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.

 skchsan wrote:
What about limiting 1 stratagem per phase per unit?

Would curtailing wombocombo solve the problem in any way?

Yes and no, some combos relly on more then one stratagem see votlw and cacophony, others relly more on psy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Except your wilfully ignoring that the Overpower of the unit your complaining about is not in the base unit datasheet but in the stacking of strategums. To the tune of 7 or 8 CP per turn, try and play that for more than 2 turns in pure codex knight list you won't do it, or you will but will have ruined the list to max CP and loose anyway.

You compare units under strategum etc buffs then state the unit is OP, if it's only balanced when sinking 50% of a 2k lists CP from that codex into it in a single turn, the unit would be trash tier 90% of the time, if a Castellen datasheet is so broken where are the renegade Castellen's? The balance problem is soup because the CP system isn't consistent, so codex's cant be balanced against a 2k list will have 15CP, they can currently have between 4 and 20+ CP.

And I would argue that a Castellan getting even a 3++ or 4++ once is OP. That's why I'm saying Knights need a whole redesign.

Also you already know that the Chaos equivalent lacks a codex (since when did we count what are basically Indices?), so don't play dumb.

thr datasheet in that index is tge exact same stats as tge imperial Knight's codex, hence my point that your wrong the unit is the same, if it was OP the choas one is OP.

The knights codex actually works fairly well and is relatively balanced when run as a mono codex, i suspect that your just one of those people who are stuck on second edition army scale and dont want knights in the gamw full stop rather than actually having a legitimate reason.

Dont like shooting a knight with a 3++, guess what in a mono knights list their will be another one without that you can shoot.

Oh you ment the 1400 points of Guard and 1 Castellen, so not a knights problem as they contribute 0CP to that list, more of a guard problem like seriously an entire brigade that had no use for CP untill vigilous book.
WTF GW that was a codex designed to abuse allies rules by the design team.

At this point allies arn't going anywhere the CP system is a joke it should be scrapped and just hand out 1CP per 100 or 200 points in matched play games.

Ice_can wrote:

At this point allies arn't going anywhere the CP system is a joke it should be scrapped and just hand out 1CP per 100 or 200 points in matched play games.

I disagree with a lot in your post, but I mostly agree with this last point. The main issue with "souping" seems to be the feeling of obligation to mix in a cheap batallion of something to fuel the normally limited stratagems of something else.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one is all that bothered about Codex: Heretic Astartes giving access to a relatively wide range of unit type (squishy cheap troops, more expensive and durable units, etc.) Similarly, an army potentially including both guardsmen and space marines in an army alongside sisters or skitaari isn't innately problematic from a competitive standpoint. If all armies have enough competitive choices to field competitive armies, then the number of second-stringer units that don't make their way into a tournament winning list don't really matter. Again, speaking purely from a competitive stance.

What does matter is that GW seems to have priced stratagems around the premise that they'll be used as part of a mono-dex army and yet the ally rules allow you to dramatically increase the number of CP you have available to fuel those stratagems. As a result of this extreme efficiency, less efficient options begin to feel like non-options.

So with that in mind, we should divorce CP generation from unit selection (Ice_Can's suggestion is one way of doing that), and we should cost stratagems around a common metric of usefulness rather than on a 'dex-by-'dex basis that uses troop cost as a metric for stratagem cost. Give a mono'dex knights army the same number of CP as a list full of guard brigades and batallions, and price Rotate Ion Shields appropriately.

Stratagems represent X CP worth of leverage. Let CP is effectively th emeasure of how much stratagem-based leverage you get over the course of a game. Let all players have the same amount of leverage, and you remove this awkward set of troop-based dependencies that seems to be at the root of complaints about soup.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Except your wilfully ignoring that the Overpower of the unit your complaining about is not in the base unit datasheet but in the stacking of strategums. To the tune of 7 or 8 CP per turn, try and play that for more than 2 turns in pure codex knight list you won't do it, or you will but will have ruined the list to max CP and loose anyway.

You compare units under strategum etc buffs then state the unit is OP, if it's only balanced when sinking 50% of a 2k lists CP from that codex into it in a single turn, the unit would be trash tier 90% of the time, if a Castellen datasheet is so broken where are the renegade Castellen's? The balance problem is soup because the CP system isn't consistent, so codex's cant be balanced against a 2k list will have 15CP, they can currently have between 4 and 20+ CP.

