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.

Yay, another CP thread.

Make CP for all armies - regardless of size and detachments - a fixed number(let's say 9-10 CP. For granularity we could have 5 CP for 1k games, 7 cp for 1.5k games, and 9 for 2k games). I have now single-handedly fixed all soup and battery issues that are not reliant on an OP unit or OP faction trait. Then cost stratagems according to this limit

I am truly the God Hand.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

On a more serious note it's because niether side see's anything wrong with how they want to play the game being the only way to play. Anyone else is just needs to "learn to play" 40k the "correct way".

 Eldarsif wrote:
Yay, another CP thread.

Make CP for all armies - regardless of size and detachments - a fixed number(let's say 9-10 CP. For granularity we could have 5 CP for 1k games, 7 cp for 1.5k games, and 9 for 2k games). I have now single-handedly fixed all soup and battery issues that are not reliant on an OP unit or OP faction trait. Then cost stratagems according to this limit

I am truly the God Hand.

For eldar maybe, because they need CP mostly for vect 1-2 per game. For someone playing BA, who needs around 20 CP, his army stops working after turn 1 with 10 CP.

For eldar maybe, because they need CP mostly for vect 1-2 per game. For someone playing BA, who needs around 20 CP, his army stops working after turn 1 with 10 CP.

You forgot to take into account my statement about CP being balanced towards 10 CP overall. It's about normalizing CP deployment and use instead of the current flex-state we live in. Then there is literal codex balance that needs to be addressed that is in no way connected to CP generation, but units getting either subpar rules or badly costed. Your precious Grey Knights is an example of a codex that is just atrocious and needs to be burned down to ashes before being rebuilt as something that works.

Also, BA is never going to have 20 CP unless they are using Imperial Batteries. They will often average about 10 CP mono depending on composition.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
They are possibly addressing the change that has been getting "teased" since 2019ish. Make troops the only thing that can hold objectives. Bam - troops just became relevant, and meta gets a shakeup.

And Fast Attack becomes even more irrelevant (for most armies anyway)

Until the community starts playing Warhammer instead of ITChammer, it won't matter what gets changed.

Lemondish wrote:
Until the community starts playing Warhammer instead of ITChammer, it won't matter what gets changed.

That's a pile of gak and you should know better. Even GW has conformed to aspects of ITC. ITC is simply a mission style. It doesn't make a unit any better or worse than GW's mission that removes invulnerable saves or requires characters to capture an objective.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Until the community starts playing Warhammer instead of ITChammer, it won't matter what gets changed.

That's a pile of gak and you should know better. Even GW has conformed to aspects of ITC. ITC is simply a mission style. It doesn't make a unit any better or worse than GW's mission that removes invulnerable saves or requires characters to capture an objective.

BUY THIS MAN A BEER!

Grumble grumble wierd interactions with terrain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Yay, another CP thread.

Make CP for all armies - regardless of size and detachments - a fixed number(let's say 9-10 CP. For granularity we could have 5 CP for 1k games, 7 cp for 1.5k games, and 9 for 2k games). I have now single-handedly fixed all soup and battery issues that are not reliant on an OP unit or OP faction trait. Then cost stratagems according to this limit

I am truly the God Hand.

Eldarsif, when is your ascension near, also will you put in a good word for me?

I just found this article, and I think it proposes some great ideas.

I'm with the author, option 1 is his best idea.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/03/40k-doctor-putting-soup-out-of-its-misery.html

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just found this article, and I think it proposes some great ideas.

I'm with the author, option 1 is his best idea.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/03/40k-doctor-putting-soup-out-of-its-misery.html

You know, I would be fine with it as GW has already fixed Aeldari soup as a permanent addition in the game. Because when people discuss soup issues they seem to forget that Aeldari soup is for all intents and purposes a mono-faction called Ynnari. This would just mean Ynnari would just be more Ynnari, Word of the Phoenix would still be OP, Strength from death would still be OP, and you couldn't use covens, but that wouldn't change much as craftworlds would still have access to Drukhari, I mean Ynnari, flyers of all kinds as well as Ynnari Ravagers who will have access to psychic powers, Shining Spears, Skyweavers, and Dark Reapers.

This fix would at best remove IG+Castellan and therefore enforce that the strongest mono-faction in the game would be Ynnari. As a collector most things Elf I have just one thing to add: I like it.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That's a pile of gak and you should know better. Even GW has conformed to aspects of ITC. ITC is simply a mission style. It doesn't make a unit any better or worse than GW's mission that removes invulnerable saves or requires characters to capture an objective.

Yeah, fundamentally altering the ways in which particular units can interact with one another, and in some cases arbitrarily precluding it altogether, doesnt change anything at all.

Wait.

What?

They pretend that first floor ruins are LOS blockers. How is that different if I set up a table with ruins that have no windows or holes on the first floor?

I didn’t think of it that way. Let’s do it! The only “soup” possible is us! Wooh!

