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.

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

Terrible. An effective 8 CP cap on most factions would require rewriting most of the game's stratagems.
Can see where you were going with this as it would make losing your warlord more impactful, but at the same time makes armies that have access to good sniper rifles/character targeting way better. Probably wouldn't be good for the overall game.
Hard pass. Stratagem wombo combos are what make 8th and again, you'd need to rewrite pretty much every codex in the game to take this into account without dumpstering most armies.
Your only reasonable suggestion. But really, 3++ isn't breaking the game anywhere but Knights. Nobody's complaining about the Archon's 2++.

The last one is easily the worst of a bad lot. It's not like Primaris are dominating anyway so there's not really a game balance reason to do this. Forcing people to use half mini-marines is super arbitrary and no other army in the game would have to deal with a similar restriction. Also, there are full Primaris chapters in the fluff so that would just screw anybody who picked one of those up. Like, what is even the point of this other than "PRIMARIS BAD"?

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

Though I don't necessarily agree with any of them, I can understand reasoning behind all but the last point. Primaris only on half models makes absolutely no sense, in-game and for background. There are primaris only chapters in the background from the ultima founding. In terms of power level, primaris aren't even remotely a problem.

Not that it matters in terms of it happening--I'm just curious why you would propose such a ridiculous mandate.

Mchagen wrote:


Though I don't necessarily agree with any of them, I can understand reasoning behind all but the last point. Primaris only on half models makes absolutely no sense, in-game and for background. There are primaris only chapters in the background from the ultima founding. In terms of power level, primaris aren't even remotely a problem.

Not that it matters in terms of it happening--I'm just curious why you would propose such a ridiculous mandate.

Well the question is "what do you want to see". I'm tired of all the local Primaris stuff... would like to see standard marines more. I neither think it would happen nor is it reasonable... just would want it

The rest I'm in earnest on. CPs are dumb. I'm not playing a wargame against your models, I'm playing who farms CPs and then triggers them. As far as others saying it would require a rewrite... I don't agree at all. Some strategems would fall out of use, others would start to see use. Its not a model or a unit or even a list type that's being invalidated, its silly CP dumbness. Look, I'm not losing games in the current meta, and my collection is moderately varied, so I don't care who's on top... this isn't butt-hurt whining, if anything I want to see games get harder for me. Triggering some inane CP "all in" combo after managing engagement envelopes is just making the rich richer and the poor poorer when it comes to skill levels. We don't need more roflstomps in 40k... we need lists to be a little bit more durable and a little bit more forgiving... lobotomizing the stupid CP-Strategem matrix would really solve a ton of problems, and other than making people play their units instead of lame trigger daisy chains, and can't see a downside. You're not clever with strategem management chaining... they're all pretty obvious, terribly unsporting, and make for some boring game play.

ERJAK wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Forget 2D6. Double its strength in melta so it generates more wounds so it might be able to brute force though invulns.

Doubling it's strength wouldn't generate more wounds or help it get past invulns at all.

It'd wound T8 on 2+ instead of 4+ and T7 on 2+ instead of 3+. That's quite a jump.

Is it though? Keep in mind these are all averages and that actually plotting out all the different data points will give you a much better idea of what the actual results will be but:

1 S8 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.5*3.5= 1.17 Against a 4++ that's .58

1 S16 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.833*3.5= 1.94 Against a 4++ that's .97

So you get essentially .77 additional damage per shot or .39 against a 4++ invul. If you had an SoB dominion squad of 5 meltas that's an extra 3.85 or 1.95 wounds for the entire squad.


Obviously the D6 damage makes this super swingy and averages isn't a fantastic indicator of output in this situation, but the initial impressions seem...okayish at best.

But it's still increase. And notice that .97 is 67% jump. Sure double shots is 100% jump but it's hardly fair so say 67% increase has no effect "because target has inv save".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Burnage wrote:

Could you explain why? It seems pretty reasonable that if you bring only weapon then you shouldn't be able to comfortably take all comers.

IGOUGO

Do you think it's not possible to have all your "effective" anti-tank weapons degraded or removed from the table before you can take a turn?

So basically your solution is "remove all non-inv units and AT weapons from the game". Ie what we have now.

GJ.

 Lobukia wrote:

Mchagen wrote:


Though I don't necessarily agree with any of them, I can understand reasoning behind all but the last point. Primaris only on half models makes absolutely no sense, in-game and for background. There are primaris only chapters in the background from the ultima founding. In terms of power level, primaris aren't even remotely a problem.

Not that it matters in terms of it happening--I'm just curious why you would propose such a ridiculous mandate.

