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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.

Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.

1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.

Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.

To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.

Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?

1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.

You missed the 1st part, i said patrol, battalion or brigade to start with, then 1 detachment can be specialists (aka outrider, spearhead, etc..)

Still don't like it. I may not use allies, but it doesn't mean they should be booted out of the game.

They arnt, they are limited to 1 detachment, still full able to have 1000pt+ allies.

Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

And by consequence leading to imbalances due to bad stratagem design since they were designed it seems with average generated cp?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

And by consequence leading to imbalances due to bad stratagem design since they were designed it seems with average generated cp?

Start with equal footing, then assess what's too strong. Some factions have good stratagems - or, even stratagems that are probably too strong - but can't really make use of them because they're CP starved.

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.

But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.

But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.

WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.

CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.

I don't think people much care about Guard having more CP in general. It's Guard having more CP and being used as a CP battery as well as operation human shield for seemingly all imperial factions. As much as I don't think mono faction guard are an issue. In this climate it ends up being " Well, better nerf um " or see them everywhere forever. Which punishes the mono dex users, and makes soup more attractive an option even for those once happy to stay mono dex. While 1 more point probably wouldn't change much of the lists as CP farm is still way too good pass up and some lists direly need them.

What would make it less appealing would be each faction can only use the CPs they generate for their own strats but then all the soup players would rage as that would end up nerfing the knights to novelty picks. Honestly CPs are so baked into the system but they can make or break lists and sort of feel like the formations of old, a matter easy to see from the fact the new formations even use your CP. Which again leads to CP farming for expensive armies by taking cheap guard. Without a major change to CP generation and/or use it'll just move from whatever the cheapest farm is. If not guard, might end up being ad mech then, maybe when sisters come out it would be them next depending on how they are pointed or get adjusted after.

I still didn't think cultists needed to be nerfed at all. Especially with them losing traits with the " Mere mortals " thing. Maybe another minor tweak and they would have been over fine. I just don't want over reactions and extra hard nerfing as they are often very slow with ever fixing an over nerf if ever.

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.

While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.

So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Ice_can wrote:


So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).

If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.

No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.

While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.

So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.

Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)

Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.

A Fixed CP count based on point size would mean - and it seems people willfully ignore this - that CP cost of stratagems would be scaled as required. Having a variable CP pool just means you can't cost stratagems accordingly without forcing people into implicit pre-made builds.

Ice_can wrote:
WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.

At some point, Ice_can, you're going to have to show us where on this Cadian the bad Guard players touched you.

 Dysartes wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.

At some point, Ice_can, you're going to have to show us where on this Cadian the bad Guard players touched you.

Probably a catachan, not cadian, according to the level off butthurt.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).

If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.

My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.

In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.

Breng77 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).

If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.

My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.

In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.

I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.

But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).

If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.

My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.

In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.

I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.

But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).

Except it's not optional to build a list with lots of CP, it's currently linked to your amount of cheapest units.
Its a double reward for bringing a horde list, get lots of cheap wounds and lots of CP
Bring an elite list and get less wounds and less CP. For the double downside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.

At some point, Ice_can, you're going to have to show us where on this Cadian the bad Guard players touched you.

Probably a catachan, not cadian, according to the level off butthurt.

It's the blatent hypocrisy of the players that offends, anything that's even close to competitive against Guard is OP in a guard players eyes and all their unit's, traits and strategums are so unusable trash.

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.

But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.

WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.

CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.

We can BS what Command Points are an abstraction for, but it won’t do us any good. You are of the opinion the smaller, more elite forces should have more command points because it would be easier to command. I’m of the opinion that more units and more models warrant more command points as I have a much more ability to react to different problems.

A scenario in which you have ten guys to take on ten problems whereas I have one hundred guys to take on one hundred problems. Either way, this abstraction is worthless and shouldn’t be a part of a balancing discussion, otherwise we should be clambering for hyper-realistic “role to see if your weapon jams” tables and things of similar nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your reasoning only has one point of view. Whereas other people believe armies with much more ways to react should have more CP.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.

But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.

WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.

CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.

We can BS what Command Points are an abstraction for, but it won’t do us any good. You are of the opinion the smaller, more elite forces should have more command points because it would be easier to command. I’m of the opinion that more units and more models warrant more command points as I have a much more ability to react to different problems.

A scenario in which you have ten guys to take on ten problems whereas I have one hundred guys to take on one hundred problems. Either way, this abstraction is worthless and shouldn’t be a part of a balancing discussion, otherwise we should be clambering for hyper-realistic “role to see if your weapon jams” tables and things of similar nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your reasoning only has one point of view. Whereas other people believe armies with much more ways to react should have more CP.

Except the thing your talking about is already accounted for with the base game mechanics, an army with 6 units troops and say 4 non troops, automatically has a board control advantage where they can be on all 6 objectives, where as a more elite custodes force can't they have to prioritise and use manoeuvres to win.

