Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I see that nobody has actually decided on what constitutes too many CP. If the idea is to just give a tiny boost occasionally, why is 15+ CP OK? I feel that the game has become a case of winning via CPs where the balance of performing a specific action is heavily influenced by CP application. It's almost like giving an army free points because if a certain affect was the norm, it would have cost more points.

I believe there needs to be a cap in competitive play. I'd honestly be fine with capping it at 10-12 for 2000pt or less games. I also feel that some detachments shouldn't even exist in certain point games. I'd remove the Airwing and Supreme Command detachments from games of 2000pts and below, I don't feel that they offe anything but a crutch in lists that I have seen. If you want those special heroes or flyers, then you need to bring some other units from that faction to unlock them.

I do like what was suggested earlier about a battalion not just being 2/3, and instead being 2/3/1/1/1. With that in mind I'd then change CPs to the following

5CP for Battleforged
+0 for patrol
+1 for vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider
+3 for Battalion
+7 for Brigade

Now, does this take care of the current problem alone? Taking the popular castellan combo, it would still leave that with 12CPs, and it could still bring a Guard brigade, and a single smash captain in a patrol. So maybe not all problems solved. Seeing this, I'd be tempted to cap it at 10 CP thus changing battleforged to 4CP and Brigade to +6.

So soup would still exist, but just not provide as many boons as it currently does.

Nah having 15-18 CPs is fine. What is not fine is to give those CPs to a superhero that can't have more than just a few without allies.

Just force the loyal 32 to use their own 5 CPs.

 Blackie wrote:
Nah having 15-18 CPs is fine. What is not fine is to give those CPs to a superhero that can't have more than just a few without allies.

Just force the loyal 32 to use their own 5 CPs.

Could you highlight why you think 15-18 CP is fine, just curious.

When the CP system first started, it was a reroll a dice, pass a morale check and the other one - small buffs. here a small number, to swing key points, was perfectly fine

GW moved to taking what used to be inate abilities of units and making CP stratagems out of them, so now you need to burn CP to make a unit actually work - this is why you needed more.

In part it was a clever anti-spam thing, as it nicely limits how many units of a given type are worth taking, but it does mean you need more.

its also the root of the "soup" problem as a CP in one faction isn't worth the same as a CP in another but they are very easy to swap about

Perhaps another option is to link CP to the Codex. I'll try to explain what I mean.

For cheap infantry armies such as IG and Orks, you can fill out multiple organisations for relatively few points, and really stack up those CPs.

For those at the other end of the scale, you'll struggle to get a Batallion (is that the right term? You know the one I mean. The Big'un) and still have flexibility in your other army choices.

So why not remove the standard CPs as presented in the rulebook, and instead award them within the Codex.

Numbers for demonstration purposes only folks!

Imperial Knights - Fill a standard one, and you get more CPs for that than Imperial Guard. Space Marines somewhere in between.

And it doesn't need to be specific scaling. Imperial Guard could give the least, then Imperial Knights (because being a pure Knight army is a whopping advantage in itself), and Space Marines getting more (because their troops are the best trained out of those three loose examples).

That way one can still absolutely Soup if you want. As I said before, that's background accurate, and certainly more common than just Knights and Marines fighting on their own. But you won't get the same CP Farm benefits you do now?

Leaves those Souping for Background able to do so, whilst restricting the appeal of Souping to the 'No Fun To Play' brigade.

Keeping the CP generated on the field in a different pool than the starting pool, label it FCP, used only by that Keyword soup detachment. Perhaps in some armies you can add a strategem that converts FCP into CP like every 2FCP=1CP.

The only other thing I can think of is limit how much you can spend per turn. This can either go hand in hand with the "generate cp per turn" camp, or it can be an actual limit of say 4 CP per player turn can be spent.

That I'm not so keen on myself, because not all Stratagems are equal.

Some are very cheap for 2CP, others extortionate for 3CP.

Though a slight tweak and limiting the number of Stratagems that can be used in a single turn could work?

THREAD GOALS:

1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

Several armies have the ability to spam cheap battalions and brigades in order to 'farm' CP, which is then turned around to power super units niche picked from entirely different codecies.

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

I would limit CP usage. Namely, if CP are generated by guardsmen (loyal 32)...they can only be used by the models that generated those CP. Battleforged CP can be used by any detatchment for any strategem.

It wouldn't be that hard to track. The 32 still provide cheap objective holders for more elite armies, but they can't be used to supercharge a Castellan or SmashCaptain any more.

3. Hash out and build upon other suggestions, to try and make them more feasible.

I agree with the above posters on this idea, and refute the notion that its too much to track. All you need is a piece of paper, or some poker chips, or another dice to track your CP remaining.

GW could even turn it into a product.

Think along the lines of a Knight Terminal for AT. Laminated with a whiteboard type pen. One per detachment.