And I would argue that a Castellan getting even a 3++ or 4++ once is OP. That's why I'm saying Knights need a whole redesign.

Also you already know that the Chaos equivalent lacks a codex (since when did we count what are basically Indices?), so don't play dumb.

thr datasheet in that index is tge exact same stats as tge imperial Knight's codex, hence my point that your wrong the unit is the same, if it was OP the choas one is OP.

The knights codex actually works fairly well and is relatively balanced when run as a mono codex, i suspect that your just one of those people who are stuck on second edition army scale and dont want knights in the gamw full stop rather than actually having a legitimate reason.

Dont like shooting a knight with a 3++, guess what in a mono knights list their will be another one without that you can shoot.

Oh you ment the 1400 points of Guard and 1 Castellen, so not a knights problem as they contribute 0CP to that list, more of a guard problem like seriously an entire brigade that had no use for CP untill vigilous book.
WTF GW that was a codex designed to abuse allies rules by the design team.

At this point allies arn't going anywhere the CP system is a joke it should be scrapped and just hand out 1CP per 100 or 200 points in matched play games.

"Same exact"
Except for the Household traits once you take some Armigers or more Knights, the Relics, the Warlord traits, and THEN the Strategems.

The issue is that horde armies need lots of CP and elite lists need less CP, but by taking both you can put the hordes CP onto the elite army.

I don't like the idea of divorcing CP from army construction, as it will remove any incentive for people to bring anything but their most powerful units. as it is, the only reason to take "troops tax" is to get the CP from a battalion or brigade. If you remove CP from the list building process, you'll just end up with a load of superheavies with all the CP to back them up.

I still prefer limiting who can spend the CP. there would be no problem with a knight showing up to support a guard army, but that knight would be without any CP to use, and so you might consider a baneblade a better option, due to the army synergy.

Also, you could still take a 50/50 split of guard and marines, but the marine chapter master won't be saying "I knew you were bringing these 32 guardsmen, so I brought my ultimate relic armour and super blade of death! don't tell them to do anything tactical, though, it won't work..."

Saying that a knight who has enough CP to have a 3++/4++ every turn is as powerful as one who can only do so once per turn, or as you said, by contributing 0CP, it would be able to do so never, is not right. at all. Clearly the knight who can use stratagems every turn is more powerful than the one which cannot.

I've still yet to hear anyone say "yes, I would take the loyal 32 in my army even if they were the only ones who can use their CP". because no-one would. People would bring a larger guard force, and allies would work like they are supposed to. Guardsmen are not batteries to fuel the chain of command of an allied army. there's no fluff to back it up. When people said that this is reflecting the guardsmans ability to hold a point and free up the marines - this is what the guardsmen can literally do. they literally will hold an objective and free marines up for other tasks. there's no need for them to contribute CP to the army.

Does it not seem off that a smaller marine rmy will have more CP than a larger marine army, if there are a bunch of guardsmen milling around at the back?

Disclaimer - this isn't specifically about guard and marines; guard are simply the most common and relatable use of this abuse.

People would still take the Loyal 32 or more because no other troop choice holds objectives better for any army that wants to be mobile.

You're literally being dishonest and lying if you don't think Knights, Custodes, or Deathwatch wouldn't use Infantry as an additive.

"You're literally being dishonest and lying if you don't think Knights, Custodes, or Deathwatch wouldn't use Infantry as an additive."

No, he's literally being dishonest if he *does* think that and says otherwise.

Not thinking that and saying so is both honest and not lying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The issue is that horde armies need lots of CP and elite lists need less CP, but by taking both you can put the hordes CP onto the elite army. "

Not really.

Which gets more out of most stratagems?
A 9-man Shining Spear squad, or a 10man Guardsmen squad?
A Castellian or an 8-man Storm Guardian squad?

Two units that are half as powerful and half as costly require twice as many CP to buff, if each buff could be used multiple times and on multiple targets. But, in practice, you only use CP to buff your beatsticks/deathstars/key pieces. The smaller, cheaper units are chaff that don't need to do as much individually or endure as much firepower. Because there's another unit behind them.

