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.

How about faction specific stratagems having two values. One that is used if all detachments your using are specific, and the other value is used when your going for a free for all mix.
This would fix two things. mini factions like scions wouldn't be punished for being run along side "normal" IG. On the other hand while you would be able to rotate shields and blast away with your ravellan along side a full IG army, the CP cost of doing so would be 2 or even 3 times as high as doing the same thing in a pure knight list. Rotating shield for 1 CP in a mono knight lists that has 5-6 CP is, IMO balanced. It may even encourage some people not playing at the highest of the hight tournament levels to just play mono.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Worried about Knights?
Make the Super Heavy Detachment cost more CP. Make the Aux Super Heavy Detachment really expensive to stop people slotting in single Lords of War.

Considering the constant complains about how bad small elite armies are, is giving them more CP a bad thing now?

Karol wrote:
How about faction specific stratagems having two values. One that is used if all detachments your using are specific, and the other value is used when your going for a free for all mix.
This would fix two things. mini factions like scions wouldn't be punished for being run along side "normal" IG. On the other hand while you would be able to rotate shields and blast away with your ravellan along side a full IG army, the CP cost of doing so would be 2 or even 3 times as high as doing the same thing in a pure knight list. Rotating shield for 1 CP in a mono knight lists that has 5-6 CP is, IMO balanced. It may even encourage some people not playing at the highest of the hight tournament levels to just play mono.

I suggested this about 10+ pages back. Make it so non-warlord strategems cost +x, where x is the number of factions NOT belonging to your warlord. IE Guard warlord pays +2 for ion if he wants to soup banana bikes and knights in the same list. The harder you soup, the harder you get punished. Not sure how it would work with Ynnari if at all, but that's another problem altogether.

 Ordana wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Worried about Knights?
Make the Super Heavy Detachment cost more CP. Make the Aux Super Heavy Detachment really expensive to stop people slotting in single Lords of War.

Considering the constant complains about how bad small elite armies are, is giving them more CP a bad thing now?

Oh look, another Guilliman nerf.

There's no quick option that doesn't cause unintended consequences for armies in rougher spots.

The more I look at CP the more I feel like there isn't an option that doesn't imbalance the game in some way and won't be exploited by players looking for an edge.

The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.

I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.

Karol wrote:
The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.

I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.

You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.

I feel like CP was an attempt to give us bonus rules like fornations did while not unbalancing the actual game by tying it to a limited resource. The problem is that so generation is always going to favor specific builds depending how you slice it.

So it's a good idea that ultimately is hampered by the fact there is no 100% fair way to generate CP as every army comes into it with different needs and options.

Drager wrote:

Karol wrote:
The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.

I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.

You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.

No, Karol does not. She has a very poor grasp of her codex, but claims that her failure at playing them is 100% GWs fault, and any discussion that isn't focused soley on improving GK is a waste of time.

Because even though GK aren't great, with some skill, some tricks and some nonGK allies you can win. Or you could convert your GK to DW, SW, or whatever and try a different army. But it's easier to blame GW and rage, because your sister got an iPad and you bought an army you don't know how to play.

Pleasestop wrote:

Drager wrote:

Karol wrote:
The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.

I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.

You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.

No, Karol does not. She has a very poor grasp of her codex, but claims that her failure at playing them is 100% GWs fault, and any discussion that isn't focused soley on improving GK is a waste of time.

Because even though GK aren't great, with some skill, some tricks and some nonGK allies you can win. Or you could convert your GK to DW, SW, or whatever and try a different army. But it's easier to blame GW and rage, because your sister got an iPad and you bought an army you don't know how to play.

i get your point, but theres no reason for personal attacks. Karol also had a point, different armies having very similar stratagems but with different wording/CP cost is unintuitive (the Auspex variants or Tide of chaos variants are a good example of strange wording, and the special ammo point that they brought up is a valid one).

Now, just because its unintuitive doesnt mean its necessarily bad and i feel like a normalized CP count following the pts level of the game, along with faction-balanced stratagem costs would fix a good bunch of problems.