Write on it what's filling which slot. Plastic Marker to track CP expenditure.

Easy peasy.

Honestly, I wouldn't enjoy the added complexity of keeping separate CP's for different units, and to the above; I doubt i'd appreciate having to buy a new utility to keep track of it.

I wouldn't mind having the Warlord's detachment be the only one that provides CP, or limiting strategem options to the warlord's faction.

Here's one that no-one's suggested yet:

increase the amount of CP generated by a battalion or a brigade
the neither introduce a CP cost for additional detachments after the first, or only allow the warlords detachment to generate CP.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Make the battalion (small one?) go from 5CP to 8CP and no other detachments make CP - Brigade would be 12CP
or
Make battalion 12CP and brigade 15CP, but charge CP for extra detachments, rather than award them. Perhaps do a graduating scale, so spamming them becomes more inefficient. FOR EXAMPLE:

superheavy detachment (1 superheavy) 0,1,3CP

so first one costs nothing, second costs 1CP, third costs 3CP.


My preference is the slight increase in CP and make subsequent detachments generate nothing. Pick your highest detachment and use the CP from that.

This would allow allies to tag along and offer fire support, and would not penalise them for doing so - a battalion alone vs a battalion and an allied spearhead would have the same CP, but a larger selection of stratagems to try and share them between. But if you can sink the points into a brigade's worth of units, then you get more CP. Alternatively, if you take 5 spearheads, then you get 1CP for the warlords one. plus the 3 for battleforged.

It's not a perfect solution, but it would stop people taking extra detachments just for CP and would start people taking extra detachments for what they can do with the units!

Kinda like that.

Warlords detachment is the only one generating CP, increase the base ammounts to all detachments, get no CP from other detachments, and charge CP for duplicated detachments.


Also limit it to one stratagem per player turn for detachments other than the one your warlord is in.

Brigade grants 15, Battalion/Super heavy grants 8, others grant 3. You still get 3 for battle forged.



Max CP you can have is 18 and only one strat can be used from allied detachments per turn.

The CP system is lazy, uninspiring, and cheapens the game.

Please remove in CA 2019.

There are several different ways to balance CP

1. You have different sized pools of CP but different levels of efficiency so army x has 20 CP and army y has 10 CP but army y's strategems are twice as CP effective as army X's

2. Both armies have a fixed pool and about equal CP efficiency

I'm more in favor of 1 because it allows for more flavor in armies. 1 is also essentially what we have but its messed up by there being no downside to soup. So you can just gain cheep CPs from the horde army and toss them into elite strategems. If they were simply to limit CP usage to the army keyword that generated them it would make the game much easier to balance as it would be easy to increase/ decrease the cost of strategems without worrying how they are affected by including completely different armies

Army specific CP's. Now GW can even sell us tokens, wheel counters, or something.


(And if having 4pools of CP is too much for you, (3detachments +battleforged) then Warhammer is not a game for you anyhow).

CP sharing alone is not the problem, it is the Guard players who want to pretend that this is the crux of the issue. They want to keep their unfair advantage whilst preventing others from benefiting from their broken CP generation via banning (or effectively banning) the allies. The real problem is the massive disparity in different armies ability to generate the CP.

-Return Brigade and Battalion CP to their original levels.

-Bump Battleforged CP a bit.

-Maybe give monoarmies a bonus of a couple of CPs. (though I am not certain this is needed, needs playtesting after the first two fixes are applied.)

AOS way where the CP is generated during the game is probably better still, as it prevents insane front loaded damage via stratagems. However, considering the high amount of pre-game stratagems in the 40K, you can't directly port it over.

 Wibe wrote:
Army specific CP's. Now GW can even sell us tokens, wheel counters, or something.


(And if having 4pools of CP is too much for you, (3detachments +battleforged) then Warhammer is not a game for you anyhow).

I've always hated the "its too complicated" argument. If you can't keep track of three different pools of CP then you shouldn't be allowed to put more then 2 multi-wound models on the table in your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
CP sharing alone is not the problem, it is the Guard players who want to pretend that this is the crux of the issue. They want to keep their unfair advantage whilst preventing others from benefiting from their broken CP generation via banning (or effectively banning) the allies. The real problem is the massive disparity in different armies ability to generate the CP.

-Return Brigade and Battalion CP to their original levels.

-Bump Battleforged CP a bit.

-Maybe give monoarmies a bonus of a couple of CPs. (though I am not certain this is needed, needs playtesting after the first two fixes are applied.)

AOS way where the CP is generated during the game is probably better still, as it prevents insane front loaded damage via stratagems. However, considering the high amount of pre-game stratagems in the 40K, you can't directly port it over.

