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.

Marmatag wrote:They are two completely different aspects of this game. There are numerous examples of allies that work solely because of stratagem usage (Knights + Guard), and other examples wherein allies work even with no stratagem benefits (Morty + Magnus).

Fair point, but even then, most Stratagem reliant lists aren't going to take a huge punch having to shave 30-60pts to keep their CP batteries if Guardsmen get bumped (and almost nobody is going to go in on thinking Guardsmen should be 6ppm, GW almost certainly wont). Some specific lists running lots of guardsmen may, but the fundamental value and functionality of the basic Battalion CP battery wont be hit too hard.

Marmatag wrote:It's not a function of whether or not they can use soup, it's if they can functionally address super heavies.

If you don't have an answer to knights right now, or Primarchs, you won't have a seat at the table. Every other table has Knights on it, both Renegade / Imperium. And you won't have to look far to see Primarchs, as well.

Without the glut of CP to feed the stratagems that make these so effective, it would appear to be much less of an issue. For all the moaning about Guard and Superheavies, we're not exactly seeing Baneblade companies doing much of anything.

And since all you guys look at are tournament results, it's going to give you the impression that "can't soup no chance." It's more "no answer to good invuln high toughness insane damage output no chance." Since Custodes dropped the meta has been curving hard towards elite armies.

I'd agree in many respects, but again, a lot of that capability is fueled by having tons of CPs and objective holders that wouldn't be there without Soup. How well do pure Custodes or a Mono-Knight list do on their own?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Marmatag wrote:They are two completely different aspects of this game. There are numerous examples of allies that work solely because of stratagem usage (Knights + Guard), and other examples wherein allies work even with no stratagem benefits (Morty + Magnus).

Fair point, but even then, most Stratagem reliant lists aren't going to take a huge punch having to shave 30-60pts to keep their CP batteries if Guardsmen get bumped (and almost nobody is going to go in on thinking Guardsmen should be 6ppm, GW almost certainly wont). Some specific lists running lots of guardsmen may, but the fundamental value and functionality of the basic Battalion CP battery wont be hit too hard.

If Guardsmen were appropriately costed, as well as mortar teams, Company Commanders, and Primaris Psykers, that would fundamentally alter the game in a positive way. If bringing a battalion of Guard was 300 points, like it should be (6 point guardsmen, 60 point company commanders), you would lose out on tougher knights (like the Crusader) or you wouldn't be bringing Helverins. It's a fundamentally significant change to lose out on 120 additional points.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Marmatag wrote:It's not a function of whether or not they can use soup, it's if they can functionally address super heavies.

If you don't have an answer to knights right now, or Primarchs, you won't have a seat at the table. Every other table has Knights on it, both Renegade / Imperium. And you won't have to look far to see Primarchs, as well.

Without the glut of CP to feed the stratagems that make these so effective, it would appear to be much less of an issue. For all the moaning about Guard and Superheavies, we're not exactly seeing Baneblade companies doing much of anything.

Again, you're looking at this specifically from the lens of imperium. Chaos knights don't need a ton of CP to be effective. Shadowswords are present in guard heavy lists and they do fantastic. You're not seeing it because you only look at the top 5 of a very well hyped GT. This idea that guard are struggling outside of allies is a narrative that exists only on dakka, where people only know what they can glean from a 10,000 foot view of the top 5 lists in a well known event.

 Vaktathi wrote:

And since all you guys look at are tournament results, it's going to give you the impression that "can't soup no chance." It's more "no answer to good invuln high toughness insane damage output no chance." Since Custodes dropped the meta has been curving hard towards elite armies.

I'd agree in many respects, but again, a lot of that capability is fueled by having tons of CPs and objective holders that wouldn't be there without Soup. How well do pure Custodes or a Mono-Knight list do on their own?

Again shift your thinking from Imperium. Many of the Imperium factions are simply not designed to be standalone. You are kind of proving the overall point: Custodes without allies would not be viable. The only no-allies imperium army that is viable is Imperial Guard. Everyone else falls completely flat on their face, against even Necrons and Tyranids.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Marmatag wrote:They are two completely different aspects of this game. There are numerous examples of allies that work solely because of stratagem usage (Knights + Guard), and other examples wherein allies work even with no stratagem benefits (Morty + Magnus).

Fair point, but even then, most Stratagem reliant lists aren't going to take a huge punch having to shave 30-60pts to keep their CP batteries if Guardsmen get bumped (and almost nobody is going to go in on thinking Guardsmen should be 6ppm, GW almost certainly wont). Some specific lists running lots of guardsmen may, but the fundamental value and functionality of the basic Battalion CP battery wont be hit too hard.