Orkz and maybe some GSC can do hordes that chew through CP. Otherwise, strats tend to get used on:
Castelians
ShiningSpear/Reaper Deathstars
20-man Guardian blobs (technically horde-ish, but for CP-spending, it's one unit for a reasonably high amount of points)

What strats tend to not get used on:
Guardsmen squads
10-man Guardians
Rangers
Kabs
etc

Can't say I've ever seen an Astra Militarum list that used any stratageums for the nost part untill vigilous, it was usually an Astra Millicheese list with bolt on detachment flavour of the month to spend all the CP. The idea that Astra Militarum even need strategums is at this point kinda rediculous, GW balanced their insane CP with trash strategums and kept their proper buffs in orders.
They along with Yannari and probably the two factions that wouldn't even be affected if stratageums were removed from the game tomorrow. While Tau and Orks would probably be a lot weaker.

Bharring wrote:
"You're literally being dishonest and lying if you don't think Knights, Custodes, or Deathwatch wouldn't use Infantry as an additive."

No, he's literally being dishonest if he *does* think that and says otherwise.

Not thinking that and saying so is both honest and not lying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The issue is that horde armies need lots of CP and elite lists need less CP, but by taking both you can put the hordes CP onto the elite army. "

Not really.

Which gets more out of most stratagems?
A 9-man Shining Spear squad, or a 10man Guardsmen squad?
A Castellian or an 8-man Storm Guardian squad?

Two units that are half as powerful and half as costly require twice as many CP to buff, if each buff could be used multiple times and on multiple targets. But, in practice, you only use CP to buff your beatsticks/deathstars/key pieces. The smaller, cheaper units are chaff that don't need to do as much individually or endure as much firepower. Because there's another unit behind them.

Orkz and maybe some GSC can do hordes that chew through CP. Otherwise, strats tend to get used on:
Castelians
ShiningSpear/Reaper Deathstars
20-man Guardian blobs (technically horde-ish, but for CP-spending, it's one unit for a reasonably high amount of points)

What strats tend to not get used on:
Guardsmen squads
10-man Guardians
Rangers
Kabs
etc

So you agree that 1CP spent on a guard stratagem is not equal to 1CP spent on a knight stratagem?

Why then should the CP generated by the guard be equal to the CP generated by the knights?

you have also pointed out that the guardsmen will seldom have CP spent on them, which is my whole point - if the loyal 32 could only spend their CP on imperial guard stuff, then you would probably bring some more useful stuff for them to spend it on, wouldn't you?

Yes, knights can ally in guardsmen to hold objectives and be meatshields - this is what allies should be. They should fill gaps which the first army falls down on. The fact that a pure knight list doesn't generate enough CP to use their special stratagems every turn isn't a weakness, it's a feature - it's how the army is balanced. If they were meant to use the stratagem every turn, it would just be a special rule, not a stratagem.

my army doesn't deal with holding objectives well, so I brought guard along to help - correct use of allies.
my army doesn't generate enough CP to use the tactics I want to, so I brought guard along to steal theirs - incorrect use of allies.

Regarding the tying of CP to the game size:

if you do so, then you will have to re-cost some stratagems. Allies aside, it's no secret that some armies generate more CP than others, and burn through it quicker as well. if you grant the amount of CP an average ork army has to a pure knight army, then it will become OP. You'll remove the need for soup, rather than the consequence of it - that elite armies are getting too much CP.

An idea came to my mind, not sure if I have thought it over fully but, for your consideration:

Battleforgeing gives X number of CPs. These CPs can be used for any stratagem that the Army unlocks.

Each detachment gives you more CPs, but those CPs can only be spent on that single detachment.

Units that "regenerate" CPs only add to their own detachment's CPs.

Yes, might be more paperwork, but you know what they made pen and paper for?

The problem with the detachment limit is that it prevents Spess Mahrine CP being used by another Spess Mahrine detachment in a Mono-Codex army and thus hobbles them.

What that rule needs is for CP generated by a detachment to only be spendable on stratagems unlocked by that detachment.

1) Book keeping is bad. To play this game already requires multiple books tracking of life points victory points command points and so on. Splitting command points into multiple pools that need to be tracked separately is a nightmare.

2) what happens when you spend general CP on a model that can regenerate CP? Do those return to the general CP or only their own pool?

3)There are easier and more elegant solutions. We don't need to add complexity we need to reduce it.

 some bloke wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"You're literally being dishonest and lying if you don't think Knights, Custodes, or Deathwatch wouldn't use Infantry as an additive."