Have we seen a Guard army that was an issue because of CP that wasn't funneling them into another army this edition? I mean other than under costed earthshaker/ conscript spam (both which were fixed) every broken army involving guard that i can think of involved CP sharing as its central broken mechanic

Asmodios wrote:

Have we seen a Guard army that was an issue because of CP that wasn't funneling them into another army this edition? I mean other than under costed earthshaker/ conscript spam (both which were fixed) every broken army involving guard that i can think of involved CP sharing as its central broken mechanic

This is because there were couple of units (Smash Captain, Custodes Bike Captains and Castellans) that happened to be even better than what Guard Codex can offer. Two of these things have been nerfed (via the fly nerf) and it remains to be seen whether Castellans will get a nerf too in the CA. Guard fuelling their own super heavies would absolutely still be a problem, especially in an environment where the competing factions lacked the CP to effectively use their own stratagems. We just didn't see it because there were those couple of better targets for this tactic. Banning soup (or effectively banning ti like Peregrine suggest) would basically result 'play guard or go home' situation for the Imperium.

 Crimson wrote:
CP sharing alone is not the problem, it is the Guard players who want to pretend that this is the crux of the issue. They want to keep their unfair advantage whilst preventing others from benefiting from their broken CP generation via banning (or effectively banning) the allies. The real problem is the massive disparity in different armies ability to generate the CP.

-Return Brigade and Battalion CP to their original levels.

-Bump Battleforged CP a bit.

-Maybe give monoarmies a bonus of a couple of CPs. (though I am not certain this is needed, needs playtesting after the first two fixes are applied.)

AOS way where the CP is generated during the game is probably better still, as it prevents insane front loaded damage via stratagems. However, considering the high amount of pre-game stratagems in the 40K, you can't directly port it over.

Just spit balling, but how does this grab you for mixing AoS with 40k....

Your formations grant a pool of starting CPs. Nothing overly generous. 1 or 2 each depending. Each formation then generates CPs throughout the battle.

Still allows for some form of Alpha Strike, but without it being universal. And if I can snuff out a specific formation, it helps starve you of CPs?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Just spit balling, but how does this grab you for mixing AoS with 40k....

Your formations grant a pool of starting CPs. Nothing overly generous. 1 or 2 each depending. Each formation then generates CPs throughout the battle.

Still allows for some form of Alpha Strike, but without it being universal. And if I can snuff out a specific formation, it helps starve you of CPs?

Yeah, something like could probably work, though basically building the system from the scratch like that would require extensive playtesting. And there needs to be way to avoid the current situation where the ability to cheaply fill several detachments is the key to the success.

Just don't allow formations to share CPs outside their own Faction Keyword.

Clamps down on Soup Abuse, without entirely discouraging it for those more taken with thematic list writing than cheaply wrecking face.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

3. Hash out and build upon other suggestions, to try and make them more feasible.

I'm going to add +1 to the idea of limiting sharing CP between detachments with different keywords, but I'd also like to address another issue I don't see talked about very much.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
1. Define what you believe to be wrong with current CP generation.

One issue I have with the way CP is generated is that it rewards taking multiple detachments, which de-facto punishes filling out a single detachment. For example, if I take a battalion of my Dark Angels, I get 5 CP for that. Now, say I want to have a strong Ravenwing contingent. I could use the battalion's Fast Attack slots, but at the cost of another compulsory HQ, I can take an Outrider detachment and gain +1 CP. If I wanted that 3rd HQ choice anyway (likely), there is no downside to doing so, and no incentive to simply use the battalion's FA slots.

For that matter, if I also wanted 3 more Troops choices, for the low cost of yet another compulsory HQ slot I can field another battalion and get another +5 CP. This is a much better list design decision than simply filling out the first battalion's optional Troops slots.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

2. Come up with a solution that doesn't mess up any current armies, nor make the game too complex/slow.

I'd like to see players get rewarded for filling the slots in their primary detachment by gaining more CP for doing so. Something to the effect of +1 CP for every Troops slot taken beyond the compulsory 3, and then +1 CP for filling out each category in the detachment. So, +1 CP for taking the 3rd HQ slot, +3 CP for filling the Troops slots, +1 CP for filling the Elites slots, +1 CP for filling the Fast Attack slots, +1 CP for filling the Heavy Support slots, and +1 CP for filling the Flyer slots. That would make a fully fleshed out battalion generate 13 CP - just 1 more than a brigade generates, for the same spread of units.

Check out a few Proposed Rules threads if you want to see all the different theories about how to fix CP/detatchements/soup.

My favorite is still the "Detatchemnts Cost Points" option. But there are a lot of ideas.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

I'd like to see players get rewarded for filling the slots in their primary detachment by gaining more CP for doing so. Something to the effect of +1 CP for every Troops slot taken beyond the compulsory 3, and then +1 CP for filling out each category in the detachment. So, +1 CP for taking the 3rd HQ slot, +3 CP for filling the Troops slots, +1 CP for filling the Elites slots, +1 CP for filling the Fast Attack slots, +1 CP for filling the Heavy Support slots, and +1 CP for filling the Flyer slots. That would make a fully fleshed out battalion generate 13 CP - just 1 more than a brigade generates, for the same spread of units.