Well the question is "what do you want to see". I'm tired of all the local Primaris stuff... would like to see standard marines more. I neither think it would happen nor is it reasonable... just would want it

A lot of people have just started in 8th, and most of them have nothing but primaris models since that's what's in the box sets and it's pretty much safe to assume at this point that the old marines will disappear at some point in the future.

The rest I'm in earnest on. CPs are dumb. I'm not playing a wargame against your models, I'm playing who farms CPs and then triggers them. As far as others saying it would require a rewrite... I don't agree at all. Some strategems would fall out of use, others would start to see use. Its not a model or a unit or even a list type that's being invalidated, its silly CP dumbness. Look, I'm not losing games in the current meta, and my collection is moderately varied, so I don't care who's on top... this isn't butt-hurt whining, if anything I want to see games get harder for me. Triggering some inane CP "all in" combo after managing engagement envelopes is just making the rich richer and the poor poorer when it comes to skill levels. We don't need more roflstomps in 40k... we need lists to be a little bit more durable and a little bit more forgiving... lobotomizing the stupid CP-Strategem matrix would really solve a ton of problems, and other than making people play their units instead of lame trigger daisy chains, and can't see a downside. You're not clever with strategem management chaining... they're all pretty obvious, terribly unsporting, and make for some boring game play.

What would you think about keeping the amount of CP roughly the same, but spreading them over the turns? For example, instead of getting 15 CP turn one, you would generate 3 per turn.
Someone who want's to pile three or more stratagems on a unit would have to safe up for that combo, allowing counter-play from the other player by damaging/destroying the combo unit.

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

Ahh an auto death to DE builds. Great idea.

I also asked that they do something to change how CP work, to be more like AoS :

- Everybody starts with 3CP, that can be used on pre-game stratagems
- At the start of every turn after the 1st, you generate 1CP +1CP if your Warlord is alive +1CP if you have at least a Bataillon or Brigade.

Plain and simple, would solve loads of issues...

 Nym wrote:
I also asked that they do something to change how CP work, to be more like AoS :

- Everybody starts with 3CP, that can be used on pre-game stratagems
- At the start of every turn after the 1st, you generate 1CP +1CP if your Warlord is alive +1CP if you have at least a Bataillon or Brigade.

Plain and simple, would solve loads of issues...

Considering how some stratagems cost 3 or 4 CP the amount of CP generated over a game kind of needs to stay the same. However, an ork army generating 4 CP per turn seems a lot more reasonable than blowing 20 CP in the first two turns.

 Jidmah wrote:
Considering how some stratagems cost 3 or 4 CP the amount of CP generated over a game kind of needs to stay the same. However, an ork army generating 4 CP per turn seems a lot more reasonable than blowing 20 CP in the first two turns.

With my proposition, you get 15CP over 5 turns (18/21 over 6 or 7 turns). If you lose your Warlord early or if you don't have any Battalion / Brigade, you get 13CP (if both, you get 8CP). It's rather fair don't you think ? ^^

Many armies don't have warlords that sit back and buff stuff, but strive to deal damage in close combat. You are putting an unfair disadvantage on those types of characters which already give up VP easily. In addition, you are adding more power to armies that have snipers over those who don't.
Therefore connecting CP generation to warlords being alive is a horrible idea.

You also removed any reason to ever bring a brigade or even more than 3 troops.

If you just take current CP amount/5 = CP generation, many problems would be fixed, without locking armies out of their most powerful stratagems.

 Jidmah wrote:
Many armies don't have warlords that sit back and buff stuff, but strive to deal damage in close combat. You are putting an unfair disadvantage on those types of characters which already give up VP easily. In addition, you are adding more power to armies that have snipers over those who don't.

It's actually a feature of my proposition, not a bug. It works like this in Killteam and feels right to me. You should never throw your Warlord away as if it was just another beatstick. Without a strong leader, many countries or armies along History quickly turned to chaos. Warlords are chosen before the game starts, if you're facing snipers, choose a character that can hide easily or play smart.

In many other wargames it's even worse, if you lose your leader you lose the game (Warmachine for example).

You also removed any reason to ever bring a brigade or even more than 3 troops.

True. It should probably be "If you have at least 1 Battalion, you get +1CP each turn after the first. If you have at least 1 Brigade, you get +2CP instead".

 Nym wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Considering how some stratagems cost 3 or 4 CP the amount of CP generated over a game kind of needs to stay the same. However, an ork army generating 4 CP per turn seems a lot more reasonable than blowing 20 CP in the first two turns.

