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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Alien Majesty would easily be a runner up for the best Warlord trait though.
It's an ability on the Patriarch already. Though on something cheaper it would be nice. If I recall, that pic and a load of the rumors posted before we're debunked at the vigilus open day by the guy who made them up.
Adenum to my last post as well
Option 4. Allies. But then it wouldn't be GSC army, it'd be a case of The Tyranid Fanatical 32.
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Alien Majesty would easily be a runner up for the best Warlord trait though.
It's an ability on the Patriarch already. Though on something cheaper it would be nice. If I recall, that pic and a load of the rumors posted before we're debunked at the vigilus open day by the guy who made them up.
Adenum to my last post as well
Option 4. Allies. But then it wouldn't be GSC army, it'd be a case of The Tyranid Fanatical 32.
I think you're thinking of Tau. The GSC Warlord Traits are much older leaks.
bullyboy wrote: As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs so now I have to spend a CP just to get this bonus when they are already starved for CPs or need to buy guardians/rangers to get access.
I think they understand it perfectly fine. CP are a resource, or they are supposed to be, but due to soup making some factions have more access to CP than expected...
What should it cost, in your opinion? Points? Slots? Nothing? Right now, it costs either the CP getting the Vanguard
Detachment for Wraiths would provide you... or it costs guardian/ranger points taxes... which you were bringing anyways because +5 CP is really strong.
I'm kinda looking forward to dropping in a Vanguard Detachment from Iyanden, making it a Wraith host detachment, and seeing what I can do with it. 5-10 Wraithblades popping out of Wave Serpents with a Spiritseer totting around that Psytronome or whatever it is... it seems like it could be strong. Keep a Wraithknight around just to have the threat of that guy getting the Psytronome buff, as well, and you can probably control a pretty big area. Plop a Farseer into the mix, and you should be able to move up the table with some durable units (Wave Serpents and a melee Knight), and reasonably push back opposition. Which should allow for more fragile units (those poor tax units that you're forced to bring for CP) to control objectives to go towards the long-term goal of winning the game. Especially with the implementation of Acceptable Losses, or whatever the thing's name that stops Sudden Death.
I think you're missing the mark. If we want to see themed lists such as wraith hosts, they need to address the CPs. Do you think 4 to 5 CPs (minus the 1 for this detachment) is OK for a full army? That's what you're getting. A vanguard and maybe a spearhead or Supreme command. It's not even 8 like a Battalion. I also play Ravenwing that has the same Damn problem. GW is not getting the CP issue, period.
And no, I don't want to take a Ranger/Guardian tax in a ghost army. Same as I don't want non Ravenwing scouts in my Ravenwing army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 22:12:41
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Alien Majesty would easily be a runner up for the best Warlord trait though.
It's an ability on the Patriarch already. Though on something cheaper it would be nice. If I recall, that pic and a load of the rumors posted before we're debunked at the vigilus open day by the guy who made them up.
Adenum to my last post as well
Option 4. Allies. But then it wouldn't be GSC army, it'd be a case of The Tyranid Fanatical 32.
Patriarchs are the giant mean ones that want to be up in the enemy's face though right?
If you have that ability in that, you might want the campers to better stay put, instead of camping a more expensive Patriarch and not making use of his abilities.
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 think you're missing the mark. If we want to see themed lists such as wraith hosts, they need to address the CPs. Do you think 4 to 5 CPs (minus the 1 for this detachment) is OK for a full army? That's what you're getting. A vanguard and maybe a spearhead or Supreme command. It's not even 8 like a Battalion. I also play Ravenwing that has the same Damn problem. GW is not getting the CP issue, period.
And no, I don't want to take a Ranger/Guardian tax in a ghost army. Same as I don't want non Ravenwing scouts in my Ravenwing army.
Yeah, exactly. When all of the 'make thing x troops' rules were removed, the justification was that you could still field your army via Spearhead or Vanguard. Which is technically true, but such an army is really gimped. And then they worsened the problem by increasing the number of CP battalion and brigade generate, making them even more mandatory (instead of increasing the battleforged CP which would have actually achieved helping the elite armies which was their stated goal.) And now they have this Wraith formation which will cost CP, a resource that a Wraith army doesn't have.
They should just have something like "your Warlord's faction keyword is the primary, all non-primary detachments give half cp" or a similar nerf. Simpler than the whole separate cp pool idea.
bullyboy wrote: As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs so now I have to spend a CP just to get this bonus when they are already starved for CPs or need to buy guardians/rangers to get access.
