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.
Xenomancers wrote: I'd say - increase the bonus for being battle forged based on point level. Like say 15 CP for a 2000 point game and then have additional detachments beyond your first cost you additional CP (subtracted from your total) and have allied detachments cost you MORE cp. Then with everyone starting on basically the same CP - you can balance all stratagems against each other.
When I see this suggestion come up, it normally comes with "But Battalions and Brigades should cost less/nothing to take" and I make grumbly noises because CP farming with Battalions and Brigades is (one of) the issues. Would that be something you'd want under this system?
To move the game to the next level, it almost has to move CP away from detachments. There just isn't a way when you have an army that might be 4 models, and a force that might be 200models to have the current detachment provide CP process to work.
I totally agree. The current system is almost the worst of both worlds, in that it allows you to ignore the old FOC if you want to, but still suplexes you off the top rope if you don't take a Battalion (or two!). And some might think that's fine, but in my opinion not every faction SHOULD be troop heavy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/15 19:45:50
GW's Character targeting rules are bizarre. It's so simple to fix I'll even do it for free.
Targeting Characters
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly unit can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase only if it is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model. Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is not within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase unit as normal.
Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
No more "My Company Commander behind a wall" blocking, no more "Gulliman is out in the open with no other friendly units within 24" of him but because there is a group of scouts in the ruins over there I can't shoot at him."
Phaeron Gukk wrote: I totally agree. The current system is almost the worst of both worlds, in that it allows you to ignore the old FOC if you want to, but still suplexes you off the top rope if you don't take a Battalion (or two!). And some might think that's fine, but in my opinion not every faction SHOULD be troop heavy.
The troops aren't what bothers me, it's the HQ heaviness from BAttalions and BRigades I'm not a fan of.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW's Character targeting rules are bizarre. It's so simple to fix I'll even do it for free.
Targeting Characters
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly unit can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase only if it is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model. Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is not within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase unit as normal.
Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
No more "My Company Commander behind a wall" blocking, no more "Gulliman is out in the open with no other friendly units within 24" of him but because there is a group of scouts in the ruins over there I can't shoot at him."
2 inches might be a bit too tight, but otherwise that would work.
Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
Phaeron Gukk wrote: I totally agree. The current system is almost the worst of both worlds, in that it allows you to ignore the old FOC if you want to, but still suplexes you off the top rope if you don't take a Battalion (or two!). And some might think that's fine, but in my opinion not every faction SHOULD be troop heavy.
That's the whole point of troops -- they are, y'know, the building blocks of the army?
Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/15 19:59:23
I think it's because they are strictly their own line. DG or TS for instance are for sure CSM because they have oodles of overlapping units just like marines.
I'm sure there's an argument for Space wolves, but they did get Primaris after all
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
The Troops slot should represent the core elements of an army. They should be the units identified as being most commonly fielded by the faction.
Within the context of an Eldar army, there will be a cadre of core units - be they Guardians, Dire Avengers, etc. And while individual Custodes would be beyond a HQ choice for an IG army, within the context of their own structure, they too are the rank and file.
The slot of Troop just represents that basic building block, but what that building block is will be different for each faction. It is the same for every slot - it is merely an abstraction that, if used correctly, nudges players towards army builds that actually fit broadly within how the army would work in the background material.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Then maybe it's a matter of wider design, because for many factions the Troop slot/Battalions feels to me bolted on, to make an army fit the same-old generic structure/FOC. For all of its MANY MANY flaws, the IK codex recognized that players who buy Giant Mecha want to play Giant Mecha, not Giant Mecha + Bolt-On Generic Battery. The Knight-Specific Detachments are really cool in concept, and good ways of pushing people into thematic lists as you said.
(The issue is that you can still add the bolt-on battalion, and it's so dang cheap...)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/15 20:14:10
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
Xenomancers wrote: I'd say - increase the bonus for being battle forged based on point level. Like say 15 CP for a 2000 point game and then have additional detachments beyond your first cost you additional CP (subtracted from your total) and have allied detachments cost you MORE cp. Then with everyone starting on basically the same CP - you can balance all stratagems against each other.
When I see this suggestion come up, it normally comes with "But Battalions and Brigades should cost less/nothing to take" and I make grumbly noises because CP farming with Battalions and Brigades is (one of) the issues. Would that be something you'd want under this system?
Under this system the most efficient CP build is a single detachment. Taking allied detachments would be the least. It would do numbers for the game.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
They take 8 CP because they don't really need CP - obviously they work better with more but that is more the fact that spears and moving twice and shooting twice and fighting twice in the same turn is just too powerful a combination.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/15 20:42:08
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
Really a formation that is minimum 1k + points often more likely to be 1.2.1.5k points shouldn't generate 6CP?
A formation that's minimum 700 points generating 3CP is obviously broken, when you can build an IG brigade with 12CP for under 600 points.
At that point your basically calling for their codex to be squatted.
I agree on some part. But what are you going to do with those 12 spend them on the 600p brigade which generated them? I think not.
CP are much more effective on the knights. I realized the lance formation is not the problem the knight stratagems are.
I am not calling for their codex to be squatted. Thats a total exaggeration. Even without CP a Knight list is pretty good andeven more so with AM added.
Hence the issue isn't knights or even their stratageums, it's 12CP for under 600 points that's the problem.
To balance strategums between mono and soup each lance would have to give atleast 12CP or more, that's not a good solution and rebalancing codex's on the assumption that everyone is taking 600 points of pure cheese is terrible for balance and downright lazy game design.
No the problem is that knights combine op stratagems with big models adn some are just too good and knights have lot of them. The CP from the lance detachments would not be a problme if knights had no op stratagems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: At this point I just want GW to get off their arse and release it.