With my proposition, you get 15CP over 5 turns (18/21 over 6 or 7 turns). If you lose your Warlord early or if you don't have any Battalion / Brigade, you get 13CP (if both, you get 8CP). It's rather fair don't you think ? ^^

This will then benefit armies that don't need cp that much as is vs those who do but would get alpha striked off board before they get enough cp.

Ig would love this one. Cp aren"t that needed, other armies lost their toys for most of the game. Cool

Also kills pregame stratagems

 Nym wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Many armies don't have warlords that sit back and buff stuff, but strive to deal damage in close combat. You are putting an unfair disadvantage on those types of characters which already give up VP easily. In addition, you are adding more power to armies that have snipers over those who don't.

It's actually a feature of my proposition, not a bug. It works like this in Killteam and feels right to me. You should never throw your Warlord away as if it was just another beatstick. Without a strong leader, many countries or armies along History quickly turned to chaos. Warlords are chosen before the game starts, if you're facing snipers, choose a character that can hide easily or play smart.

You are using humans as measuring stick for daemons, orks or tyranids. Their fluff is different, as their leaders are leading from the front and wouldn't be a warlord at all if they dared hide in the back or they are even considered expendable since they can be reborn at later times. On top of that, there are warlord traits which only do anything on beatstick characters, therefore you assessment of what a warlord should be or do is wrong - it is neither supported by rules nor by fluff.

 Jidmah wrote:
therefore you assessment of what a warlord should be or do is wrong - it is neither supported by rules nor by fluff.

It's supported by GW though, otherwise Slay the Warlord wouldn't exist and Killteam wouldn't award Command Points as long as your Leader is alive.

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

I like it. Personally, I'd like it so that most stratagems can only be used when the Warlord is on the table, to give the effect that the warlord themself is directing the battle strategy. Agreed with the 4+ invulns. I'd also like to see fewer ignore damage rolls better than 6+. Why the Primaris restriction though? What's the problem with that?

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

Well, that would a make the Grey Knights even worse then they are now. Remove the only two last good things in their codex, and make it impossible to use blessed ammo. Guess at least the primaris part ain't that bad, mostly because GK can't take primaris in the first place, but it is something I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

I like it. Personally, I'd like it so that most stratagems can only be used when the Warlord is on the table, to give the effect that the warlord themself is directing the battle strategy. Agreed with the 4+ invulns. I'd also like to see fewer ignore damage rolls better than 6+. Why the Primaris restriction though? What's the problem with that?

What about stratagems that represent the use of basic gear like GK blessed ammo? There is no tactic involved in it. Activation is psychic and done by the shooter, and GK like all marines bless all their weapons pre battle.

1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.

*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds

2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.

3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)

4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.

5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general

6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified

Karol wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

Well, that would a make the Grey Knights even worse then they are now. Remove the only two last good things in their codex, and make it impossible to use blessed ammo. Guess at least the primaris part ain't that bad, mostly because GK can't take primaris in the first place, but it is something I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

I like it. Personally, I'd like it so that most stratagems can only be used when the Warlord is on the table, to give the effect that the warlord themself is directing the battle strategy. Agreed with the 4+ invulns. I'd also like to see fewer ignore damage rolls better than 6+. Why the Primaris restriction though? What's the problem with that?

What about stratagems that represent the use of basic gear like GK blessed ammo? There is no tactic involved in it. Activation is psychic and done by the shooter, and GK like all marines bless all their weapons pre battle.

I don't know the fluff behind that particular stratagem, but I envision it something like the commander giving an order like, "Purgatos squad, load daemonfire ammo and fell that foul abomination," or some such. With respect to how these things affect Grey Knights, the unfortunate truth is that with the predicament they're in, nothing short of a new codex is going to lessen their woes any time soon. On the basis of worst come, first serve, hopefully the impoverished monks of Titan will be next in line for a major rework. Personally, I'd like to see Games Workshop reach out to Lawrence Baker of Tabletop Tactics for his input. He's a hobby gem and an avid Grey Knight player.

 Nym wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
therefore you assessment of what a warlord should be or do is wrong - it is neither supported by rules nor by fluff.

It's supported by GW though, otherwise Slay the Warlord wouldn't exist and Killteam wouldn't award Command Points as long as your Leader is alive.

Slay the Warlord rewards killing a warlord rather than punishing you for losing him. You are basically suggesting that killing the warlord should yield -5 CP on top of giving up a VP under the current rules - which would be utterly ridiculous.

KillTeam doesn't have any 3 or 4 CP stratagems that I'm aware of. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 lonewolf81 wrote:
1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.

