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.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I always felt that the simplest solution to soup, which means you can stil ldo it if you want to have a fluffy alliance but can't if you're farming CP, is to state that CP can only be used by the faction of the detachment which generated it - so loyal 32 makes extra CP, but it can only be spent on guard. This could easily fit in with the above proposal, and so reward fluff-soup and punish farm-soup.

I agree but people hate the idea of having to write down extra numbers, so I have an alternative that popped into my head a minute ago, anti-min maxing CP rule, no detachment that is less than 20% of the value of your army generates CP. If you're going to have 3 detachments, balance those boys. It'd run into problems over 2k points since there's more detatchments allowed as you get bigger, but it'd certainly make min maxing slightly less rewarding.

I think that this argument of increased bookkeeping becomes much less relevant when you realise the effect the change will have on the list-building.

Most people argue "I have 3 factions in my army, 2 of which exist purely for the CP, and I don't want to have to track 3 CP values separately".
I Argue "If you can only use the CP for that faction, you won't have 3 factions to keep track of, because you won't have 2 batallions of CP farm".

Is there anyone who would use more than 2 factions if they can't pool their CP?

Alternatively, only allow them to pool CP under certain conditions, EG at least 1/4 of the army points. so each detachment must be 500pts or more in a 2k game to pool points - or to generate them at all, for that matter. tiny tack-on army shouldn't grant extra control of the army.

I actually like that thought; 1/4 of total points to generate CP, and can only pool with factions which share a keyword (EG imperium, chaos). keeps fluffy imperial lists. Add a note to IG that they can be heretics and replace all IMPERIUM keywords with CHAOS, and then sort out the CP costs & generation for the non-imperium-or-chaos armies (before someone says "what about necrons?")

I actually like that thought; 1/4 of total points to generate CP, and can only pool with factions which share a keyword (EG imperium, chaos). keeps fluffy imperial lists. Add a note to IG that they can be heretics and replace all IMPERIUM keywords with CHAOS, and then sort out the CP costs & generation for the non-imperium-or-chaos armies (before someone says "what about necrons?")

Well HOW ABOUT This, we fix the R&H list up instead? Release a box of set off BSF traitors and fix their rules....
Booom done.

Maybe you get 3CP base, and then +1CP for each Troop choice, with one HQ for every three Troops, and it costs you -1CP for each non-Troops, non-HQ choice, -2CP for doubles, and -3 for triples. Things like super-heavy, flyers, or fortifications would be -1CP to -3CP.

So an army consisting of 2 HQs, 6 Troops, 1 Elite, and 2 Heavy Support would have 5 CPs left over to spend on Strategems.

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe you get 3CP base, and then +1CP for each Troop choice, with one HQ for every three Troops, and it costs you -1CP for each non-Troops, non-HQ choice, -2CP for doubles, and -3 for triples. Things like super-heavy, flyers, or fortifications would be -1CP to -3CP.

So an army consisting of 2 HQs, 6 Troops, 1 Elite, and 2 Heavy Support would have 5 CPs left over to spend on Strategems.

Congrats you just eliminated all armies with bad and or expensive troop choices.
Well played.

These suggestions destroy Necrons.

I dig the idea to give specific stratagems for having specific detachments. That could certainly encourage different lists and strategies. Would just take a massive amount of testing to balance out, because it would almost certainly create some combination within some faction that is crazy.

I don't think generating CP based off anything you bring to the table is smart. That is already clearly been one of the big issues in 8th where some factions have easier abilities to farm. Even if you base it on just numbers of detachments, that'll encourage certain builds over others.

Maybe it could be something simple. Beginning of each round each player rolling and getting d3 CP back. Period. Don't base it on anything, so no one can try to build to manipulate it. Give everyone a chance to get more CP or some again since stratagem use makes or breaks games. And dice roll cause that is what its all about.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe you get 3CP base, and then +1CP for each Troop choice, with one HQ for every three Troops, and it costs you -1CP for each non-Troops, non-HQ choice, -2CP for doubles, and -3 for triples. Things like super-heavy, flyers, or fortifications would be -1CP to -3CP.

So an army consisting of 2 HQs, 6 Troops, 1 Elite, and 2 Heavy Support would have 5 CPs left over to spend on Strategems.

Congrats you just eliminated all armies with bad and or expensive troop choices.
Well played.

For example?

Nurglitch wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe you get 3CP base, and then +1CP for each Troop choice, with one HQ for every three Troops, and it costs you -1CP for each non-Troops, non-HQ choice, -2CP for doubles, and -3 for triples. Things like super-heavy, flyers, or fortifications would be -1CP to -3CP.

So an army consisting of 2 HQs, 6 Troops, 1 Elite, and 2 Heavy Support would have 5 CPs left over to spend on Strategems.