Without question we'll see additional stratagem CP adjustments.
I think we'll see more tweaking of the Fly keyword.
Finalized Tactical Reserves rule.
Finalized Prepared Positions.
Finalized Tactical Restraint with hopefully some minor tweaks to make Ultramarines great again.
Wishlisting...
Return to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments respectively.
Return to the original Character targeting rules (i.e. closest visible).
Alter Psychic Focus.to limit Smite to once per turn also.
"Alter Psychic Focus. to limit Smite to once per turn" is a bad idea most armys could only cast 7 powers total. So if my army could cast 10 i could not use the last 3. or i might only want to cast 6 or less of the 7 diffrent powers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/15 20:57:47
They take 8 CP because they don't really need CP - obviously they work better with more but that is more the fact that spears and moving twice and shooting twice and fighting twice in the same turn is just too powerful a combination.
Its just a system. Same would apply for a Guard/Castellan/Assassin force. 8 CP makes them a much different animal. Or 10 CP if its just a brigade of Guard and a Castellan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/15 21:00:14
The CP system is fundamentally flawed. That needs to be fixed. If allies are going to exist (they will) then all CP needs to be equal and transferable between codex as well as stratagem power. This wont automatically make the game perfectly balanced but it is more than a step in the right direction. There are a lot more problems in this game that CP generation.
Stratagems are really unbalanced. (we literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better that cost the same)
ie Forwarned/Auspex scan
We have units that are better but cost less. IE
Infantry/Cultist
These are pretty easy problems to fix too. I'd call these problems that someone with no knowledge of how the game works could see and Identify immediately (these problems shouldn't even exist in an intelligently designed game) It would be like 1 basket on a basketball court being larger than the other...
There are more complicated problems too - those will be easier to fix once we don't have these really simple problems going on.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Stratagems are really unbalanced. (we literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better that cost the same)
ie Forwarned/Auspex scan
We do literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better at the same cost. However, Forewarned/Auspex is not one. Forewarned does mostly the same thing mostly better for the same cost. But not the exact same thing.
When using precision terms like 'literally' or 'better', try to keep your examples precise. Or use less precise terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
A dying race of hyper-specialized Space Elves should be able to quantify "rank and file" - they're the guys who project force and control the situation, as opposed to the guys who zip around or specialize in melting tanks or specialize in heavy weapons.
The hyper-specialized Space Elves have both a unit hyper specialized in that (Dire Avengers), and a unit of militia, specialized in non-combat tasks (Guardians). They actually fit that structure really, really well.
(They can also take exiles who refused to specialize as their other troops choice.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/15 21:22:28
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
BRAVO! I agree. Detachments should make you pay for slots. Then people might actually fill them out instead of MSUing requirements.
As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Now I don't have a whole lot of experience with 8th edition (try to read that like someone stretching out their suspenders and saying they aren't a big city lawyer type in a southern drawl). And I haven't seen too much CP farming or even play at the level where CP are used all that effectively to be honest. I usually have about 8 CP for my 2000 pt armies and my opponent is in the same ball park. That said, I agree that the current system is pretty much the opposite of how I would think to design their generation.
I find it super odd that I barely want to fill out detachments so I can double (or even triple) dip. I can usually: 1) get more CPs, 2) can sometimes pretty much ignore FOC and 3) Ally with multiple factions. It makes little sense to me to keep stacking bonuses like that especially in a game where several factions can't ally at all.
It makes far more sense to me to have of a starting pool of CPs and trying to fit everything I can into a single detachment and taking additional detachments at a loss of CPs to circumvent FOC limitations of additional units or factions I want in my overall list. The trade off being able to take units I couldn't otherwise have.
As for those ally factions for all intents and purposes (read: Fallen, Inquisition, Assassins, etc.), they can easily have a special rules that allows them to ally without the loss of CP. I would go so far as to throw in factions like Grey Knights, Deathwatch and such (maybe even Custodes, I don't know exactly how well they function on their own), since while they can be their own thing, it makes a lot of sense for them to not be as well.
Then it is just a matter of re-balencing the cost of some of the Stratagems to fit the new system. Sure it will be a mess but current system and codices are already that now.
Ordana wrote: As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Downside of this is it would push Knights into havingneven more CP and only make them even stronger than they are with the loyal 32.
I'm not against CP fixes, but it feels like a blanket fix doesn't fix everything but would favor elite armies who have less units to worry about spending CP on.
If it was tied to the number of units or models (with certain keywords like titanic representing a minimum number of models) that'd instead give more CP to horde armies who run MSU spam or large blobs.
We can't just look at the average army but must look at the extremes when considering CP generation and hoe it favors certain armies over another.
Ordana wrote: As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Downside of this is it would push Knights into havingneven more CP and only make them even stronger than they are with the loyal 32.
I'm not against CP fixes, but it feels like a blanket fix doesn't fix everything but would favor elite armies who have less units to worry about spending CP on.
If it was tied to the number of units or models (with certain keywords like titanic representing a minimum number of models) that'd instead give more CP to horde armies who run MSU spam or large blobs.
We can't just look at the average army but must look at the extremes when considering CP generation and hoe it favors certain armies over another.
It's a 2 step fix:
- fixed cp for everyone
- adjust stratagem costs i.e. Knight stratagems simply cost more than equivalents because they buff stronger units.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Stupid idea. However, I normally only have 8-9 in my ynnari detachment. It’s all I need. I’ll still wipe your board. SfD baby
Sounds like a new edition change over an eratta for the rules to shift that much.
No? Just have a Matched Play/Organized Play beta rule that mandates number of CP based on points, then tweak stratagem costs via errata (which they've done already btw)
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Eldar- 4436 pts