Wow, for some reason I thought these bonuses came ON TOP of the base detachment bonus (ie: you use the Stratagem on a Batallion Detachment, it costs you 1CP but you still get 5CP because of the Batallion). If these detachments cost 1CP without generating any, they're just utter trash. I wouldn't waste 6CP just to get access to a Warlord trait or Relic...
bullyboy wrote: As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs so now I have to spend a CP just to get this bonus when they are already starved for CPs or need to buy guardians/rangers to get access.
I think they understand it perfectly fine. CP are a resource, or they are supposed to be, but due to soup making some factions have more access to CP than expected...
What should it cost, in your opinion? Points? Slots? Nothing? Right now, it costs either the CP getting the Vanguard
Detachment for Wraiths would provide you... or it costs guardian/ranger points taxes... which you were bringing anyways because +5 CP is really strong.
I'm kinda looking forward to dropping in a Vanguard Detachment from Iyanden, making it a Wraith host detachment, and seeing what I can do with it. 5-10 Wraithblades popping out of Wave Serpents with a Spiritseer totting around that Psytronome or whatever it is... it seems like it could be strong. Keep a Wraithknight around just to have the threat of that guy getting the Psytronome buff, as well, and you can probably control a pretty big area. Plop a Farseer into the mix, and you should be able to move up the table with some durable units (Wave Serpents and a melee Knight), and reasonably push back opposition. Which should allow for more fragile units (those poor tax units that you're forced to bring for CP) to control objectives to go towards the long-term goal of winning the game. Especially with the implementation of Acceptable Losses, or whatever the thing's name that stops Sudden Death.
I think you're missing the mark. If we want to see themed lists such as wraith hosts, they need to address the CPs. Do you think 4 to 5 CPs (minus the 1 for this detachment) is OK for a full army? That's what you're getting. A vanguard and maybe a spearhead or Supreme command. It's not even 8 like a Battalion. I also play Ravenwing that has the same Damn problem. GW is not getting the CP issue, period.
And no, I don't want to take a Ranger/Guardian tax in a ghost army. Same as I don't want non Ravenwing scouts in my Ravenwing army.
You're missing the mark, I believe. Volume of CP is strictly a choice of the player: do I build my army for maximizing this resource, or do I make choices that are more "fluffy".
You're not going to ever get a Wraithhost with Guard/Blades as troops... they're going to stay in the elite spot. With a battle forged army with a Vanguard + Supreme Command + whatever (Spearhead?), you still have 3-5 CP to spend AFTER paying the -1 CP for at least 1 Wraithhost upgrade. Is it competitive to go into a match with that few CP in a Craftworld list? Possibly, probably not. Thus, you sacrifice to make that list less thematic and more competitive... that's when you pay the Guardian/Ranger/Dire Avenger tax to get the extra CP. Break that Supreme Command up, add some troops, profit with CP.
You're insinuating that all knight players WANT to play with the Guardsmen they field instead of another Armiger or Gallant, and not that they CHOOSE to play with them based on their need to garner resources. Themed lists don't have to win tournaments... themed lists have to work and give the player the desired feeling that the theme is the star.
bullyboy wrote: As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs...
I think I missed that. Where is that from? Would make them a supplementary detachment thing only.
I think they just mean that they don't generate enough CP to support themselves, so they require a battalion battery to power them, which steps on the toes of anyone who wants to run a cool 'wraith' only army.
Ah ok. I must admit I am pretty spoilt for CP, as every Guard list I write at 2k starts with a brigade and works from there. That's why I want to know if an Emperor's Conclave brigade is any good, backed up by a specialist tank spearhead or tempestus detachment.
Trickstick wrote: Ah ok. I must admit I am pretty spoilt for CP, as every Guard list I write at 2k starts with a brigade and works from there. That's why I want to know if an Emperor's Conclave brigade is any good, backed up by a specialist tank spearhead or tempestus detachment.
This is the issue, some armies can plug in a battery to pay for these specialist detachments, but others can't. This just compounds the issue of soup and the loyal 32. I'm super excited about the Indomitus Crusaders stratagem for my Primaris Crimson Fists, but I'd need a guard battery to run it without using all my CP before the game even starts.
We'll see, hopefully, the ones that bolt onto non-battalion detachments have lighter CP costs.
Best answer for managing soup is to limit it to one detachment that doesn't share the faction keyword of your warlord, and aeldari/chaos/imperium/tyranid don't count for shared keywords for this purpose.
Assuming 15 IoM factions, this change brings the number of possible faction combinations for imperium from approx 3,375 down to approx 225, Which is a lot more manageable from a balance perspective.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Honestly, I think if they made it so you only got CP from Detachments that share the same Keyword as your Warlord. Add a Detachment not with the same Keyword, no CP from that Detachment. At all.