Congrats you just eliminated all armies with bad and or expensive troop choices.
Well played.

For example?

I mean, Necrons are the first one that comes to mind.

I'm not an expert, so I'm just curious how. I mean, Immortals are nasty.

Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not an expert, so I'm just curious how. I mean, Immortals are nasty.

They are overpriced. A Guard army can take 2 troop choices for 80 points and a Minimum squad of Immortals is 75 points. 20 Guard Infantrymen is vastly superior to 5 Immortals.

 Blndmage wrote:
These suggestions destroy Necrons.

I don't think mine did, it would just need to be tailored for the 'crons.

EG overlord gives 1CP for each unit of warriors or immortals in the army
Not sure what else can be applied with newcrons, but with oldcrons I'd have said tomb spyders give 1CP for each unit of scarabs, which is a cool function as they (at least used to) create scarabs, so can increase your CP output through the game.

It's a mechanic which takes units which synergise to create a balanced force and rewards the player for bringing them. Most armies this will be HQ & Troops, but other builds can be utilised to grant CP (Meks rewarding dreads, wraithseers rewarding wraithguard, kharne rewarding bezerkers. Minor units could also grant single CP; 1CP if you have 1+ runtherd and 1+ gretchin.)

That makes me think, actually, but it sounds a lot like the old detachments. It would be useful for themed armies which would otherwise get limited CP, EG the ork dreadbash:

Ork Dreadbash: If the army contains 1+ Big Mek, 3+ Deff Dreads and 5+ Killa Kans, gain 5CP

Can be tailored for any themed army. CP will need to be less than a normal army (as these themed armies tend to be quite powerful) but enough to make it worth taking. They could also open up the stratagems, so they are less universal. EG:

Grot Shield: If the army contains 3 or more units of 20 or more gretchin, gain 3CP and the "Grot Shields" Stratagem.

Making the CP generation linked more to the army and less to filling up slots.

Trukk Rush: If your army has enough transport capacity for all your non-Gretchin Infantry units, Gain 3CP and the "Trukk Rush" Stratagem.

Trukk Rush Stratagem: 3CP, once per game, all TRUKKS may charge after advancing.


Could this be made to work with necrons? They seem to be the sticking point for most of these proposals, so if it can work for them, then it should be a good rule.

Nurglitch wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe you get 3CP base, and then +1CP for each Troop choice, with one HQ for every three Troops, and it costs you -1CP for each non-Troops, non-HQ choice, -2CP for doubles, and -3 for triples. Things like super-heavy, flyers, or fortifications would be -1CP to -3CP.

So an army consisting of 2 HQs, 6 Troops, 1 Elite, and 2 Heavy Support would have 5 CPs left over to spend on Strategems.

Congrats you just eliminated all armies with bad and or expensive troop choices.
Well played.

For example?

Chaos space marines?
Cultists are now vastly inferor to the start of 8th and CSM squads only now have become somewhat playable again due to bonus CP provided by RC trait?
Not to mention that the whole CSM army RELIES on CP and stratagems to be kept somewhat playable?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
These suggestions destroy Necrons.

I don't think mine did, it would just need to be tailored for the 'crons.

EG overlord gives 1CP for each unit of warriors or immortals in the army
Not sure what else can be applied with newcrons, but with oldcrons I'd have said tomb spyders give 1CP for each unit of scarabs, which is a cool function as they (at least used to) create scarabs, so can increase your CP output through the game.

It's a mechanic which takes units which synergise to create a balanced force and rewards the player for bringing them. Most armies this will be HQ & Troops, but other builds can be utilised to grant CP (Meks rewarding dreads, wraithseers rewarding wraithguard, kharne rewarding bezerkers. Minor units could also grant single CP; 1CP if you have 1+ runtherd and 1+ gretchin.)

That makes me think, actually, but it sounds a lot like the old detachments. It would be useful for themed armies which would otherwise get limited CP, EG the ork dreadbash:

Ork Dreadbash: If the army contains 1+ Big Mek, 3+ Deff Dreads and 5+ Killa Kans, gain 5CP

Can be tailored for any themed army. CP will need to be less than a normal army (as these themed armies tend to be quite powerful) but enough to make it worth taking. They could also open up the stratagems, so they are less universal. EG:

Grot Shield: If the army contains 3 or more units of 20 or more gretchin, gain 3CP and the "Grot Shields" Stratagem.

Making the CP generation linked more to the army and less to filling up slots.

Trukk Rush: If your army has enough transport capacity for all your non-Gretchin Infantry units, Gain 3CP and the "Trukk Rush" Stratagem.

Trukk Rush Stratagem: 3CP, once per game, all TRUKKS may charge after advancing.


Could this be made to work with necrons? They seem to be the sticking point for most of these proposals, so if it can work for them, then it should be a good rule.