No, he's literally being dishonest if he *does* think that and says otherwise.

Not thinking that and saying so is both honest and not lying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The issue is that horde armies need lots of CP and elite lists need less CP, but by taking both you can put the hordes CP onto the elite army. "

Not really.

Which gets more out of most stratagems?
A 9-man Shining Spear squad, or a 10man Guardsmen squad?
A Castellian or an 8-man Storm Guardian squad?

Two units that are half as powerful and half as costly require twice as many CP to buff, if each buff could be used multiple times and on multiple targets. But, in practice, you only use CP to buff your beatsticks/deathstars/key pieces. The smaller, cheaper units are chaff that don't need to do as much individually or endure as much firepower. Because there's another unit behind them.

Orkz and maybe some GSC can do hordes that chew through CP. Otherwise, strats tend to get used on:
Castelians
ShiningSpear/Reaper Deathstars
20-man Guardian blobs (technically horde-ish, but for CP-spending, it's one unit for a reasonably high amount of points)

What strats tend to not get used on:
Guardsmen squads
10-man Guardians
Rangers
Kabs
etc

So you agree that 1CP spent on a guard stratagem is not equal to 1CP spent on a knight stratagem?

Why then should the CP generated by the guard be equal to the CP generated by the knights?

you have also pointed out that the guardsmen will seldom have CP spent on them, which is my whole point - if the loyal 32 could only spend their CP on imperial guard stuff, then you would probably bring some more useful stuff for them to spend it on, wouldn't you?

Yes, knights can ally in guardsmen to hold objectives and be meatshields - this is what allies should be. They should fill gaps which the first army falls down on. The fact that a pure knight list doesn't generate enough CP to use their special stratagems every turn isn't a weakness, it's a feature - it's how the army is balanced. If they were meant to use the stratagem every turn, it would just be a special rule, not a stratagem.

my army doesn't deal with holding objectives well, so I brought guard along to help - correct use of allies.
my army doesn't generate enough CP to use the tactics I want to, so I brought guard along to steal theirs - incorrect use of allies.

Regarding the tying of CP to the game size:

if you do so, then you will have to re-cost some stratagems. Allies aside, it's no secret that some armies generate more CP than others, and burn through it quicker as well. if you grant the amount of CP an average ork army has to a pure knight army, then it will become OP. You'll remove the need for soup, rather than the consequence of it - that elite armies are getting too much CP.

All the strategums need recosted anyway, regardless of what tge change is a number of codex's have had their stratageums recosted around the cheap availability of Guard CP already.

Also having CP be a fixed value for gamesize removes the balance issue of an army with stupid cheap CP being able to spam CP rerolls every phase vrs an elite list not having that ability.
Should a guard player be able to reroll every phase for a baneblade chassis, but a marine player can't afford the same "universal strategum" every turn on a predator?

Either everything is baselined to a common level or every codex has to have it's own cost for even the generic strategums.

Regenerating cp should never have been a thing on any level for any army.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Book keeping is bad. To play this game already requires multiple books tracking of life points victory points command points and so on. Splitting command points into multiple pools that need to be tracked separately is a nightmare.

2) what happens when you spend general CP on a model that can regenerate CP? Do those return to the general CP or only their own pool?

3)There are easier and more elegant solutions. We don't need to add complexity we need to reduce it.

Yea it's a nightmare to take a piece of paper and pen, draw columns for each detachment, and write down how much starting CP each one has one. It's a task fit for a king to cross out that number and write down a new one when CP is spent. It's borderline impossible to cross out the above and add CP back when you regenerate it. There is no way to say limit the regenerated CP to what ever detachment who caused the regeneration.

Seriously 8th probably has the least amount of book keeping compared to any other edition. The game has pretty much never been more stripped and streamlined outside of remember which stratagems my army has access to.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Book keeping is bad. To play this game already requires multiple books tracking of life points victory points command points and so on. Splitting command points into multiple pools that need to be tracked separately is a nightmare.

2) what happens when you spend general CP on a model that can regenerate CP? Do those return to the general CP or only their own pool?

3)There are easier and more elegant solutions. We don't need to add complexity we need to reduce it.