Personally, I'd drop the pretense that Troops are still somehow a tax in 8th edition - currently, only the bad ones are. Move some of the Battalion/Brigade CPs into the Battleforged bonus, and you'd see most of the CP batteries disappear.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Honestly, I think if they made it so you only got CP from Detachments that share the same Keyword as your Warlord. Add a Detachment not with the same Keyword, no CP from that Detachment. At all.
That's crazy. People keep suggesting it, but it is a terrible idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Personally, I'd drop the pretense that Troops are still somehow a tax in 8th edition - currently, only the bad ones are. Move some of the Battalion/Brigade CPs into the Battleforged bonus, and you'd see most of the CP batteries disappear.
Yep. That's the proper way to fix this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 23:57:34
casvalremdeikun wrote: Honestly, I think if they made it so you only got CP from Detachments that share the same Keyword as your Warlord. Add a Detachment not with the same Keyword, no CP from that Detachment. At all.
That's crazy. People keep suggesting it, but it is a terrible idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Personally, I'd drop the pretense that Troops are still somehow a tax in 8th edition - currently, only the bad ones are. Move some of the Battalion/Brigade CPs into the Battleforged bonus, and you'd see most of the CP batteries disappear.
Yep. That's the proper way to fix this.
Okay? In what way is it terrible? What armies are ruined by it?
casvalremdeikun wrote: Honestly, I think if they made it so you only got CP from Detachments that share the same Keyword as your Warlord. Add a Detachment not with the same Keyword, no CP from that Detachment. At all.
That's crazy. People keep suggesting it, but it is a terrible idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Personally, I'd drop the pretense that Troops are still somehow a tax in 8th edition - currently, only the bad ones are. Move some of the Battalion/Brigade CPs into the Battleforged bonus, and you'd see most of the CP batteries disappear.
Yep. That's the proper way to fix this.
Okay? In what way is it terrible? What armies are ruined by it?
Okay? In what way is it terrible? What armies are ruined by it?
Most reasonable allied armies. You know, the kinds that have about even mix of different factions rather than just allying in one broken thing. An IG army feeding CP to one Castellan would hardly be affected by your 'fix' (they would lose two CPs, as the Knight couldn't be a warlord and would have to buy a trait and a relic) An even mix of Space Marines and Sisters of Battle (a battalion of each) would lose five CPs (and they would probably have less to begin with.) And of course if you wanted to do the fluffy thing and have your Imperial soup be led by an Inquisitor, you'd be utterly fethed.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Honestly, I think if they made it so you only got CP from Detachments that share the same Keyword as your Warlord. Add a Detachment not with the same Keyword, no CP from that Detachment. At all.
That's crazy. People keep suggesting it, but it is a terrible idea.
I think they should just have a hard cap on the maximum number of CP you can get or use.
CPs should be based on what units you take. for example, every tac squad you take could give +1 CP. For IG, you need 3 infantry to get +1 CP. Or just base it on points spent in each area.
I think they should just have a hard cap on the maximum number of CP you can get or use.
That is also a good idea. It should go up with the game size obviously. Could be 'organised play' suggestion and it would do more to balance the game than either the detachment limit or the rule of three. Combine that with returning the battalion and brigade to their original CP levels and bumping he battleforged CP by couple of points, the CP issue would be pretty much sorted and most soup issues with it.
I think they should just have a hard cap on the maximum number of CP you can get or use.
That is also a good idea. It should go up with the game size obviously. Could be 'organised play' suggestion and it would do more to balance the game than either the detachment limit or the rule of three. Combine that with returning the battalion and brigade to their original CP levels and bumping he battleforged CP by couple of points, the CP issue would be pretty much sorted and most soup issues with it.
My personal favourite suggestion is one I've seen a few people make, that is have the number of CP you generate tied to the size of game you play and have absolutely nothing to do with detachments. Kills off all battalion batteries like the loyal 32 in one go since they're now redundant and fixes the problem that elite armies are being punished for being elite, low model count armies. Also reduces the need to min max detachments for most armies as the CP generation isn't there from them anymore.
I do think there's a problem with CP batteries. It makes absolutely no sense for marines to function better just because there are 32 guardsmen nearby. Allying in different troops who weren't used to working together would result in a less efficient army - not a more efficient one.
I think the best approach might be a CP bonus for just taking a single sub-faction. Something like 3CPs, maybe. This would represent how everyone knows the plan, and it would remove the need for batteries. You could still take a battery but it would only add 2 CPs net, so probably not worth it.