Marmatag wrote:It's not a function of whether or not they can use soup, it's if they can functionally address super heavies.

If you don't have an answer to knights right now, or Primarchs, you won't have a seat at the table. Every other table has Knights on it, both Renegade / Imperium. And you won't have to look far to see Primarchs, as well.

Without the glut of CP to feed the stratagems that make these so effective, it would appear to be much less of an issue. For all the moaning about Guard and Superheavies, we're not exactly seeing Baneblade companies doing much of anything.

And since all you guys look at are tournament results, it's going to give you the impression that "can't soup no chance." It's more "no answer to good invuln high toughness insane damage output no chance." Since Custodes dropped the meta has been curving hard towards elite armies.

I'd agree in many respects, but again, a lot of that capability is fueled by having tons of CPs and objective holders that wouldn't be there without Soup. How well do pure Custodes or a Mono-Knight list do on their own?

Baneblades dont have an invul save. Which is what makes Primarchs and Knights so hard to kill and invalidates the 'normal' way of killing LoW's, that dozen lascannons isn't going to cut it anymore.

Custodes are not nearly as CP hungry as people think, yes being able to Stooping dive repeatedly is insane but the army functions well enough without them. Knights are the same, in a world without Stratagems they will still be perfectly fine. Its just that Stratagems really push them over the top.
Castellan is good for its points at base level. Upping its output by 50% through a single stratagem makes it utterly bonkers.

I wonder how a tournament would play out if you just strait up banned stratagems from being used in any capacity....

I really don't think you can justify 6 point guardsmen unless you're also bumping the price on every other sub-marine infantry unit. Which, I mean, might be valid I guess. I dunno if Guardsmen and Cultists and Kabalites all being more expensive makes Immortals any better, and it might just deincentivize the use of troops in the first place (though I wouldn't bet on it considering how valuable battalions and brigades are).

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't think you can justify 6 point guardsmen unless you're also bumping the price on every other sub-marine infantry unit. Which, I mean, might be valid I guess. I dunno if Guardsmen and Cultists and Kabalites all being more expensive makes Immortals any better, and it might just deincentivize the use of troops in the first place (though I wouldn't bet on it considering how valuable battalions and brigades are).

Hes not talking about it in the sense their stats are actually worth 6 points. Clearly an infantry is inferior to a khab. He's talking about in a soup sense their value is easily worth 6ppm due to command point regeneration. Ehh -I don't have any metric to say they are worth 6ppm. Realistically they probably are. GW does not seem to understand the value of taking up space and having the 1W stat. Plus they don't seem to put any value on being able to generate CP. YET - they designed the game so that cheaper HQ's and troops make CP at an astonishing rate compared to elite armies. Personally - I just don't think they thought that through and had very non competitive minds testing out the rules in the beginning. Now they think they are stuck with this busted system. This is a system in which YOU HAVE TO bring your cheapest battalion soup option in every army you play. Currently it's always going to be imperial guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Marmatag wrote:They are two completely different aspects of this game. There are numerous examples of allies that work solely because of stratagem usage (Knights + Guard), and other examples wherein allies work even with no stratagem benefits (Morty + Magnus).

Fair point, but even then, most Stratagem reliant lists aren't going to take a huge punch having to shave 30-60pts to keep their CP batteries if Guardsmen get bumped (and almost nobody is going to go in on thinking Guardsmen should be 6ppm, GW almost certainly wont). Some specific lists running lots of guardsmen may, but the fundamental value and functionality of the basic Battalion CP battery wont be hit too hard.

Marmatag wrote:It's not a function of whether or not they can use soup, it's if they can functionally address super heavies.

If you don't have an answer to knights right now, or Primarchs, you won't have a seat at the table. Every other table has Knights on it, both Renegade / Imperium. And you won't have to look far to see Primarchs, as well.

Without the glut of CP to feed the stratagems that make these so effective, it would appear to be much less of an issue. For all the moaning about Guard and Superheavies, we're not exactly seeing Baneblade companies doing much of anything.

And since all you guys look at are tournament results, it's going to give you the impression that "can't soup no chance." It's more "no answer to good invuln high toughness insane damage output no chance." Since Custodes dropped the meta has been curving hard towards elite armies.