Not "soup", but "mega-mono" faction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfYnvDL0Qcw

I am not a fan of many of his proposed fixes from the Bell of Lost Souls article - it seems his issues are not just with soup but with 8th edition detachments in general. The first few look like "throw-away COAs." They would hurt mono-codex forces that are innocent bystanders to all of this. There are some fun builds in my Codex, for example, that would not really be possible with his suggestions. Those builds (Ravenwing) are not running away with the tournament scene either. Orks would also face major problems, probably Nids as well.

I could get behind some reigning-in of specific CP builds. Perhaps only the first detachment counts for full CP; after that you only get one 1 CP per detachment. So if you take two Battalions you get +6 CP instead of +10. You want lots of CP? You are bringing a Brigade. This would restrict some of the Astra Militarum/Aeldari shenanigans while still allowing diversity in mono-codex forces. I could also agree with forcing Supreme Command detachments to have to match the keyword of at least one other Detachment. You want your three Captains on Dawn Eagles? You also have to have at least some other Custodes Detachment in there somewhere.

Truth be told, I think that two rather specific fixes could take away much of the Soup angst:

a. Reword Rotate Ion Shields so that no invul save can be improved past a 4++. Suddenly Castellans don't need all those CP.

b. Only allow Aeldari Psychic powers Doom and Jinx to affect targets of <Craftworld> units. So an Alaitoc Farseer's powers would only affect the results of hits from Alaitoc units. Wounds/Saves from the shooting other units lacking <Craftworld> would be unaffected by those powers. Now Drukhari have to live without Psychic powers - like they were meant to.

Perhaps these would take two of the flies out of the Soup? I think that Smash Captains were already restricted by the last Big FAQ, although other Flyers suffered collateral damage.

Anyhoo, I'm a player and not a game designer. I'll happily play against Soup with my mono-Codex force, but I'd be happier if some of the shenanigans were curtailed.

(edited to make it more clear which proposals I was disagreeing with...)

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Im not sure how it would hurt my Salamanders or Metalica.

as long as you can still use the cp generated by the additional non-warlord detachment on that same detachment, it should be fine.

To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

Racerguy180 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Im not sure how it would hurt my Salamanders or Metalica.

as long as you can still use the cp generated by the additional non-warlord detachment on that same detachment, it should be fine.

If you have multiple detachments from the same faction then it would absolutely matter. I don't favour book-keeping as it is. Tracking CPs by detachment would be tedious, and pointless if you have all detachments from the same faction.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

Well... this is the first ever edition to use these mechanics.

"b. Only allow Aeldari Psychic powers Doom and Jinx to affect targets of <Craftworld> units. So an Alaitoc Farseer's powers would only affect the results of hits from Alaitoc units. Wounds/Saves from the shooting other units lacking <Craftworld> would be unaffected by those powers. Now Drukhari have to live without Psychic powers - like they were meant to. "

As long as we do this for everything.

So Khorne demons/marked can't benefit from Death Hex?
Although it should really be <Asuryani>, if you do this at all. Otherwise, the majority of their Special Characters can't get the benefit, even if they're part of the same detatchment as the Farseer/Warlock...

While we're at it, are we also going to make sure that Guardsmen can't benefit from their Knight buddy deleting threats to them?

I get that Null Zone is worthless, but it's fairly clear that Null Zone is supposed strip invulns from targets whether it's Marines or Other Chapter Marines (or even Guardsmen) shooting at the target. Same with every other debuff in the game. What reason is there to believe only Asuryani debuffs are supposed to work that way?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

These never existed before. Stratagems in particular I think were a good idea but very poorly implemented when A) they became special things for every faction and B) being so closely tied to CP that it makes you want to game CP to power them. When it was just the 3 ones in the core book it was fine. As soon as they started adding special snowflake stratagems to every faction, including some things that used to be baseline abilities, is when it went downhill IMHO.

The closest thing to them were the old Strategy Cards in 2nd edition and to be honest I don't remember how those worked. But they were nothing like these.

Wayniac wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

These never existed before. Stratagems in particular I think were a good idea but very poorly implemented when A) they became special things for every faction and B) being so closely tied to CP that it makes you want to game CP to power them. When it was just the 3 ones in the core book it was fine. As soon as they started adding special snowflake stratagems to every faction, including some things that used to be baseline abilities, is when it went downhill IMHO.

The closest thing to them were the old Strategy Cards in 2nd edition and to be honest I don't remember how those worked. But they were nothing like these.

Actually, no, you had stratagems in 7th with things like Ultramarine (and later SM in general) abilities granted by Gladius. The only difference was that they were X uses per game, instead of using CPs. I despised the extra book-keeping, at least with CPs you can just put d20 to the side and only track one number.

Sooooo what you’re saying is they weren’t Stratagems, and the previous poster was correct... Stratagems and associated CP resource management was a new way of covering this type of stuff introduced with 8th.