Goes close to something i envisioned, altough many would complain it would get to close to "Formations".
I like it though.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Goes close to something i envisioned, altough many would complain it would get to close to "Formations".
I like it though.

Formations, that was the word I was after, not detachments!

The old formations were crap because they were overpowered. If you use them to grant a CP bonus and a stratagem or two to people building themed lists, it would work I think.

The important thing is to make sure that they aren't so cheap as to be spammed or abused. Taking the themed formation should be a way to allow a thematic list to not be so underpowered as to be laughable.

EG, currently if I brought a full army of deff dreads and killa kans, with minimal grots to make a battalion, I would have a pretty bad army - no anti-flier, minimal CP, and some sub-par units to get shot up by all the anti-knight firepower on the board. But if I get extra CP's and a stratagem or two to reflect the playstyle of this themed list, it will make it much more appealing. It will also make armies more unpredictable for the opponent, and help reduce the prolification of superheavies on the board, shaking up the meta.

Stratagems for dreads would be things like kustom force-field boostas (if a deff dread is within 6" of a model with a KFF, models within 6" of this deff dread have a 5++ against shooting) and "Stomp Stomp Stomp!" (If 2 or more gorka/morkanaughts, 3 or more deff dreads or 5 or more kans are in combat with an infantry unit, use this stratagem to fight again with these units).


I'd have no problem with a re-invention of formations, if it was done properly.

 some bloke wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Goes close to something i envisioned, altough many would complain it would get to close to "Formations".
I like it though.

Formations, that was the word I was after, not detachments!

The old formations were crap because they were overpowered. If you use them to grant a CP bonus and a stratagem or two to people building themed lists, it would work I think.

The important thing is to make sure that they aren't so cheap as to be spammed or abused. Taking the themed formation should be a way to allow a thematic list to not be so underpowered as to be laughable.

EG, currently if I brought a full army of deff dreads and killa kans, with minimal grots to make a battalion, I would have a pretty bad army - no anti-flier, minimal CP, and some sub-par units to get shot up by all the anti-knight firepower on the board. But if I get extra CP's and a stratagem or two to reflect the playstyle of this themed list, it will make it much more appealing. It will also make armies more unpredictable for the opponent, and help reduce the prolification of superheavies on the board, shaking up the meta.

Stratagems for dreads would be things like kustom force-field boostas (if a deff dread is within 6" of a model with a KFF, models within 6" of this deff dread have a 5++ against shooting) and "Stomp Stomp Stomp!" (If 2 or more gorka/morkanaughts, 3 or more deff dreads or 5 or more kans are in combat with an infantry unit, use this stratagem to fight again with these units).


I'd have no problem with a re-invention of formations, if it was done properly.

Frankly imo the detachments could've been formations, as in they grant you an universal detachment specific Stratagem, depending on size of the detachment and how filled could make the ammount of times you could use that detachment.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Goes close to something i envisioned, altough many would complain it would get to close to "Formations".
I like it though.

Formations, that was the word I was after, not detachments!

The old formations were crap because they were overpowered. If you use them to grant a CP bonus and a stratagem or two to people building themed lists, it would work I think.

The important thing is to make sure that they aren't so cheap as to be spammed or abused. Taking the themed formation should be a way to allow a thematic list to not be so underpowered as to be laughable.

EG, currently if I brought a full army of deff dreads and killa kans, with minimal grots to make a battalion, I would have a pretty bad army - no anti-flier, minimal CP, and some sub-par units to get shot up by all the anti-knight firepower on the board. But if I get extra CP's and a stratagem or two to reflect the playstyle of this themed list, it will make it much more appealing. It will also make armies more unpredictable for the opponent, and help reduce the prolification of superheavies on the board, shaking up the meta.

Stratagems for dreads would be things like kustom force-field boostas (if a deff dread is within 6" of a model with a KFF, models within 6" of this deff dread have a 5++ against shooting) and "Stomp Stomp Stomp!" (If 2 or more gorka/morkanaughts, 3 or more deff dreads or 5 or more kans are in combat with an infantry unit, use this stratagem to fight again with these units).


I'd have no problem with a re-invention of formations, if it was done properly.

Frankly imo the detachments could've been formations, as in they grant you an universal detachment specific Stratagem, depending on size of the detachment and how filled could make the ammount of times you could use that detachment.

I think that sort of works, but I think that my proposal of having the detachments remain the same, but granting bonuses for certain combinations, would be a more flexible approach.

For example, if there was a CP bonus for having 1 HQ and 2 troops, and also one for having 3 full squads of ork boys, then you can fulfil both by having 1 HQ and 3 full units of boys. If you had a "green tide" formation and a "basic army" detachment, you couldn't do both with the same list.