I'd agree in many respects, but again, a lot of that capability is fueled by having tons of CPs and objective holders that wouldn't be there without Soup. How well do pure Custodes or a Mono-Knight list do on their own?

Baneblades dont have an invul save. Which is what makes Primarchs and Knights so hard to kill and invalidates the 'normal' way of killing LoW's, that dozen lascannons isn't going to cut it anymore.

Custodes are not nearly as CP hungry as people think, yes being able to Stooping dive repeatedly is insane but the army functions well enough without them. Knights are the same, in a world without Stratagems they will still be perfectly fine. Its just that Stratagems really push them over the top.
Castellan is good for its points at base level. Upping its output by 50% through a single stratagem makes it utterly bonkers.

I wonder how a tournament would play out if you just strait up banned stratagems from being used in any capacity....

I don't really have to wonder. IG and Ynnari would win every game. IK become garbage level with 5++ saves vs everything you shoot at them.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Marmatag wrote:They are two completely different aspects of this game. There are numerous examples of allies that work solely because of stratagem usage (Knights + Guard), and other examples wherein allies work even with no stratagem benefits (Morty + Magnus).

Fair point, but even then, most Stratagem reliant lists aren't going to take a huge punch having to shave 30-60pts to keep their CP batteries if Guardsmen get bumped (and almost nobody is going to go in on thinking Guardsmen should be 6ppm, GW almost certainly wont). Some specific lists running lots of guardsmen may, but the fundamental value and functionality of the basic Battalion CP battery wont be hit too hard.

If Guardsmen were appropriately costed, as well as mortar teams, Company Commanders, and Primaris Psykers, that would fundamentally alter the game in a positive way. If bringing a battalion of Guard was 300 points, like it should be (6 point guardsmen, 60 point company commanders), you would lose out on tougher knights (like the Crusader) or you wouldn't be bringing Helverins. It's a fundamentally significant change to lose out on 120 additional points.

That's a functionally 33% price hike on the most basic fundamental units of the codex. Yeah, you'd probably cut down on CP stuff then. You'd also hose actual Guard armies in tthe process however. No army has seen that kind of shift with GW balance changes, and I wouldn't expect to see such, and nobody thinks CC's are worth 60pts. There's lots of stuff I'd be fine with, I wouldn't cry if the GS and KA went away and CP regen with it, I wouldn't cry if some sort of Platoon structure were reintroduced, I wouldn't cry if Officers were rebound to Command Squads in some way, etc, but that's more than a wee bit far to address allies issues that fundamentally aren't inherently part of the army itself.

Again, you're looking at this specifically from the lens of imperium. Chaos knights don't need a ton of CP to be effective.

Have we seen Renegade Knights show as well as Imperial Knights? Honestly I can't comment on them specifically, though given that they also only have two inherent Stratagems, that may be more because they fundamentally can't rely on them as much.

Shadowswords are present in guard heavy lists and they do fantastic.

Usually singular and that usually just specifically Shadowswords however, and not really because of their inherent resiliency.

You're not seeing it because you only look at the top 5 of a very well hyped GT. This idea that guard are struggling outside of allies is a narrative that exists only on dakka, where people only know what they can glean from a 10,000 foot view of the top 5 lists in a well known event.

Not sure where you're getting this from, I didn't reference any one single event, nor did I make the assertion that Guard are struggling, the only point I made was that at a broad spectrum of events, it's Soup that dominates. That doesn't mean I'm arguing that Guard are struggling, it means that Soup is the dominant balance issue across all factions.

Again shift your thinking from Imperium. Many of the Imperium factions are simply not designed to be standalone. You are kind of proving the overall point: Custodes without allies would not be viable.

I used those as examples because those were the kinda of things you were pointing out were issues. These armies can be built and played on their own without allies. They're composed of very tough elite models with powerful Stratagems. But they cease to be dominating without the the supercharging CP battery and objective holders, they can have issues as mono-forces, but also aren't helpless.

 Ordana wrote:

Custodes are not nearly as CP hungry as people think, yes being able to Stooping dive repeatedly is insane but the army functions well enough without them. Knights are the same, in a world without Stratagems they will still be perfectly fine. Its just that Stratagems really push them over the top.
Castellan is good for its points at base level. Upping its output by 50% through a single stratagem makes it utterly bonkers.

That's kinda what I think, the turbocharging through stratagems by shared CP is what really makes them so scary.

I wonder how a tournament would play out if you just strait up banned stratagems from being used in any capacity....