The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.

But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.

WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.

Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?

Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.

To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.

CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.

We can BS what Command Points are an abstraction for, but it won’t do us any good. You are of the opinion the smaller, more elite forces should have more command points because it would be easier to command. I’m of the opinion that more units and more models warrant more command points as I have a much more ability to react to different problems.

A scenario in which you have ten guys to take on ten problems whereas I have one hundred guys to take on one hundred problems. Either way, this abstraction is worthless and shouldn’t be a part of a balancing discussion, otherwise we should be clambering for hyper-realistic “role to see if your weapon jams” tables and things of similar nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your reasoning only has one point of view. Whereas other people believe armies with much more ways to react should have more CP.

Except the thing your talking about is already accounted for with the base game mechanics, an army with 6 units troops and say 4 non troops, automatically has a board control advantage where they can be on all 6 objectives, where as a more elite custodes force can't they have to prioritise and use manoeuvres to win.

The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.

Having more elite models and units is also accounted for in base game mechanics. The more you pay on an elite unit, ie SM and Custodes, the better stats you get on a model (as well as stratagem access).
I’d like to see 40K turn into a game that uses d8s or d10s to solve most of those problems, but that won’t be solved in the FAQ.

The issue is better stats don't matter due to the limitations of the d6 system. Quantity > Quality.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).

If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.

My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.

In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.

I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.

But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).

I’d be fine with that option if it felt like a valid choice. If “elite” units were significantly more powerful than troops and hqs and expensive units were significantly more powerful than the same points worth of cheaper units and this was offset by having better access to stratagems if you had more cheap units. Then it would be a valid option do I take more “powerful” units and have less tricks, or more “less powerful” units but have tricks. That would be cool. However that still only works if soup or at least CP sharing is not a thing.

Right now it really is not a choice having more CP is always the better choice.

Essentially, that is the core problem with the design right now. They give you a lot of options, but in that set of options there are clear winners and losers.

Breng77 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?

Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).

If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.

My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.

In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.

I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.

But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).

I’d be fine with that option if it felt like a valid choice. If “elite” units were significantly more powerful than troops and hqs and expensive units were significantly more powerful than the same points worth of cheaper units and this was offset by having better access to stratagems if you had more cheap units. Then it would be a valid option do I take more “powerful” units and have less tricks, or more “less powerful” units but have tricks. That would be cool. However that still only works if soup or at least CP sharing is not a thing.

Right now it really is not a choice having more CP is always the better choice.

I know people have always wanted SM to be better. So why don’t we tell them that more? People complain how, after giving up a phase, guardsmen are faster than supersonic vehicles. Why don’t we ask for supersonic vehicles to be faster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Etc.

Just another point in the horde vs elite debate.

Specifically this point references melee hordes, so people complaining / defending IG don't need to fight on this one.

Stacking melee buffs from strats start to become highly powerful and also incredibly difficult to implement counter play against, when they can be used to convert any basic infantry unit into a melee beatstick.

There is no way to target prioritise, because the units themselves are not the things that are good, the strats are, and they are transferable between units. I believe these sort of strats, combined with the easy access that cheap hordes provide,
and the built in redundancy that cheap hordes provide, is often quote bad for the game.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

I wish we could.

I prefer the detachment system over the FOC in principle, because I think different factions should have fundamentally different army structures. However, I totally get that the FOC "worked" for a lot of people and I'm happy to debate the merits of bringing it back or not. But all these suggestions where we jury-rig the Detachment system into a Frankenstein's FOC instead of just bringing back the FOC sound fundamentally silly to me.

I think I like the detatchment system better generally, but miss a lot of detail from the FOC.

I think the 'Detatchments Cost CP' angle does the best job of carrying the best parts of both the FOC and Detatchments. You get the flexible set up of the latter (Windrider Hosts or 1st Company forces), while retaining a bias towards "well rounded" FOC-like armies. Importantly, while it biases towards the FOC-like armies, it doesn't outright destroy them - similar to how it treats Allies/Soup.

It also still allows custom army-specific Detatchments. Like, DE's raiding party could simply be a Detatchment that costs the same as a Battalion/Brigade, and has 3 Patrol slots.

The "More detatchments = more CP" is, I think, the biggest downside in either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.

Conversely, there is good reason a Marine demi-company style list should have more CP than a CWE Windrider Host. Or Knight spearhead.