This would mean that a list which features as many combinations of "formations" as possible would get more CP, but have a more mixed bag of an army.

Random Example:

If there were these formations:
Trukk Rush: If each ork boys unit in your army has a trukk bought for them, +2CP & trukk rush stratagem.
Green Tide: If your army has 3 full units of boys, +3CP & some stratagem.
Bully Boys: If the army contains 2 warbosses and 1 unit of nobs or Meganobs, +2CP & some stratagem.

an army list with 3 units of 30 boys with trukks, 2 warbosses and a unit of Meganobs would fulfil all these requirements and gain 7CP, but be less than effective for it (paying for unusable trukks).

Making the detachments instead unlock stratagems would be a good way to go. you could have the detachments allow XCP to be spent per turn. So if you want to spend more, bring more detachments.

@some bloke:

One of the big complaints about formations in 7th was that it felt like they built your army for you. I'd worry that what you're proposing would run into a similar problem. Sure, it's nice to get some CP for doing a Trukk Rush if I want to build a kult of speed army, but I'm going to be missing out on CP and stratagems if I don't also fit a Bully Boyz detachment into my list instead of those extra bikes that would be more inkeeping with the speed freaks theme.

Or maybe I want to use my kommandos unit, but taking them instead of a a squad of nobz means I give up the Bully Boys detachment and all its associated benefits.

The current system is far from perfect, but I do generally feel that I can take the units I want without running into weird gamey limitations.

The general concept is neat. I can think of plenty of flavorful formations/detachments that would work, but I'd worry about all the units that would end up sans a viable formation that gives me an excuse to include them. And that's assuming you balance all the formations themselves perfectly. A scatbike CAD in 7th edition was both horribly broken and also a very fluffy Saim-Hann army.

I'm open to dramatic overhauls, but I still feel like one of the simplest functional reworks of the current system is just to...
*Give players X CP per Y points (say 3CP for every 500 points of game size).

* Price stratagems with optimized application in mind (imagine Lightning Fast Reactions will be used on Alaitoc Flyers rather than on Iyanden dire avengers)

To an extent, I kind of view the distinction between codices to be artificial. Sure, soup armies have access to more units, but that's largely a matter of keywords. Is having the ability to add the short list of harlequin units to your drukhari army really all that different from being able to add primaris marines to your otherwise non-primaris army? If you called a ravager a "heavy vyper" and slapped the CRAFTWORLD keyword on it, would non-aeldari players know/care?

I've had another thought on this, following your (quite right) points about this writing your army for you:

First, we add more keywords to things. We add "speed Freeks" to the buggies, bikers, stormboys, "Speed Freeks" and "Trukk Rush" to trukks, "Battlewagon Bash" to battlewagons, bonebreakers and gunwagons, "Dreadbash" to walkers, and so on.

Then you pick a "theme" for your army, from an available list in the codex.

You then get "X" CP for each unit with this keyword. This will vary depending on the cost of the units included. EG:

Speed Freeks: Get 1CP for each "SPEED FREEKS" unit in your army.
Trukk Rush: Get 2CP for each "TRUKK RUSH" unit in your army.
Battlewagon Bash: 3CP per Battlewagon Bash unit

And so on.

Then, have stratagems which work with the theme, and which only affect the units with this theme, as well as a basic stock of standard stratagems.

Knights could then get 6CP per knight. and soup would be unnecessary.

 some bloke wrote:
I've had another thought on this, following your (quite right) points about this writing your army for you:

First, we add more keywords to things. We add "speed Freeks" to the buggies, bikers, stormboys, "Speed Freeks" and "Trukk Rush" to trukks, "Battlewagon Bash" to battlewagons, bonebreakers and gunwagons, "Dreadbash" to walkers, and so on.

Then you pick a "theme" for your army, from an available list in the codex.

You then get "X" CP for each unit with this keyword. This will vary depending on the cost of the units included. EG:

Speed Freeks: Get 1CP for each "SPEED FREEKS" unit in your army.
Trukk Rush: Get 2CP for each "TRUKK RUSH" unit in your army.
Battlewagon Bash: 3CP per Battlewagon Bash unit

And so on.

Then, have stratagems which work with the theme, and which only affect the units with this theme, as well as a basic stock of standard stratagems.

Knights could then get 6CP per knight. and soup would be unnecessary.

A knight list does not function with 6 CP that's 2 turns of rotate ion shields. Whilest the rest of the list get's bogged down and out.

Also This just improves massed armies over elite armies, meaning that CSM, SM, Custards, Necrons , etc will not be able to field enough CP.

I also doubt it is good when certain mass armies get nigh infinite CP (Cue Tellyporta shenanigans etc, which are allready bad enough dsign imo, not just because it inherently just disregards the supposed weakness of the army but also because it singlehandedly hiked the price on a horde army lists supposedly most used unit.)