*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds

2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.

3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)

4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.

5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general

6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified

That first suggestion wouldn’t work for Militarum Tempestus. All Militarum Tempestus is is troops and transports with elite support.

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

I don't agree with the warlord death part. Some people play aggressive armies that the warlord is bound to get into the fray. Making castle style lists a much safer option. Rendering melee armies even further useless.

The single detatcment CP idea is neat though. Same with the invuln idea. The primaris thing is confusing to me, what's wrong with primaris?

Maybe instead of one strat per turn, one strategem per phase?

 Apple Peel wrote:

 lonewolf81 wrote:
1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.

*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds

2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.

3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)

4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.

5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general

6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified

That first suggestion wouldn’t work for Militarum Tempestus. All Militarum Tempestus is is troops and transports with elite support.

They cant use the battalion? I proposed that you can use any number of detachments you want but you get the +1 CP only once each turn and there would be only one detachment with troops like a battalion (no brigade and the patrol wont give you any additional CP each turn) and the other detachments as already are

I still think the solution I argued for pre-CA 2018 would work pretty well regarding CP. I had a longer explanation then, but the gist is this:

Instead of earning them from detachments let's just consider an even system based on the points you're allowed to bring. You always get your 3CP for being battleforged (assuming you actually are battleforged) and you get an additional 2CP per 500 points you're allowed to bring. So it'd look like this:


500 points - 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP

Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP. In addition, only your warlords detachment can regen CPs in regards to relics.

EDIT: Forgot to say, that at games of 1001+ points need to have a battalion or brigade to unlock you battleforged CP

 Lobukia wrote:
What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list

This started out in left field and ended up in the stands assaulting a peanut salesman. I loved every minute of it, 10/10.

How would you square your CP restrictions with the fact that essentially only 1% of stratagems in the game would ever end up getting used? With one stratagem per game turn per player, you'd essentially have each army select one single stratagem to use on their turn and one on their opponent's turn, and it'd pretty much always be the best choice. Why would I ever use, for example, Mob Up, or 'Ard Boyz, or Loot It, when I am limited to 1 strat per turn and I pretty much must use Grot Shields and either Shoot Twice or Fight Twice?

Would slaying the warlord divide your remaining CPs in half or subtract half from your starting value?

How does your 1 detachment CP restriction square with some armies being able to get to a brigade in ~650 points and other being incapable of running one at 2000? Wouldn't this create a "armies with Brigades are on this tier, armies without brgades are on that tier" situation even worse than we have now?

what makes you think people are taking the primaris keyword on any of their models, much less needing a special restriction to only half? Is there any reason for this besides "I just don't like 'em, Steve!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PiñaColada wrote:
I still think the solution I argued for pre-CA 2018 would work pretty well regarding CP. I had a longer explanation then, but the gist is this:

Instead of earning them from detachments let's just consider an even system based on the points you're allowed to bring. You always get your 3CP for being battleforged (assuming you actually are battleforged) and you get an additional 2CP per 500 points you're allowed to bring. So it'd look like this:


500 points - 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP

Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP. In addition, only your warlords detachment can regen CPs in regards to relics.

I think this solves some problems and exacerbates some others. For example, if you don't require imperial soup lists to bring comparatively weaker Cp-farming detachments to fuel their knights, they'd most likely end up screened by even tougher units than the wall of guardsmen that currently exists. You'd exchange out the wall of guardsmen for a wall of bullgryns supported by astropaths, because why bother bringing anything but the strongest screen for my knight if I don't need to get CP for it?

It also leaves the problem in place that it is most efficient to spend all your CP in a single shot because you can combo stratagems together (e.g. getting double use out of Red Rampage by fighting twice, or triple use by using Only in Death, allowing a 150-point character to reliably ace a 600-point superheavy)

the_scotsman wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

Spoiler:

I still think the solution I argued for pre-CA 2018 would work pretty well regarding CP. I had a longer explanation then, but the gist is this:

Instead of earning them from detachments let's just consider an even system based on the points you're allowed to bring. You always get your 3CP for being battleforged (assuming you actually are battleforged) and you get an additional 2CP per 500 points you're allowed to bring. So it'd look like this:


500 points - 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP

Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP. In addition, only your warlords detachment can regen CPs in regards to relics.

I think this solves some problems and exacerbates some others. For example, if you don't require imperial soup lists to bring comparatively weaker Cp-farming detachments to fuel their knights, they'd most likely end up screened by even tougher units than the wall of guardsmen that currently exists. You'd exchange out the wall of guardsmen for a wall of bullgryns supported by astropaths, because why bother bringing anything but the strongest screen for my knight if I don't need to get CP for it?