Mandragola wrote: It makes absolutely no sense for marines to function better just because there are 32 guardsmen nearby.
CP themselves don't make sense. It makes no sense for marines to function better just because you used some CP. What are CP even supposed to be representing?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Imateria wrote: My personal favourite suggestion is one I've seen a few people make, that is have the number of CP you generate tied to the size of game you play and have absolutely nothing to do with detachments. Kills off all battalion batteries like the loyal 32 in one go since they're now redundant and fixes the problem that elite armies are being punished for being elite, low model count armies. Also reduces the need to min max detachments for most armies as the CP generation isn't there from them anymore.
As I've said before this is a terrible solution. Elite armies get more value out of each CP because single-unit buffs apply to a larger value of models, while horde armies like IG typically have to spend multiple CP to get the same effect. So for everything to be balanced the elite army should have less total CP. Making CP based on game size just gives all of the elite armies a built-in CP battery for free, while giving nothing to pure IG and similar armies.
Or, TL;DR: "loyal 32 is broken, let's give every space marine army the loyal 32 without even having to buy the models".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/06 01:04:14
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Mandragola wrote: It makes absolutely no sense for marines to function better just because there are 32 guardsmen nearby.
CP themselves don't make sense. It makes no sense for marines to function better just because you used some CP. What are CP even supposed to be representing?
Honestly that's why I think most of the pregame Strategems make the most sense. The way GW wants to kinda bring back formations is how I kinda envisioned CP being used the best, where your army gets a bonus at a hefty cost.
Take the True Grit Strategem for example. Only one Space Wolves unit can use it a turn, and for some reason nobody else can. Simply inconsistent ya know?
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 think the stumbling block of CP generation is that it’s tied to number of units, which is great for armies with lots of small cheap units (Guard) and terrible for armies with expensive units (Custodes). You balance that out if you base it on points, but you have to remember that the whole idea from the get-go was to have some disadvantage to just taking Riptides because gets troops. For example, here’s how I would do it:
Battalion - receive 1CP for every 100pts spent on Troops in this Detachment
Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider - receive 1CP for every 200pts spent on Heavy Support/Elites/Fast Attack in this Detachment
Brigade - receive 1CP for every 150pts spent on Troops, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support in this Detachment
Auxiliary - lose 1CP for every 100pts spent in this Detachment
This kills the Loyal 32 (180pts for 1CP, yay...), balances armies with lots of cheap units and armies with a few expensive units, still encourages Troops as being the most efficient way to get CP, increases CP for elite armies, and lets you include an Assassin or Inquisitor without spending a CP (since they’re under the 100pt threshold).
Sure it ain’t perfect, but I think it’s a solid start.
Imateria wrote: My personal favourite suggestion is one I've seen a few people make, that is have the number of CP you generate tied to the size of game you play and have absolutely nothing to do with detachments. Kills off all battalion batteries like the loyal 32 in one go since they're now redundant and fixes the problem that elite armies are being punished for being elite, low model count armies. Also reduces the need to min max detachments for most armies as the CP generation isn't there from them anymore.
As I've said before this is a terrible solution. Elite armies get more value out of each CP because single-unit buffs apply to a larger value of models, while horde armies like IG typically have to spend multiple CP to get the same effect. So for everything to be balanced the elite army should have less total CP. Making CP based on game size just gives all of the elite armies a built-in CP battery for free, while giving nothing to pure IG and similar armies.
Or, TL;DR: "loyal 32 is broken, let's give every space marine army the loyal 32 without even having to buy the models".
This really isn't a problem if every army is capping out at 10 CP. Elite armies won't be able to maximize the power of a single unit because the resources to do simply do not exist.
Arachnofiend wrote: This really isn't a problem if every army is capping out at 10 CP. Elite armies won't be able to maximize the power of a single unit because the resources to do simply do not exist.
Of course it's a problem, regardless of number of CP. Whether or not you're "maximizing" a single unit's power spending 1 CP for a stratagem that buffs a 300 point unit provides more power per CP than spending 1 CP on a comparable stratagem that buffs a 100 point unit. Being more elite means that you get more power per CP unless the individual stratagems for the horde army are more powerful (re-roll 1s vs. re-roll failures, for example) and that's not the case. Giving everyone a fixed CP pool based on the point limit means that IG no longer have their CP generation advantage from being a horde army, but still have the poor power per CP ratio. IOW, "nerf IG".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Hive Fleet Hercual - 6760pts
Deffskullz desert scavengers
Thousand Sons 
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts 