Not Online!!! wrote:

A knight list does not function with 6 CP that's 2 turns of rotate ion shields. Whilest the rest of the list get's bogged down and out.

Also This just improves massed armies over elite armies, meaning that CSM, SM, Custards, Necrons , etc will not be able to field enough CP.

I also doubt it is good when certain mass armies get nigh infinite CP (Cue Tellyporta shenanigans etc, which are allready bad enough dsign imo, not just because it inherently just disregards the supposed weakness of the army but also because it singlehandedly hiked the price on a horde army lists supposedly most used unit.)

My proposal involves re-costing stratagems based on the idea that:

Only 1 faction generates CP
Only 1 faction gets their specific stratagems

So, Knights would generate 6CP each, and then make their stratagems cost 2CP, so that's 3 turns of rotate ion shields per knight per game. That should be enough - if they can't survive without doing it every turn, then it should just be a rule.

It is also important to note that elite armies can make use of a single stratagem more than MSU armies. I also suggest that the CP per unit accounts for the style of army - hordes would only get 1CP per relevant unit, elites 2CP per relevant unit, hyper-elite would get 3CP per relevant unit, and so on. This would make 3 units of marines (with the relevant character or theme to unlock their CP) the equivalent of 6 units from a horde.

The method would be to think how you want to play, pick out the stratagems you want to be able to use, and then make a list to unlock them with maximum CP.


Of my suggestions, my favourite is that a character + units combo, EG chapter master grants 2CP per unit of tacticals. Then have stratagems issued like IG orders, and have stratagems listed under the chapter master entry. Squad leaders will have their own stratagems as well. Basically, rework stratagems to work kinda like IG orders.

For Example (back to orks, it's what I know):
a Big Mek grants 2CP for each deff dread or 3 killa kans in the army. He grants access to the Tellyporta stratagem (once per mek), for example.

IG would be a bit different. They would get a lot of CP because they are an MSU army, but then make orders stratagems as well. These would only cost 1CP on a D6 roll of a 1-2, and are free on a 3+.

Soup would still be an issue like this, as you can't easily separate the CP, but it would also become unnecessary if 500pts of knights make comparable CP to 500pts of IG. balancing it like this would work in a similar manner to the "Xcp per 500pts" system, but is less prone to abuse - whilst you can get as many CP, you have to build your list to do so - you can't, for example, take 5 gorkanaughts and have the CP to do a 3D6" charge with all 5 of them.

The aim is to make it so that souping isn't necessary as any army can get the same amount of CP at the same points, and by mixing your factions you lose access to additional stratagems.

EG you could take the loyal 32, and gain 3CP and access to the IG orders stratagems, or you could take a big mek and a deff dread and gain 3CP, a better unit and access to more relevant stratagems.

So allies would work, but you would need a pretty full army to gain all your stratagems. so you can either have a full force with all the tricks, or 2 more specialised forces which can work together. What you wouldn't get is one large army and a tiny detachment of guardsmen.

Orders as stratagems are bad.
Stripping away rules that define the army for what it is and was is bad. (if you want to see an extreme exemple compare R&H 8th to R&H 7th edition)

Souping will also remain an issue so long it is unpunished due to the nature of just picking holes in your list and fixing your listsweaknesses.
Lacking good effective AT, pick something out of the other dex.
Lacking effective Anti infantry, not to worry if you are chaos or IMperium or eldar the other lists surely have you covered.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Orders as stratagems are bad.
Stripping away rules that define the army for what it is and was is bad. (if you want to see an extreme exemple compare R&H 8th to R&H 7th edition)

Souping will also remain an issue so long it is unpunished due to the nature of just picking holes in your list and fixing your listsweaknesses.
Lacking good effective AT, pick something out of the other dex.
Lacking effective Anti infantry, not to worry if you are chaos or IMperium or eldar the other lists surely have you covered.

Ultimately, stratagems and orders fulfil the same purpose. The difference is that IG have always had orders, so people wish to keep it that way.

My suggestion would be that we implement the IG order system on the rest of them, but at a CP cost. This way you need to bring leadership-caste units to get access to the good stratagems, and basic units will have access to basic stratagems. Killing models will reduce the stratagems your opponent can use, EG if a Warboss allows access to a stratagem called "WAAAGH!", which would do something to make everyone fight more or whatever. If you kill him, he can't use the stratagem. I think that this would give a much increased sense of target priority - if you focus on the HQ's, then the army will get you; if you focus on the army, then the HQ's will throw out stratagems.