Yes, the Imperial Guard definitely needs even greater advantage for CP generation than they already have!

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Have we seen a Guard army that was an issue because of CP that wasn't funneling them into another army this edition? I mean other than under costed earthshaker/ conscript spam (both which were fixed) every broken army involving guard that i can think of involved CP sharing as its central broken mechanic

This is because there were couple of units (Smash Captain, Custodes Bike Captains and Castellans) that happened to be even better than what Guard Codex can offer. Two of these things have been nerfed (via the fly nerf) and it remains to be seen whether Castellans will get a nerf too in the CA. Guard fuelling their own super heavies would absolutely still be a problem, especially in an environment where the competing factions lacked the CP to effectively use their own stratagems. We just didn't see it because there were those couple of better targets for this tactic. Banning soup (or effectively banning ti like Peregrine suggest) would basically result 'play guard or go home' situation for the Imperium.

You claim that guard alone without the other units would "absolutely be a problem"..... yet they arent. After the fly nerf its not like mono guard too its place. Also, soup having a drawback would buff every army in the game that cannot soup (necrons, orks, Tau). It would also make it easier to buff other imperium armies without needing to worry about their strategems getting out of control thanks to guard. Your post literally shows that guard has only been an issue when taking into consideration CP sharing cross faction

Asmodios wrote:

You claim that guard alone without the other units would "absolutely be a problem"..... yet they arent. After the fly nerf its not like mono guard too its place. Also, soup having a drawback would buff every army in the game that cannot soup (necrons, orks, Tau). It would also make it easier to buff other imperium armies without needing to worry about their strategems getting out of control thanks to guard. Your post literally shows that guard has only been an issue when taking into consideration CP sharing cross faction

Only because IG + something else was even (at least slightly) better than pure IG! Do you really think that pure Space Marines or pure Ad Mech could compete with pure IG? Look at the new Indomitus Crusade formation one CP + one CP more per unit of Intercessors before the game even starts! Do you think a pure Space Marine army has the CP to effectively use that formation? Meanwhile Guard has no such issues with theirs.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

You claim that guard alone without the other units would "absolutely be a problem"..... yet they arent. After the fly nerf its not like mono guard too its place. Also, soup having a drawback would buff every army in the game that cannot soup (necrons, orks, Tau). It would also make it easier to buff other imperium armies without needing to worry about their strategems getting out of control thanks to guard. Your post literally shows that guard has only been an issue when taking into consideration CP sharing cross faction

Only because IG + something else was even (at least slightly) better than pure IG! Do you really think that pure Space Marines or pure Ad Mech could compete with pure IG? Look at the new Indomitus Crusade formation one CP + one CP more per unit of Intercessors before the game even starts! Do you think a pure Space Marine army has the CP to effectively use that formation? Meanwhile Guard has no such issues with theirs.

Pure SM won quite a few more tournaments then pure guard. I mean your saying this once again in another thread with all evidence supporting CP sharing being an issue instead of pure guard

 Crimson wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

I'd like to see players get rewarded for filling the slots in their primary detachment by gaining more CP for doing so. Something to the effect of +1 CP for every Troops slot taken beyond the compulsory 3, and then +1 CP for filling out each category in the detachment. So, +1 CP for taking the 3rd HQ slot, +3 CP for filling the Troops slots, +1 CP for filling the Elites slots, +1 CP for filling the Fast Attack slots, +1 CP for filling the Heavy Support slots, and +1 CP for filling the Flyer slots. That would make a fully fleshed out battalion generate 13 CP - just 1 more than a brigade generates, for the same spread of units.

Yes, the Imperial Guard definitely needs even greater advantage for CP generation than they already have!

It's already ridiculously easy for IG to field a brigade, so they wouldn't get much benefit from filling out a battalion instead. But you might have a point about such benefits not applying to all detachments as a whole, but instead just battalions. Though if they were going to apply to brigades, seems to me one could just as easily just take 2 brigades.

Asmodios wrote:

Pure SM won quite a few more tournaments then pure guard. I mean your saying this once again in another thread with all evidence supporting CP sharing being an issue instead of pure guard

Early in the edition via Guilliman parking lot. The fact is that it is unfair for Guard to have much more CP than other the factions. That Guard players are upset that other factions can 'borrow' this broken mechanic of theirs is just them being greedy, and wanting to keep this OP stuff for themselves. Have you looked at the new formations and how CP intensive some of them are? Existence of these things just increase the disparity of haves and have-nots on the CP department.