It also leaves the problem in place that it is most efficient to spend all your CP in a single shot because you can combo stratagems together (e.g. getting double use out of Red Rampage by fighting twice, or triple use by using Only in Death, allowing a 150-point character to reliably ace a 600-point superheavy)

Okay, first off. I realised I missed something in my hasty write up of those rules. At 1001+ points you need to bring either a battalion or bigade to unlock the battleforged CP.
Well, regarding IK getting tougher "chaff" to block them, is that really an issue? Guardsmen are hyper efficient for their points and potential board control whereas slightly better troops might not be as good at those jobs. And IK with 10CP (since they lose at least 1 for having a soup detachment) are going to be broke round 1 most likely.

Regarding spending all your CP round 1 (or at least in one round) to super buff up a unit, that's the way it's currently played and I'm not sure if I feel like it's a big issue. There are usually ways of blocking that through positioning/use of your own stratagems (and if there aren't then that should probably be a separate fix). The difference here is that if you spend 7CP in a single round then that's almost your entire pool of them, in the current version it's quite possible you have another 10-15 of them.

 lonewolf81 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 lonewolf81 wrote:
1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.

*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds

2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.

3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)

4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.

5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general

6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified

That first suggestion wouldn’t work for Militarum Tempestus. All Militarum Tempestus is is troops and transports with elite support.

They cant use the battalion? I proposed that you can use any number of detachments you want but you get the +1 CP only once each turn and there would be only one detachment with troops like a battalion (no brigade and the patrol wont give you any additional CP each turn) and the other detachments as already are

From what I interpreted, I figured you wanted that there be at least one detachment like and outrider or spearhead, which MT can’t do. Most of the time, full Scion armies will be two battalions.

the_scotsman wrote:


This started out in left field and ended up in the stands assaulting a peanut salesman. I loved every minute of it, 10/10.

Love it, will steal that some day

How would you square your CP restrictions with the fact that essentially only 1% of stratagems in the game would ever end up getting used? With one stratagem per game turn per player, you'd essentially have each army select one single stratagem to use on their turn and one on their opponent's turn, and it'd pretty much always be the best choice. Why would I ever use, for example, Mob Up, or 'Ard Boyz, or Loot It, when I am limited to 1 strat per turn and I pretty much must use Grot Shields and either Shoot Twice or Fight Twice?

Well that's assuming you'd have the CP for the best strat every time and not want to choose more economic or reliable strats right when they trigger... both you and your opponent know you only get one... there's an entire bait and switch/use it or lose it opportunity cost thing here... instead of the current, unthinking, easy button, Oprah level of CP handing out and strat usage we have now.

Would slaying the warlord divide your remaining CPs in half or subtract half from your starting value?

Divide remaining...

And btw... to everyone freaking out about front line warlords getting screwed by this... this should be exactly how it works... named snowflake unicorn butterfly super boss charges into a company level engagement, he/she had better be the focus of the enemy's ire. If you don't like that... you take two HQ and have one your blender and the other your warlord (which in most melee forces is the smart play anyway)

..or spend your much smaller CP pool (if my pipe materializes) early and not sweat it... see how much people hate having to think instead of just CP button mashing... exhibit A on why this is a problem

How does your 1 detachment CP restriction square with some armies being able to get to a brigade in ~650 points and other being incapable of running one at 2000? Wouldn't this create a "armies with Brigades are on this tier, armies without brgades are on that tier" situation even worse than we have now?

no... just the opposite... you're making my point

what makes you think people are taking the primaris keyword on any of their models, much less needing a special restriction to only half? Is there any reason for this besides "I just don't like 'em, Steve!"

nope

I think that people need to understand that this isn't a situation where a simple change makes everything work. 40K is a complex game. Any change is going to fix some things and break some others due to the overall design of the game.

Ideally, the GW dev team will continue to work on game fixing changes, and then do faction fixing changes as needed.

The idea that an idea is invalid because it doesn't fix all the problems in one go isn't reasonable, so stop saying that.

I'd love to see flamers made actually useable. Provide defense against charge regardless of range (wall of flames from 7th), unable to hit <flyer> unless hovering.

Snipers being able to target specific MODEL in a unit. So picking off sergeants and special weapons is now possible.

Capping invulnerable save at 5+ (infantry) and 4+ (vehicles), not more.

 Hawky wrote:

Capping invulnerable save at 5+ (infantry) and 4+ (vehicles), not more.

What would you do with storm shields (pretending people still use units with these)