You could keep IG the same but with the new system by giving them the "Issue Orders" Stratagem, once per turn per unit with this option, for free, with the list of orders available.

 some bloke wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Orders as stratagems are bad.
Stripping away rules that define the army for what it is and was is bad. (if you want to see an extreme exemple compare R&H 8th to R&H 7th edition)

Souping will also remain an issue so long it is unpunished due to the nature of just picking holes in your list and fixing your listsweaknesses.
Lacking good effective AT, pick something out of the other dex.
Lacking effective Anti infantry, not to worry if you are chaos or IMperium or eldar the other lists surely have you covered.

Ultimately, stratagems and orders fulfil the same purpose. The difference is that IG have always had orders, so people wish to keep it that way.

My suggestion would be that we implement the IG order system on the rest of them, but at a CP cost. This way you need to bring leadership-caste units to get access to the good stratagems, and basic units will have access to basic stratagems. Killing models will reduce the stratagems your opponent can use, EG if a Warboss allows access to a stratagem called "WAAAGH!", which would do something to make everyone fight more or whatever. If you kill him, he can't use the stratagem. I think that this would give a much increased sense of target priority - if you focus on the HQ's, then the army will get you; if you focus on the army, then the HQ's will throw out stratagems.

You could keep IG the same but with the new system by giving them the "Issue Orders" Stratagem, once per turn per unit with this option, for free, with the list of orders available.

Adn by consequence you would need to implement limits variables along all stratagems? Is that smart?

@some bloke:

I feel like the core of your suggestion has potential, but the specifics seem to sprawling and becoming increasingly difficult to balance. As is, you'd have to...

* Make sure you were handing out an appropriate number of CP based on the cost numerous units per codex.

* Unlock strats based on army composition.

*Balance strats externally against each other while factoring in the availability of strats and CP to each faction as well as the relative costs of units that can be used to unlock those strats and CP.

And even if you managed all that, your system still seems to be susceptible to favoring armies that can do MSU efficiently. Also, it sounds like your proposed setup might risk punishing casual/fluffy allied units. Splashing in a single squad of harlequin troupers and a shadowseer usually isn't a highly-optimized choice in an otherwise non-harlequin army, but, if I understand your proposal correctly, they'd be losing access to the strats that keep them alive all the same (assuming I preferred to take the strats of whatever flavor of space elf the majority of my army was made up of).

I *think* a lot of what you're trying to achieve might be accomplished more simply by something like...

* Both players get X CP per Y points of game size.

* Break up strats into two "tiers." Let's call them Basic and Advanced. Basic strats are either semi-essential to the intended function of a faction or else are simply less powerful/efficient than Advanced strats. Advanced Strats are the really powerful or efficient strats or the more niche strats that you have to build an army around to get the most out of.

*If you include units from a given faction, you gain access to that faction's basic strats.

* If more than Z percent (let's say 50%) of your army's points/power level is from a certain faction, you gain that faction's advanced strats.

*Pay CP during list creation to mark a detachment in your army as a specialist detachment. Basically the Vigilus detachments, but with more variety. Including one or more such detachment unlocks that detachment's stratagem(s). These stratagems could be basic and/or advanced and would strongly favor units that match the detachment's theme. A Windrider Host's stratagems probably favor craftworld jetbikes but not wraith guard, for instance.

*I'd be tempted to say that your choice of warlord unlocks an advanced strat of your choice from a list based on his keywords (so a Bad Moonz Bike Boss might let you pick between a Bad Moonz or Speed Freakz strat), but that might be feature creepy.

With that system, generating CP would be simpler than it is in the official rules now. Soup would not allow you to gain access to extra CP. Soup WOULD unlock additional stratagems, but you would need to have at least Z% of your army invested in a single faction to avoid giving up your best stratagems.

You retain the advantage of flavorful "formations" in the form of special detachments. Rather than jumping through hoops to unlock them (and risking undesirable consequences to list creation), you simply pay for the expanded versatility they grant you by paying a CP fee up front.

Want to play mono-marines? Cool. You're rewarded for it by having access to advanced strats. Want to splash in some imperial guard? They won't give you any extra CP, and you can't take too many of them without losing some of your better marine strats, but you can still include them and benefit from some of their basic strats. Want to splash in a few Death Wing termies into your mostly Sisters of Battle force? Go for it, and consider paying 1CP to access their special Death Wing strats. Don't have a need for the Death Wing strats? Save your CP!

Am I overlooking something?

Wyldhunt wrote:
@some bloke:

Spoiler:

I feel like the core of your suggestion has potential, but the specifics seem to sprawling and becoming increasingly difficult to balance. As is, you'd have to...

* Make sure you were handing out an appropriate number of CP based on the cost numerous units per codex.

* Unlock strats based on army composition.

*Balance strats externally against each other while factoring in the availability of strats and CP to each faction as well as the relative costs of units that can be used to unlock those strats and CP.