I also think that no matter what fixes are brought up, being "fixed cp count" or "5 ppm guards" or "paying CP to soup" wont stop people from souping it up. The big problem with competitive are these keywords: Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari. They allow for units/armies that have inherent weaknesses to shore them up with units from other armies. Assassins are the perfect example for this and they are being pushed by GW. I'm not saying to remove these keywords or completely stop souping, in fact, i dont have any solution for this "problem" im just pointing it out.

I generally hate the concept of CP in this game. I think it takes away more than it adds. Especially the CP Reroll. Rolling a 1 is supposed to suck, but it's supposed to happen once every 6 dice. And any one die being no different from any other one die was awesome.

To make things worse, they tied CP to how many detatchements you can *add*, not how little you diverge from a well-rounded-ish army (IOW, detatcments add CP when they should instead cost CP).

Now, all that said, one place where CP really add to the game: FIre & Fade. Everyone hated facing entire Eldar or T'au armies that would move-shoot-move. But Eldar being able to move-shoot-move is an awesome fluffy mechanic. So they made it an option, but at a cost - and that cost feels fair.

As long as we have CP in the game, I hope we see more stuff like Fire & Fade and Auspex Scan (although the latter needs a buff), and fewer Rerolls/FightTwice.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.)

Exact same thing but better is kind of an oxymoron anyways. The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.)

Exact same thing but better is kind of an oxymoron anyways. The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.

"Exact same thing but better" is a phrase that means "Is the same in every way *except* for ways in which it's a direct upgrade". Like a deal that makes a screwdriver cost $1 is the "exact same thing but better" as a deal for the same screwdriver at $2.
A 3+ Sv can be considered "the exact same thing but better" as a 4+ Sv. Or WS, BS, whatever.
T4 can be considered "the exact same thing but better" as T3.

The difference between "Exact same thing but better" and "similar thing but better" is that, in the first case, the thing must be a direct upgrade.

Intercepting whatever just showed up in LOS of a Farseer using a unit right next to the Farseer is not a direct upgrade to intercepting a unit with whatever is within 12" of it. It involves an HQ, can be avoided by LOSing a single backfield area, etc. Auspex is harder to dodge entirely, and doesn't require as specific army positioning. Now, Auspex is certainly worse, but it does something somewhat different.

They do the same thing, but not the exact same thing. One is better, and they cost the same. Clearly a problem. But you're ovestating with "Exact same thing but better". Which is why we're always discussing Eldar armies where everything is -3 to hit, or every Marine having free reroll hits/wounds, or Guardsmen being free, or Doom never failing. It's a lot easier to discuss stuff when you're not spouting random drivel.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.

Agreed, but arguably, Eldar are not SUPPOSSED to have as many CPs as Imperial armies, and therefore they *should* get a bit more out of their Stratagems. This is both good balance (in theory), and shows just how "superior" Aeldari are compared to humans fluff-wise.
The problem with that is two-fold:
A) Eldar already have super efficient units due to their specialist nature, so giving them more effective Strats on top of that is too much and
B) While Eldar lists in general have less CPs than Imperial Soup, it's not THAT much less. Cheap Kabalite Battalions are almost as good as the Loyal 32 for cheap CP generation.

So while I like the direction and apparent intent of those Strats being similar but better for certain Factions, the execution of the rules falls flat.

-

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Mono Knights have 9 CP in general. Most of my Knight centric lists have 8-10 CP in soup, but if I field a short Ultra battalion, up to 14.

So right now I can field 3x Crusaders, with 500 points of Ultramarines and have 14 CP on the table.

This would make it so mono knights might have 12, but Mono knights arn't that good. And I'd have to pay 2 CP down to 10 CP to have that loyal 32, something I really need for board control, bubble wrap, and all that.

I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.

MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.

SemperMortis wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 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.

Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.

Start with 12 CP
First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.

MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.

All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.

8 doesn't go far with that Castellan.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.