Yea it's a nightmare to take a piece of paper and pen, draw columns for each detachment, and write down how much starting CP each one has one. It's a task fit for a king to cross out that number and write down a new one when CP is spent. It's borderline impossible to cross out the above and add CP back when you regenerate it. There is no way to say limit the regenerated CP to what ever detachment who caused the regeneration.

Seriously 8th probably has the least amount of book keeping compared to any other edition. The game has pretty much never been more stripped and streamlined outside of remember which stratagems my army has access to.

AND to remember which unit of x is from detachment 1 and which unit of x is from detachment 2 and which unit of x is from detachment 3.

8th has stripped back the bookkeeping. Not nearly enough but quite a lot. Don't take steps backwards by adding it back in.

You can make the petty shell of an argument you are by sarcastically belittling the argument against bookkeeping by making out to be SUCH a small and minor inconvenience but a inconvenience is exactly what it is and your full of gak if you think it's anything but.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Book keeping is bad. To play this game already requires multiple books tracking of life points victory points command points and so on. Splitting command points into multiple pools that need to be tracked separately is a nightmare.

There's two responses for this: Firstly, it isn't that hard to keep 2-3 numbers going instead of one. Most people I've played have kept track of CP on some dice. It would be easy for people to just keep 2 sets of dice, or written numbers, for their two armies. Secondly, if CP isn't shared, you will dramatically reduce the use of minimal detachments, because the only reason people take a minimal detachment of cheap units with no decent fire support or backup, is to unlock more CP for their "real" army. if they can't do that, you'll go from having several tiny allies fuelling the main core of your army to an army comprised of 2 or maybe 3 detachments of armies which are internally balanced and synergise with one another - you might have guard tooled for anti-infantry, whilst the marines go anti-tank. Which I think is a better thing than 32 guys standing around holding objectives and throwing their CP onto their allies.

 Lance845 wrote:
2) what happens when you spend general CP on a model that can regenerate CP? Do those return to the general CP or only their own pool?

This is a good point, and so I guess the easiest method is to remove the idea of "general CP", and just keep it army specific. If the tau want to reroll, the tau can spend the point to do so.

 Lance845 wrote:
3)AND to remember which unit of x is from detachment 1 and which unit of x is from detachment 2 and which unit of x is from detachment 3.

I don't propose that the CP are confined to the detachment, only the codex. Like BCB said, limiting it to the detachment which generated it would hurt mono-build armies with multiple detachments, and like you said, would make t nigh on impossible to keep detachments of the same army separate. Keeping it that CP are linked to the codex which generates them is the most sensible way to do it - however it has to be written to achieve the effect.

At that point it will be quite easy to work out what is a guardsman and what is a marine, unless you're using proxies.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Book keeping is bad. To play this game already requires multiple books tracking of life points victory points command points and so on. Splitting command points into multiple pools that need to be tracked separately is a nightmare.

2) what happens when you spend general CP on a model that can regenerate CP? Do those return to the general CP or only their own pool?

3)There are easier and more elegant solutions. We don't need to add complexity we need to reduce it.

1. Others have responded to this. For major events, you already have your army on a sheet of paper. You track your CPs for each detachment on there. Most events only use max of 3 detachments. Pen and paper is never going away. Even if you load up your list to Battlescribe or BCP, you need pen and paper to track the various things that change in each game.

2. The CPs go to the Detachment that regenerated it. I think I already said that in my original proposal. This helps filter down where the CPs are at and who can use them. You might have spent the CPs on a Knight stratagem, but the AM Detachment get's the bonus regenerated CP, which then can only be spent on AM Detachment stratagems. This also forces you to really think about what stratagems you really need those "Pool" CPs spent on.

3. If there are easier and more elegant solutions they would have already been proposed and agreed on. Adding more proposals to the table help filter out bad solutions. This might be a bad idea, but I am taking a chance and presenting it.

The idea behind this was based on how Stratagems were presented in the BRB. Each detachment brings their own supplies to the army and each can used those supplies to do what they need to do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problem with the detachment limit is that it prevents Spess Mahrine CP being used by another Spess Mahrine detachment in a Mono-Codex army and thus hobbles them.

What that rule needs is for CP generated by a detachment to only be spendable on stratagems unlocked by that detachment.

That is the idea behind the "pool" CP. That larger generic pool can be used for any detachment in the army. But then each detachment would have their own mini-pool to spend from.