And even if you managed all that, your system still seems to be susceptible to favoring armies that can do MSU efficiently. Also, it sounds like your proposed setup might risk punishing casual/fluffy allied units. Splashing in a single squad of harlequin troupers and a shadowseer usually isn't a highly-optimized choice in an otherwise non-harlequin army, but, if I understand your proposal correctly, they'd be losing access to the strats that keep them alive all the same (assuming I preferred to take the strats of whatever flavor of space elf the majority of my army was made up of).

I *think* a lot of what you're trying to achieve might be accomplished more simply by something like...

* Both players get X CP per Y points of game size.

* Break up strats into two "tiers." Let's call them Basic and Advanced. Basic strats are either semi-essential to the intended function of a faction or else are simply less powerful/efficient than Advanced strats. Advanced Strats are the really powerful or efficient strats or the more niche strats that you have to build an army around to get the most out of.

*If you include units from a given faction, you gain access to that faction's basic strats.

* If more than Z percent (let's say 50%) of your army's points/power level is from a certain faction, you gain that faction's advanced strats.

*Pay CP during list creation to mark a detachment in your army as a specialist detachment. Basically the Vigilus detachments, but with more variety. Including one or more such detachment unlocks that detachment's stratagem(s). These stratagems could be basic and/or advanced and would strongly favor units that match the detachment's theme. A Windrider Host's stratagems probably favor craftworld jetbikes but not wraith guard, for instance.

*I'd be tempted to say that your choice of warlord unlocks an advanced strat of your choice from a list based on his keywords (so a Bad Moonz Bike Boss might let you pick between a Bad Moonz or Speed Freakz strat), but that might be feature creepy.

With that system, generating CP would be simpler than it is in the official rules now. Soup would not allow you to gain access to extra CP. Soup WOULD unlock additional stratagems, but you would need to have at least Z% of your army invested in a single faction to avoid giving up your best stratagems.

You retain the advantage of flavorful "formations" in the form of special detachments. Rather than jumping through hoops to unlock them (and risking undesirable consequences to list creation), you simply pay for the expanded versatility they grant you by paying a CP fee up front.

Want to play mono-marines? Cool. You're rewarded for it by having access to advanced strats. Want to splash in some imperial guard? They won't give you any extra CP, and you can't take too many of them without losing some of your better marine strats, but you can still include them and benefit from some of their basic strats. Want to splash in a few Death Wing termies into your mostly Sisters of Battle force? Go for it, and consider paying 1CP to access their special Death Wing strats. Don't have a need for the Death Wing strats? Save your CP!

Am I overlooking something?

I really like this. I agree that my suggestions were going off on tangents with almost every post. Your suggestion works well for fluffy lists, and well for focussed lists.

It could be as simple as:
if under 25% of the army, only 1CP stratagems
if 25-50% of the army, only 1 or 2CP stratagems
if 50%+, any stratagems.

Alternatively, have it based on the number of factions;
1 faction: use anything
2 factions: Need to be 1/3 of the army points to use any strats, otherwise 1CP only
3+ factions: Need to be 1/4 of the army points to use any strats, otherwise 1CP only

Restrict number of "allied factions" to only one and restrict number of ally detachments to just a single brigade, battalion or patrol. The allied detachment must cost less points than the sum of your primary army. Something like that maybe?

123ply wrote:
Restrict number of "allied factions" to only one and restrict number of ally detachments to just a single brigade, battalion or patrol. The allied detachment must cost less points than the sum of your primary army. Something like that maybe?

The problem is that it is fluffy to have a guard army supported by marines & Knights with a grey knights force there to purge heretics and chew bubblegum (and they are never out of heretics).

Less fluffy is having a pair of knights overcharging every system for the whole battle because they have 96 cheerleading guardsmen behind them.

The whole issue can be simply resolved by limiting CP to the faction who generated them. Then have a "support" stratagem which costs 2CP to grant 2CP to another faction in your army. this way you can still support, but not with your whole pool. The allies will have to pull their weight. The main thing to get rid of is "token allies" to give your army more CP.

I still think that CPs should just be set per points of game played, then certain HQs (of which you can only ever have a very limited number), not even all HQs, could add more CPs. It's a clean system then until a truer balance can be brought in.


IE,
0 - 500pt game each side has 6 command points
501 - 1000 pts each side has 8 command points
1001 - 1500 - each side has 10 command points
1501 - 2000 - each side has 12 command points
2001 - 3000 - each side has 15 command points

The primary 'leader' Special character in each faction, not codex, (Abaddon, Guilliman, Yvraine, Swarm Lord, Creed, Vect, Ghazgull, Cawl, uber Ethereal dude, possibly Eldrad ) all add 2 CP
The primary leader non-special HQ in each codex or some lesser special characters (Chaos Lord, Space Marine Chapter Master, Farseer, Hive Tyrant, Neurothrope, Ethereals, Warboss, Ahriman, Dante, Mortarion, Magnus, Necron Lord, Greater Daemons, O'shava and beyond) all add 1CP.