Agreed, but arguably, Eldar are not SUPPOSSED to have as many CPs as Imperial armies, and therefore they *should* get a bit more out of their Stratagems. This is both good balance (in theory), and shows just how "superior" Aeldari are compared to humans fluff-wise.
The problem with that is two-fold:
A) Eldar already have super efficient units due to their specialist nature, so giving them more effective Strats on top of that is too much and
B) While Eldar lists in general have less CPs than Imperial Soup, it's not THAT much less. Cheap Kabalite Battalions are almost as good as the Loyal 32 for cheap CP generation.

So while I like the direction and apparent intent of those Strats being similar but better for certain Factions, the execution of the rules falls flat.

-

I'm with you on this. For example I am okay with Eldar having better reactionary stratagems due to better weapon systems and being faster and general and such. While Marines would have better defensive stratagems. Just to give armies more flare and flavor.

The current system has no CP restrictions though. Plus in regards to space marines. Eldar make CP a lot easier than space marines. Rangers and warlocks is a really cheap detachment and its all good units too. So we agree on that too.

I'm not entirely sold on paying for Factions. Factions aren't as tight as they seem.

Wouldn't paying for Detatchments, with the generalist ones (Bat, Brig) cheaper than others, push the same doctrine? If you want to add an Uthwe Banshee squad to an army with an Uthwe Bat/Brig, you put it in an Elite slot. You save CP by using slots you've already "paid" for. If you want to add a Samm-Hain Banshee squad, you're going to have to pay for a different detatchment. If you want to add an Archon, you're going to have to pay for a different detatchment.

This incentivises mono-Faction, mono-Subfaction lists that roughly fit what we want from a CAD, without overpenallizing soup/allies.

I could stomach the Faction CP cost too, though, if that's what it took to move to Detatchments-Cost. I just don't think it's necesarry.

Reemule wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 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.

Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.

Start with 12 CP
First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.

MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.

All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.

8 doesn't go far with that Castellan.

Yeah - this is good stuff.

I just want to standardize CP cost based on army size and no minus or plus shenanigans. Then have stratagems given objective cost instead of relative cost.

Any minus to CP because of extra additions like Assassins/Roboute means that assassins/Roboute must make up for the lack of CP making them even stronger which brings its own balancing issues. This also ignores the fact that a flat -1 for each detachment does not indicate in any way how powerful the detachment is or how powerful the unit is in it. In that respect you could just as well just say that Roboute takes away 1 CP for being fielded. The problem with that is that this means we are now no longer using just points to balance the game, but also CP which just means even higher balancing complexity which is really not needed.

Plus those -1 per detachment/faction is a completely arbitrary approach in no way taking into account actual balance between factions and detachment. Now, I get why the approach is like this: To basically remove all allying, multi-detachment armies from the game. I get it, some people want to play only and exclusive with mono-army and mono-detachment rules and therefore want to remove everything else. This will never work because some of us like having it the other way around.

So the better option might be to enforce two Matched styles of play. Standard and Mono, where Standard is core rules and mono is mono-army/mono-detachment. It would be something like Magic the Gathering has tried to do with their different format of Standard, Legacy, Pauper, and so on.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.

Agreed, but arguably, Eldar are not SUPPOSSED to have as many CPs as Imperial armies, and therefore they *should* get a bit more out of their Stratagems. This is both good balance (in theory), and shows just how "superior" Aeldari are compared to humans fluff-wise.
The problem with that is two-fold:
A) Eldar already have super efficient units due to their specialist nature, so giving them more effective Strats on top of that is too much and
B) While Eldar lists in general have less CPs than Imperial Soup, it's not THAT much less. Cheap Kabalite Battalions are almost as good as the Loyal 32 for cheap CP generation.

So while I like the direction and apparent intent of those Strats being similar but better for certain Factions, the execution of the rules falls flat.

-

I'm with you on this. For example I am okay with Eldar having better reactionary stratagems due to better weapon systems and being faster and general and such. While Marines would have better defensive stratagems. Just to give armies more flare and flavor.

The current system has no CP restrictions though. Plus in regards to space marines. Eldar make CP a lot easier than space marines. Rangers and warlocks is a really cheap detachment and its all good units too.