I'd love to play one

So 37 pages in and still arguing. The impression I get is that if we put our hyperbole aside for a few minutes, we could probably agree on the following:

A) Guard got a very good codex this edition. In a mono-build only meta they're a top tier army, but probably not really broken.

B) There is probably an issue with CP hungry armies being able to take cheap CP battery detachments, just based on the number of different suggestions aimed at it. Imperium might not even be the worst offender, but it stands out the most because of the price difference between Guard and the rest of the Imperial factions.

C) Ignoring the CP question, a soup list has some advantages over a non-soup list just on being able to cover gaps in the primary faction's roster, and there should probably be some sort of disadvantage to counter that.

D) The gap between the top tier armies and the rest is probably bigger than it should be.

I'm going to go out on a limb a little bit and add one more:
E) Space Marines of almost all stripes are in a really sad state right now, excluding GMan crutches and Death Guard (who might as well not be SM at all for how different they are), and it's contributing to the perception that guard are broken since IG effortlessly curb-stomps vanilla Marines.

I don't claim to be adding anything terribly insightful, I just thought maybe a summary was in order.

Schlitzaf wrote:

That isn’t false, but neither is it true. Better put, 30 Gaurdsman (120) cause around 1.2-1.5 wounds to MeQ to an MeQ Tactical Squads (130) causing 1.1.-1.2 wounds. More efficient? Let’s look at the issue a second way. On a 6 by 4 table with several units and vehicles of varying size. Try menuvauring those 30 Gaurdsman into a position to bring their guns to bear on a single target.

Why do they need to be in range of the same exact target? They need to be in range of a similar target to meet that efficiency - not necessarily the exact same unit. This is a really weird, limited, and unrealistic way to compare efficiency...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ikeulhu wrote:
Probably would be best to revert Battalion and Brigades to their original CP values if the +3 per detachment matching warlord idea was implemented. That would reduce the effectiveness of bringing two guard bats + an ally detachment, which could potentially be a concern otherwise, as pointed out by Lemondish.

I don't think that would change anything except limit allies to a single detachment that you overload and use guard CP to boost. Guard with their cheap access to CP works great as a mono force only has cheap, low impact stratagems. When guard can fuel the elite stratagems, which are more impactful but in armies that can't effectively generate lots of CP, you get issues.

CP being detachment specific would remove that without killing allies. It would likewise reduce the impact of strong, elite stratagems being used regularly every turn. The battleforged CP goes to the Warlord's faction, and the battle brothers rules get used to denote who can share what CP. A force of two marine chapters can share, but not with knights or guard.

Lemondish practical battlefield applications that doing 1 wound to 3 different squads is far worse than doing 3 wounds to 1 squads. The latter makes you less likely to kill anything useful while the former means you actually achieve a rather significant effect against a squad in comparison.

It’s not to say gaurdsman aren’t efficient but ignoring the battlefield reality of concentration and projection/deployment of firepower would ignore the reality.

 Ordana wrote:

I wonder how a tournament would play out if you just strait up banned stratagems from being used in any capacity....

I'd be really interested in this!
Sounds like it could be fun, and a big change from the norm.

Schlitzaf wrote:
Lemondish practical battlefield applications that doing 1 wound to 3 different squads is far worse than doing 3 wounds to 1 squads. The latter makes you less likely to kill anything useful while the former means you actually achieve a rather significant effect against a squad in comparison.

It’s not to say gaurdsman aren’t efficient but ignoring the battlefield reality of concentration and projection/deployment of firepower would ignore the reality.

Let's not go crazy and suggest that the main role of either infantry squads or tactical squads is to murderize the enemy quickly. They're troops, for Emperor's sake - and this ain't Deathwatch.

By focusing on what either can kill, you've missed the mountain of other benefits that infantry squads bring for their points. I don't see the value in rehashing this for the 30th time in this thread again, though, so you do you.

Reemule wrote:

Wouldn't it simplify things if CP was based off points versus detachments?

If you get down to it, when balancing the game, its got to be simpler to do that if everyone was in the same ball park of CP over something where you can end up with extremes. IK are basically maxed mono build at 9 CP, and guard can show with 20 without working hard at it.

If there is something where some armies are suppose to have more CP, build it into them if they are mono build. Example:

If your playing 2K you get 10 CP. If your playing Mono faction marine you get 3 more points for battle forged. If your playing Mono faction Guard you get +6 CP points for battle forged. If your playing soup, you get 1 CP for battle forged to recognize the confusion of forces that haven't worked together as much.