Maybe then, if you wanted to make some internal rules a little more balanced, some armies could get buffs/debuffs against eachother. Grey Knigths could get extra CP against daemons. Chaos Marines against Imperium, Eldar against Slannesh daemons and maybe Tyranids and so on.


Not Online!!!'s post was quite good too. I always felt the best way to deal with Soup (which needs to exist but also needs some drawbacks) was the ensure a limited use of the CPs within Soup and that proposal is a new take on previous ones given.

I see some merit in this, although it is a bit rough around the edges. A 5-man Kabalite squad provides as many CP as a 10-man Marine squad has always been weird.

I'm still partial to the Detatchments-Cost-CP form that keeps popping up over this. It accomplishes the same goal, but handles both skew lists and allies more naturally/fairly.

A list with a core of SM Bikers or Windriders or Ork Bikers or whathaveyou should have some CP, but not nearly as much as a list with a core of troops - which Detachments Cost does, but CP for Troops does not.

A list that's half Guardsmen and half Marines should have some downside over lists that are pure Guardsmen or pure Marines - which again, Detatchments Cost does, without making the allied list unplayable.

A list with 9 Heavy Support options (plus troops/hq) should have a downside over a list with 3 HS, 3 FA, and 3 Elites - which again, Detatchments Cost does, but CP for Troops does not.

However, Detatchments Cost is a little more complex than CP For Troops. So there's certainly an upside for this theory over that.

As for units generating CP:
-For HQs, it shoudl be case-by-case. Gman giving CP makes a lot more sense than Cawl giving CP - as he's following the Codex "RAI"! You could also have some of the secondaries give CP, but if you do it should be case-by-case; for instance, I'd give it to the Autarch but not hte Farseer, if you gave it to one of them. I could see a Necron Lord, but probably not a Greater Demon (maybe Tzeench Greater Demons, though).

And, if any units should get CP, my vote is Tactical Marines


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for buffs/debuffs vs certain armies: those have always been problematic.

If the armies are generally "good enough" to compete, but then 10% better when facing their target army, they destroy said army. The game is lost due to matchup - which sucks for the player of their target army.

If the armies are generally bad but only "good enough" to compete when they face their target army, they become nothing but a spoiler against their target army - which sucks for the player of the army.

Anything in between has both problems, and sucks for everyone.

One area it does work is the Eldar rule vs Slanesh; Hatred and a Ld debuff. It's a minor adjustment, so mostly feels like it doesn't matter. And, even when it does, it cuts both ways - making it balanced to play against. These are cool, but don't notably move balance.

One area it doesn't work is GK vs Demons. GK had anti-demon rules, so naturally were a bad matchup for Demons. Demons then got an anti-GK rule, which should counterbalance GK anti-demon rules. But GK don't have great anti-demon rules, and generally suck all around. So, in trying to do "These guys are the nemisis of those guys", they screwed up and made things bad.

The issue with set CP per points size is that it removes any incentive to take anything but the best units at using CP.

As Orks: Take exclusively lootas and grot shields, you no longer need the HQ-Tax to get CP. grot shield and more dakka your way to victory.

I guarantee that marine tactical squads would almost never see the table if they went for a set CP per point system.

My favourite is leave it as is but limit CP to faction only, except the 3 basic ones (command reroll etc). it's only extra bookkeeping for people who want to use allies. and I guarantee the loyal 32 will make a swift exit if this was introduced.

I think it's worth pointing out that the 'commanders generate CP and have a set of stratagems they allow you to use' concept is basically Warmachine, where warcasters generate focus, have a set of spells that consume focus, and can generically spend focus to boost various things (eg hit rolls) army-wide.

The effect is a CCG-like focus on combos, and is somewhat limiting of army composition. If you take X warcaster, you are likely going to take Y unit and Z warjack to synergize their abilities. If you take a different warcaster instead, your army is not going to perform optimally. Synergies come from explicitly-defined abilities, rather than organically from your strategy on the tabletop.

Personally, one of the things I liked best about 40K in contrast to Warmachine was the flexibility of army composition. Stratagems, and the increasing focus on them, threaten that gameplay paradigm, as units are costed around the assumption that other elements of the meta combo will be available.

Can't say I'm a fan. I'd much rather design the game to give everyone roughly the same number of CPs to start with, recost stratagems according to that expectation, and maybe have some CP penalties involved in min-max army lists. The now-old idea of starting with a base CP value based on points level and then having penalties for taking detachments other than battalions/brigades always seemed reasonable.