Of course this means a total rewrite of how many cps the pool and each detachment would be. I know the current numbers would not work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Book keeping is bad. To play this game already requires multiple books tracking of life points victory points command points and so on. Splitting command points into multiple pools that need to be tracked separately is a nightmare.

2) what happens when you spend general CP on a model that can regenerate CP? Do those return to the general CP or only their own pool?

3)There are easier and more elegant solutions. We don't need to add complexity we need to reduce it.

Yea it's a nightmare to take a piece of paper and pen, draw columns for each detachment, and write down how much starting CP each one has one. It's a task fit for a king to cross out that number and write down a new one when CP is spent. It's borderline impossible to cross out the above and add CP back when you regenerate it. There is no way to say limit the regenerated CP to what ever detachment who caused the regeneration.

Seriously 8th probably has the least amount of book keeping compared to any other edition. The game has pretty much never been more stripped and streamlined outside of remember which stratagems my army has access to.

AND to remember which unit of x is from detachment 1 and which unit of x is from detachment 2 and which unit of x is from detachment 3.

8th has stripped back the bookkeeping. Not nearly enough but quite a lot. Don't take steps backwards by adding it back in.

You can make the petty shell of an argument you are by sarcastically belittling the argument against bookkeeping by making out to be SUCH a small and minor inconvenience but a inconvenience is exactly what it is and your full of gak if you think it's anything but.

If you run multiple detachments with different Factions, you already have to remember that. For example, Necrons could have three different DYNASTYs for their warriors. There are very easy ways of marking bases or even simple shoulder pad colors to signify different detachments.

 Lance845 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Book keeping is bad. To play this game already requires multiple books tracking of life points victory points command points and so on. Splitting command points into multiple pools that need to be tracked separately is a nightmare.

2) what happens when you spend general CP on a model that can regenerate CP? Do those return to the general CP or only their own pool?

3)There are easier and more elegant solutions. We don't need to add complexity we need to reduce it.

Yea it's a nightmare to take a piece of paper and pen, draw columns for each detachment, and write down how much starting CP each one has one. It's a task fit for a king to cross out that number and write down a new one when CP is spent. It's borderline impossible to cross out the above and add CP back when you regenerate it. There is no way to say limit the regenerated CP to what ever detachment who caused the regeneration.

Seriously 8th probably has the least amount of book keeping compared to any other edition. The game has pretty much never been more stripped and streamlined outside of remember which stratagems my army has access to.

AND to remember which unit of x is from detachment 1 and which unit of x is from detachment 2 and which unit of x is from detachment 3.

8th has stripped back the bookkeeping. Not nearly enough but quite a lot. Don't take steps backwards by adding it back in.

You can make the petty shell of an argument you are by sarcastically belittling the argument against bookkeeping by making out to be SUCH a small and minor inconvenience but a inconvenience is exactly what it is and your full of gak if you think it's anything but.

Um your list is a pretty good way to remember what units are from what detachment. Compared to 7th it's a lot simpler since detachments no longer have a ton of bloated rules that came with formations. Is it a bit more work and book keeping. Yes it is but that's a small price to pay for something I feel would dramatically improve game balance and shake the meta up.

As for not going far enough with cutting book keeping how much simpler do you want the game to be? 8th is by far the most stripped away edition in terms of rules and abilities.

What about making detachments giving you CP per turn instead of a flat amount.

So instead of the Amount we have for detachments (0,1,3,5,12) Why not make it that detachments generate additional command points at the beginning of each turn a.k.a Kill team rule set.

It could work like this. You generate X amount of CP based on your highest detachment.

This could be like so:

Brigade = 4
Battalion, Knight Super heavy Detachment,Codex specific Detachment bonuses =3
Super heavy detachment, Flyer wing = 2
Specialized HQ + filler detachments = 1
Patrol, aux detachment = 0

While you gain flat CP at the beginning that only apply for strats that work before the battle begins for certain conditions.

Battleforged = 3
Warlord under 10 wounds = 2
Warlord over 10 wounds = 3
More troops roles than your opponent =1

While taking flat CP away for certain things.

Aux detachment = -1
Non Mono Dex army = -1


This would mean you would have a limited pool of initial CP to use for before the battle, while your CP would be tied down to the highest detachment you brought to the game.

This would favor armies that build list based on Composition, rather than repetition. Which is the current format