the bottom of the tournament. Someone has to lose after all. I'd not be at all surprised to learn there's a dozen or more Castellans with Guard in the bottom third of Nova. Their lists might even be exactly the same as what's on top. It's just not a place where you get much in terms of meaningful data about model balance.
Marmatag wrote: No, adjusting imperial guard has to be the starting point, for any of these solutions.
Then, you need to adjust soup.
I disagree. The only thing wrong with the CP regen abilities is them stacking.
If you remove that, the next biggest issue becomes some factions having access to way too many CP for the points you pay for them.
Once you fix that, the issue becomes it's always better to have more factions vs only one.
Once you fix that, you can balance the individual factions.
I agree with you CP stacking needs to be addressed. The proposed everyone starts with 15 cp and takes negatives based on army comp removed these other issues.
Yeah I'm 100% on board with your system.
The only reason I mentioned an alternate (cap CP at 12-15) is because it would be an easier bandaid until they can redo the system and it would work almost as well.
I've been testing with 15 - it's felt right. What about a stratagem per turn limit in match play? What should be the limit per player? 3?4?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
I have conceded that with my system it's obvious weakness is for armies like knights and custodians - their stratagems are REALLY strong because they affect 500+ point units sometimes plus they are just good. It's best to just increase the cost of those strats. Also I think the RIS should be maxed at 4++. 3++ is just bonkers. really 4++ knight is also bonkers.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Zid wrote: I agree with there being a set amount of cp based on points level then "paying" for each detachment if its not part of the primary armies codex.
Makes sense and encourges less soup. Cp regen could then be tied to specific armies, i.e. make the ig one work for ig strats only. Wont address overpowered units, but does address cp abuse, and people trying to cobble stuff together to best abuse the system
I would love to be able to use Deathwatch under a system like that. They don't have cheap HQ units, so being able to get six to eight units of troops with just a couple of HQ dudes would be wonderful.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
I played a really strong tau list with 3 commanders tons of firewarriors and 3 ionheads with 1 being long strike. Plus stealth suits broadsides and markers drones with a drone controller. VS an admech list with a knight crusder and the standard other stuff for a gunline.
Turn 1 he went first and blew up longstrike (totally expected) but that was about all I lost. When I went. I did only 21 wounds to the knight with about half my army. Focusing him and I killed 2 destroyer plasma squads. With 3++ save and 6+fnp he was impossible to kill. His knight was in a weird position though with only 3 wounds and unable to charge my tau sept hammer heads and a commander with 4x CIB or risk death from overwatch so from there on out he basically just sat next to my hammerheads shooting me while I put -1 to hit on him. It made no sense to shoot him dead though because he has about 75% chance to stand right back up and act as normal with stratagems. He bounced the commander for 2 straight turns though (yes it was lucky but 3++ makes that possible). 3++ knights needs to die a horrible death.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
Zid wrote: I agree with there being a set amount of cp based on points level then "paying" for each detachment if its not part of the primary armies codex.
Makes sense and encourges less soup. Cp regen could then be tied to specific armies, i.e. make the ig one work for ig strats only. Wont address overpowered units, but does address cp abuse, and people trying to cobble stuff together to best abuse the system
I would love to be able to use Deathwatch under a system like that. They don't have cheap HQ units, so being able to get six to eight units of troops with just a couple of HQ dudes would be wonderful.
It is the space marine plauge. Heros are all expensive and being forced to take 4 of them to get meaningful CP means your firepower is trash. Plus - they are all pretty redundant outside of your first 2.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
With my system a knight lance gets -0. At the time we created it though a knight lance required 3 Questoris knights to function. Since it no longer does maybe they require a -3. Open to suggestions here. Knights are kind of a weird army you know?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
Interestingly, mono guard is actually going to be pretty bad until eldar are nerfed, since they really can't handle -2 to hit.
SHUPPET wrote: I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.
How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
Wait so what you are saying is IG alone already does well so allying them without the full benefit of having cp wouldnt be that bad? (that was the point of what i was saying in the first place mate)
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
With my system a knight lance gets -0. At the time we created it though a knight lance required 3 Questoris knights to function. Since it no longer does maybe they require a -3. Open to suggestions here. Knights are kind of a weird army you know?
The most knights can get right now is 12. If the SHD is -2, you could fit all your knights into one for 13, or take two in order to mix house traits and have 11. Seems okay to me.
If certain strats are too good, just make them cost more IMO.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
Interestingly, mono guard is actually going to be pretty bad until eldar are nerfed, since they really can't handle -2 to hit.
I agree. We are in a situation where mono guard are like where riptide wings used to be. Riptide wings absolutely dominate anything but a super death star with invisibility. In this scenario Eldar are the super deathstar that requires 6's to hit. If we were in 7th ed right now - my suggestion would be to nerf invisibility and also nerf riptide wing to cost additional points and nerf drone net at the same time. It's literally the same kind of situation. 1 army has unreasonable firepower and 1 army is practically immune to firepower.
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
With my system a knight lance gets -0. At the time we created it though a knight lance required 3 Questoris knights to function. Since it no longer does maybe they require a -3. Open to suggestions here. Knights are kind of a weird army you know?
The most knights can get right now is 12. If the SHD is -2, you could fit all your knights into one for 13, or take two in order to mix house traits and have 11. Seems okay to me.
If certain strats are too good, just make them cost more IMO.
Good place to start I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also important to look at things reasonably.
The typical knight in this winning type list does spend that much CP. It is only like that because they have unlimited CP though. Going to a 3++ is not always necessary - no is shooting a missle at a character for 2 CP (that missile also wrecks basically everything) I mean...with CP farming you spend Cp because it might gain you CP...hard to believe this wasn't nerfed by TO...TO are not doing their friggen jobs man. If something is so obviously broken as that...fix it. I paly a lot of knights and without undless CP - 3 CP is too much to spend on your castellan to get +1 invo. If that is nerfed I think we'd just start seeing Taranis knights instead of Raven knights. Which trust me - are an equally problematic unit and they don't need endless CP to be indestructible - they just need your average amount.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/11 23:45:17
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
SHUPPET wrote: I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.
How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"
CP regen isn't that powerful if it doesn't stack and only works on <faction> abilities. If you have 15 starting CP, and blow 6 on the rulebook strats, you'll get 3 back from the IG warlord on the other 9. If your enemy uses 9 strats of their own over the course of the game, you'll get 3 of those back. You'll then get 2 more out of the 6 you've gotten back and average about 23 over the course of the game.
That's good, but it's not game breaking in a mono IG list. If you brought allies, their strategems would not regen for you so you'd get a lot less