One of the biggest issues in balance is that a model is costed for what it's stats perform on the tabletop (and often then it's still wrong). They are not costed in regard to the bonus of strategems, and there are many strategems that make certain units distinctly better than their cost. However, there is also a big difference between being able to perform that action once compared to 3+ turns. Being able to maximize your CPs cheaply makes it impossible to balance the points of any given unit in regard to these strategems since you cannot cost something that will have a variable bonus over the course of a game..
Therefore I feel that to have any chance of balance at all, you either have to cap CPs or better yet, as has been suggested before numerous times, allow CPs only to be used by the faction that generated them. Yes it's more of a headache to manage the pools of markers, but it's not out of the realm of simplicity. Knights should power up Knights, not Guard or marines. Harlequin skyweavers (to use my case) shouldn't be using CPs generated by Craftworlders etc.

Therefore I feel that to have any chance of balance at all, you either have to cap CPs or better yet, as has been suggested before numerous times, allow CPs only to be used by the faction that generated them. Yes it's more of a headache to manage the pools of markers, but it's not out of the realm of simplicity. Knights should power up Knights, not Guard or marines. Harlequin skyweavers (to use my case) shouldn't be using CPs generated by Craftworlders etc.

This is why I support making CP static. If everyone has say 15 CP for a 2000 point game you can price those super powerful elite forces stratagem accordingly. Let's say a design decision for an army is that they should at max get 6 CP at 2000 points. Then they have a stratagem that is 2 CP and the intention was that the army was only supposed to be able to use the stratagem approx. 3 times a game at best. With a static point of 15 CP we can cap that stratagem at 3 uses per game and avoid the entire CP battery thing that is currently being promoted.

People must remember that many armies can make CP batteries work for themselves without resorting to a new codex. 3 troop choices for Craftworlds will rarely break the bank considering how cheap Storm Guardians are. Same goes for Drukhari. The difference lies mostly in Imperial armies like Imperial Knight allying Imperial Guard or Grey Knights allying in Imperial Guard. Which again leads me to iterate that the CP issue is for the most part an Imperial problem more than anything else. There are exceptions, but there is a reason why the Loyal 32 reference a certain faction.

I mean, you can understand that Guard models are incredibly strong competitively while also realizing that Stratagems are not one of the strengths of the faction. You are not required to take the position that if a faction is competitively strong EVERYTHING about that faction must therefore be too strong and need nerfs.

For one thing if you do nerf something that already isn't strong, you wouldn't be nerfing the faction at all. Like, nerf Ynnari CP generation all you like....Ynnari don't really care about stratagems, as long as they have 2CP for lightning reactions on their bike squad and 2CP for Forewarned a Ynnari list is 100% all set. There's a reason they don't take CP battery units and tend to have a ton of aux detachments for -1CP.

Guard stratagems are objectively not that great. They have a 1CP +1sv strat that gets used on 40-50 point infantry squads, a 2Cp strat to reroll to hit with one wyvern which is I believe like a 65 point vehicle...and besides that they are going to be basically buying extra relics and using CP rerolls/morale rolls.

Understanding that their stratagems aren't very good is part of understanding what makes Imperial Soup OP - the problem is the guard units giving their CP over to non-guard factions. If you don't understand that, you'll nerf stupid gak that won't change anything.

There's no guard apologism in that. There's just a difference between blindly hating on a faction and calling for everything they have to be nerfed, to understanding what actually makes them overpowered and calling to nerf that.

Infantry squads. Certain orders. Certain fire support vehicles and weapons. Command point generation for other factions.

Guard strats are a minor point compared to the rest of their tech..

CP farms are mostly an Imperium problem because only the IoM have the Loyal32.

Mono SM gets CP more easily than mono CWE (from either the cheapest-possible or the cheap-but-usable perspectives, albeit only slightly). Mono CWE doesn't have CP problems because they're strong even with the CP they get. Mono SM isn't strong, so the problem gets blamed on CP.

After all, its not like DE/Harlies are never told "Just add a Farseer". Or Harlies/CWE are ever told "But you should add Vect".

The primary problem most people see is the Loyal32. It's just too good compared to other options. But there are other concerns:
1. There should be more incentive to fill out detatchments, as opposed to adding more
2. Allies/Soup should have downsides, but not crippling ones
3. Bolt-on detatchments shouldn't be a straight upshot (such as +CP)
4. Troops and well-rounded armies should be incentivised without neutering or rendering illegal lopsided ones

Static CP would:
-Provide incentive to neither filling out detatchments nor adding more
-Reduce the inherent incentive but not provide a disincentive to Allies/Soup
-It *does* remove the bolt-on detatchements giving +CP
-It *removes* the strongest current incentives to field well-rounded armies

A "Detatchements Cost CP" scheme would:
1. Incentivise filling out detatchments over adding more
2. Provide a disincentive for Allies/Soup without hamstringing them
3. Bolt-ons now come at a cost instead of providing a bonus
4. Incentivises well-rounded armies over lopsided ones, without destroying lopsided ones

I'm not sure if Static CP would be an improvement, but I think "Detatchments Cost CP" is a much better solution. It solves more problems, does so more gracefully, and doesn't introduce the downsides Static CP does.