Bharring wrote:
"b. Only allow Aeldari Psychic powers Doom and Jinx to affect targets of <Craftworld> units. So an Alaitoc Farseer's powers would only affect the results of hits from Alaitoc units. Wounds/Saves from the shooting other units lacking <Craftworld> would be unaffected by those powers. Now Drukhari have to live without Psychic powers - like they were meant to. "

As long as we do this for everything.

So Khorne demons/marked can't benefit from Death Hex?
Although it should really be <Asuryani>, if you do this at all. Otherwise, the majority of their Special Characters can't get the benefit, even if they're part of the same detatchment as the Farseer/Warlock...

While we're at it, are we also going to make sure that Guardsmen can't benefit from their Knight buddy deleting threats to them?

I get that Null Zone is worthless, but it's fairly clear that Null Zone is supposed strip invulns from targets whether it's Marines or Other Chapter Marines (or even Guardsmen) shooting at the target. Same with every other debuff in the game. What reason is there to believe only Asuryani debuffs are supposed to work that way?

Sure. I think those are fairly minor cases compared to the Eldar/Dark Eldar wombo-combo but what's good for the goose I suppose. Still, wth bespoke rules we can be selective. Acknowledged on Asuryani vs <Craftworld>.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:
How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Warlord's faction seems fair to me. I'd also add that only detachments from the Warlord's faction may generate command points.

I had to go through this thread doing a lot of editing and would like to remind everyone that the rules here are not optional, please follow them.
Thanks,
ingtaer.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

You're cute Fezzik, I like you

As stated, this is the first edition with these mechanics, so no idea. However, there was a some-sorta-kind-of-if-you-squint-real-hard similar mechanic in something called Formations back in 6th and 7th edition. In 6th it was Apocalypse only, and you paid points for them. In 7th it moved to regular rules, and they were free. What you did is have some pre-arranged assembly of units, and they'd form a formation. For example, a simple formation was to take a Harlequin Shadowseer, Death Jester, and Solitaire, and called it a formation of "The Heroe's Path". This made all the models in that formation better in some way. In a way, it's like saying "take these specific units, and every turn you can use this stratagem on each of the units". GW made a LOT of these formations, of varying power. Some were cute and did very little (like making a near all-bike force immune to Dangerous Terrain tests, which were tests for avoiding crashing into trees and stuff). Others were very powerful (you get to reroll all failed hit rolls, and it ignores cover, and you can move and shoot at no penalty, and you make more shots, and all you had to take for this were 2 of a really powerful unit that you'd take anyways).

Then GW decided to go into OVERDRIVE and released the Decurion and the Gladius Strike Force and other stuff - formations of formations. Pretty much, these were forces that could double-dip into formation benefits, getting all the benefits of whatever formation they were in, plus additional bonuses for being part of the "Decurion". Infamously, the Gladius Strike Force gave Objective Secured to every unit in it, including the transports, and they got Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods for free (0 points). Yeah, playing the Gladius Strike Force often gave you +25% points to your army.


In effect, GW released too many formations, too many ways to abuse them, and because it looked like formations were helping to sell the game, they hypercharged them to push sales even harder. It's very much like how everyone getting more and more stratagems right now isn't maybe good for the game? There's better ways of doing it - but GW is a business, and the business sees that MOAR STRATAGEMS, MOAR CP is a seller, so they're pushing it MOAR. However, because 8th is just a fundamentally better game, with better pulleys and levers on the strength of armies, and GW is willing to be more involved with fixing problematic stuff... it's not so bad.

So, to answer you question; "Yes, it's always been this way", but the core of what "this way" is simply changes as time goes on.

Formations actually started in 6th.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Im not sure how it would hurt my Salamanders or Metalica.

as long as you can still use the cp generated by the additional non-warlord detachment on that same detachment, it should be fine.

If you have multiple detachments from the same faction then it would absolutely matter. I don't favour book-keeping as it is. Tracking CPs by detachment would be tedious, and pointless if you have all detachments from the same faction.

I'm sorry, I think I didnt get it explained enough.

take my Most recent list

Salamanders
2 x Battalions
currently i would get 5 for each and 3 for battleforged.

my warlord is in 1 battalion but since other battalion is same faction.

now if I add a Metalica battalion I would get a total of 18 command points. 13 from SM & 5 from Admech.

my warlord is SM, so I get 13 cp to spend (on crappy strats) & 5 on Admech ones.

any of this make sense to anyone else?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Formations actually started in 6th.

Formations existed in Apocalypse in 5th and I think 4th as well. But they didn't give much in the way of benefits and were mostly for vehicles if memory serves.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sooooo what you’re saying is they weren’t Stratagems, and the previous poster was correct... Stratagems and associated CP resource management was a new way of covering this type of stuff introduced with 8th.

How about you actually read my post, with actual comprehension this time? They were exactly like stratagems, only using separate CP pool for each 'stratagem', which was both dumb and cumbersome. They even did the same things as current stratagems, rerolling 1s for various units, and Calgar did the same thing as he does now - gave you more 'CPs' to spend. Gee, that's totally isn't the same thing, eh?