Maybe we should add some "Not-Full-Marines" to the Marine book, maybe 11ppm but only a 4+ save?
And we can add lower-tier command staff. Maybe a TechMarine or Lt or something?
If we could add those things, SM could have even *cheaper* CP than CWE!

More seriously, CWE can take Troops at 1 point less per *squad* than SM, but they're terribad.

At the absolute cheapest, 3 Storm Guardian squads and a pair of Warlocks cost more points than 3 Scout squads and a pair of Techmarines. So Marines win at absolute-cheapest.
At the most basic, 3 Ranger squads and a pair of Warlocks cost more than 3 Scout squads with 2 Lts. So Marines win at cheaper with chaff+buffer HQs.

Once again, CWE is more powerful than Marines, but they are very slightly worse off for CP.

tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.

That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I just want to standardize CP cost based on army size and no minus or plus shenanigans. Then have stratagems given objective cost instead of relative cost.

Any minus to CP because of extra additions like Assassins/Roboute means that assassins/Roboute must make up for the lack of CP making them even stronger which brings its own balancing issues. This also ignores the fact that a flat -1 for each detachment does not indicate in any way how powerful the detachment is or how powerful the unit is in it. In that respect you could just as well just say that Roboute takes away 1 CP for being fielded. The problem with that is that this means we are now no longer using just points to balance the game, but also CP which just means even higher balancing complexity which is really not needed.

Plus those -1 per detachment/faction is a completely arbitrary approach in no way taking into account actual balance between factions and detachment. Now, I get why the approach is like this: To basically remove all allying, multi-detachment armies from the game. I get it, some people want to play only and exclusive with mono-army and mono-detachment rules and therefore want to remove everything else. This will never work because some of us like having it the other way around.

So the better option might be to enforce two Matched styles of play. Standard and Mono, where Standard is core rules and mono is mono-army/mono-detachment. It would be something like Magic the Gathering has tried to do with their different format of Standard, Legacy, Pauper, and so on.

Unfortunately there are not enough players or interest to support multiple formats for the most part.

That said I like the CP cost to detachment and faction idea, allying in has advantages and as such should have a cost. The points do not really take allies into account and unless you are providing separate costs for Soup and non-soup armies, they can never actually be balanced for use in both formats. I don't think paying a few CP for allies is a huge downside given the upside for it. Right now the game looks like this.

SOUP > MONO because soup has no downside.

If you have slight downside to soup like the cost of a few CP then it gives a bump to mono armies, while still allowing soup to be playable.

One amendment I might make is to give +1 CP for fully filling out a detachment. Essentially negate the penalty to taking a second detachment if you have filled up your first detachment. Or perhaps just negate a single -1 for having a detachment filled out if you don't want players able to get more than the cap on CP.

I think you are off on thinking that a 1-4 CP penalty will cause all soup to disapear, people just will need to make a choice about which they value more the CP, or the flexibilty of soup.

That's the same reason I swapped out Storm Guardians for Rangers in the "most basic" comparison - I included the Storm Guardians vs Techamarines to show the floor, but the Rangers/Warlocks vs Scouts/Lts is the more valid comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.

That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.

And cheapest CWE troops used to be 12ppm. It cuts both ways.

 Xenomancers wrote:
tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.

That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.

Techmarines are best bought attached to a Thunderfire Cannon.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.

That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.

Techmarines are best bought attached to a Thunderfire Cannon.

Agreed - they aren't HQ int hat case though.

 Xenomancers wrote:
tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.

They're dirt cheap HQs now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.

That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.

Techmarines are best bought attached to a Thunderfire Cannon.

Agreed - they aren't HQ int hat case though.

True, but at leas their useful. Servitors suck too much anymore for Techmarines to be good.

Thinking about it, I'd rather see mono <faction> armies get a bonus than mark it as a penalty. Like if your army shares the same <faction> keyword get +3 CP. Phrasing it that ways makes it sound like a reward for having a single faction instead of a punishment for taking multiple factions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.

They're dirt cheap HQs now.

They don't do anything.