My person opinion is the game is best balanced when your have between 10-15 CP per side in a 2K game.

You would need to rebalance strategems as well though. As it is for factions CP's are not worth the same.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't think you can justify 6 point guardsmen unless you're also bumping the price on every other sub-marine infantry unit. Which, I mean, might be valid I guess. I dunno if Guardsmen and Cultists and Kabalites all being more expensive makes Immortals any better, and it might just deincentivize the use of troops in the first place (though I wouldn't bet on it considering how valuable battalions and brigades are).

How about pts stay as their are but become more expensive when used as allies

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't think you can justify 6 point guardsmen unless you're also bumping the price on every other sub-marine infantry unit. Which, I mean, might be valid I guess. I dunno if Guardsmen and Cultists and Kabalites all being more expensive makes Immortals any better, and it might just deincentivize the use of troops in the first place (though I wouldn't bet on it considering how valuable battalions and brigades are).

How about pts stay as their are but become more expensive when used as allies

I mean I'd be fine with that but that's because I want allies to be dead.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I really don't think you can justify 6 point guardsmen unless you're also bumping the price on every other sub-marine infantry unit. Which, I mean, might be valid I guess. I dunno if Guardsmen and Cultists and Kabalites all being more expensive makes Immortals any better, and it might just deincentivize the use of troops in the first place (though I wouldn't bet on it considering how valuable battalions and brigades are).

How about pts stay as their are but become more expensive when used as allies

That's actually an interesting idea.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I mean I'd be fine with that but that's because I want allies to be dead.

Why? honestly I'm interested.

IMO the imperium and chaos and Eldar have these loose alliances forged over millenia .. they should have access to the tools which come with those alliances.

as for the rest of us Xenos players, as the Imperium has a box full of tools for every job, Mono should have an adjustable 16lbs sledgehammer to be able to compete with those varied tools..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


How about pts stay as their are but become more expensive when used as allies

That's actually an interesting idea.

either giving mono lists more free stuff (I hear ewww 7th formations) or taxing allies lists for points or CP is the honest Simplest solution.

but it boils down to book keeping.. and at a competitive level .. it's hard enough to keep track of who has free plasma pistols let alone who has paid their 'Allies tax' correctly

tneva82 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Wouldn't it simplify things if CP was based off points versus detachments?

If you get down to it, when balancing the game, its got to be simpler to do that if everyone was in the same ball park of CP over something where you can end up with extremes. IK are basically maxed mono build at 9 CP, and guard can show with 20 without working hard at it.

If there is something where some armies are suppose to have more CP, build it into them if they are mono build. Example:

If your playing 2K you get 10 CP. If your playing Mono faction marine you get 3 more points for battle forged. If your playing Mono faction Guard you get +6 CP points for battle forged. If your playing soup, you get 1 CP for battle forged to recognize the confusion of forces that haven't worked together as much.

My person opinion is the game is best balanced when your have between 10-15 CP per side in a 2K game.

You would need to rebalance strategems as well though. As it is for factions CP's are not worth the same.

I don't see that as a bad thing. Several have been rebalanced, and I think a big number could be rebalanced. I'd also like to see several added to the brb, of a more defensive nature.

 Mr Morden wrote:


How about pts stay as their are but become more expensive when used as allies

This is pretty brilliant actually. Here is how I would set it up. (for matched play only).

1) Declare primary faction
2) Allied detachments from a different faction cannot consist of more than 30% of the total army.
3) all allied detachments from a different faction pay 1 additional point per model.

Most games which allow allies do something similar (see Malifaux with an additional soul stone cost to hire a mercenary out of faction). This also is pretty narrowly tailored to addressing cheap CP Batteries as opposed to taking one or two big pieces. For example, it will have a significant impact on an allied imperial guard battalion by increasing each guardsmen by 1 point per model, however it will have a very very small impact on an allied detachment of Imperial Knights (which would pay at most probably 3 additional points). If you declare guard, you get a discount on your Guardsmen, but your army must be at least 70% IG. If you play Imperial Knights, you pay 6ppm for Guard batteries, but significantly more of your points can be devoted to big stompy robots.

I also think adding a cap on the % of an army which can be allied would be nice and would help add some identification and faction pride back into Imperium. A Space Wolf army for instance would actually be 70% Space Wolf, an Imperial Guard Army would need to be at least 70% Imperial Guard. You can still have a lot of flexibility in terms of adding additional allied units but the overall flavor of your army would not change. Allies would be an actual auxiliary detachment to your main force, as opposed to the army being a mush.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I mean I'd be fine with that but that's because I want allies to be dead.

Why? honestly I'm interested.

IMO the imperium and chaos and Eldar have these loose alliances forged over millenia .. they should have access to the tools which come with those alliances.

as for the rest of us Xenos players, as the Imperium has a box full of tools for every job, Mono should have an adjustable 16lbs sledgehammer to be able to compete with those varied tools..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


How about pts stay as their are but become more expensive when used as allies

That's actually an interesting idea.

either giving mono lists more free stuff (I hear ewww 7th formations) or taxing allies lists for points or CP is the honest Simplest solution.

but it boils down to book keeping.. and at a competitive level .. it's hard enough to keep track of who has free plasma pistols let alone who has paid their 'Allies tax' correctly

For the "why would units cost more when brought with allies" its actually very logical from a lore standpoint. Its no different then running joint operations with today's military. The more branches/countries that are working together the more logistics are required to bring a force to the battlefield. Its going to be harder to for example get a chapter of space marines to meet up with admech and deploy simultaneously then its going to be to just have SM drop in.

I actually proposed this in one of the many "guardsman need to be x points" threads and never really got an answer. IMO there are only a few ways to balance the game so that soup isn't always better than mono.
1. separate CP pools so that they cannot be joined together. This gives soup more unit flexibility but less army cohesion
2. make allies cost more. for example, a guardsman bringing its CP to a knight army is more valuable than a mono guard army. You could also change these without effecting codexes so could change them throughout the year whenever a FOTM gets a little out of control
3. Make CP generated by the points spent in a detachment so that 600 points of guard in detachment x would grant y CP and 600 points of SM would generate the same amount

I personally advocate for option 1 because I feel its the easiest to implement and it will be effective but I would be happy with any of these. 3 would also require a re balancing of many strats

I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

I like the direction this would bring the game but why does it have to be so complicated? Do a comparison to my system where you start with a base CP of 15 at 2k and lose CP for non batallions and brigades and for allied detachments. What differences does it produce when you compare your idea with mine?

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

At that point why don't you just assign CP by points and skip the book keeping?

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

You always say this in every thread and can never present any kind of evidence that mono guard is broken

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

How would this scale with game size?
Lots of folks play 500, 750, 1,000, etc.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

You always say this in every thread and can never present any kind of evidence that mono guard is broken

Can we stop denying obvious stuff man. It's been debated to death. Infantry and CC are OP. There is no question they are not OP.

Why not balance them without a point increase? Change some weaponry so they get bonuses on clearing out GEQ troops should do it.

Reemule wrote:
Why not balance them without a point increase? Change some weaponry so they get bonuses on clearing out GEQ troops should do it.

If only there was a system for that, something that would make horde models die easier without having an impact on more elite models.
I suggest a Rend value. If your armor save is equal or worse then a weapons Rend value you don't get to make the armor save.
So we can make a flamer Rend 5 and it will kill guardsman but a space marine can walk through it laughing.

 Ordana wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Why not balance them without a point increase? Change some weaponry so they get bonuses on clearing out GEQ troops should do it.

If only there was a system for that, something that would make horde models die easier without having an impact on more elite models.
I suggest a Rend value. If your armor save is equal or worse then a weapons Rend value you don't get to make the armor save.
So we can make a flamer Rend 5 and it will kill guardsman but a space marine can walk through it laughing.

Isn't that basically the old armour system?
Having both seems like it covers lots of bases, but would be a big rebuild.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

I like the direction this would bring the game but why does it have to be so complicated? Do a comparison to my system where you start with a base CP of 15 at 2k and lose CP for non batallions and brigades and for allied detachments. What differences does it produce when you compare your idea with mine?

Honestly I'm to the point where I would be completely fine with your suggestion too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

How would this scale with game size?
Lots of folks play 500, 750, 1,000, etc.

You'd have less command points? Like who cares about snowflake nonsense game sizes. You're not playing 2k matched do whatever you want. Change the points, i don't care. Make a knight cost 1 point. Play a 3 point game. /shrug

Honestly the way CP works isn't great, but it's nowhere near as bad as some reactions here are claiming. Even the CP Garden Guard bring is fine.

I still stand by that the issue is the lack of a bonus for monocodex armies to function as effectively. I get that the change to CP for Brigades and Battalions was likely an attempt to address it, but it wasn't clean enough to truly solve the problem since it benefits multiple factions armies the same way.