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.

 some bloke wrote:
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.

Really you think anyone's taking tac squads for CP when the 32 cost less than 15 basic bolter tacs? Also you can have 5 units of lootas if you want, only 1 is getting each strategum per turn anyway.

catbarf wrote:
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.

And having to rely on Commanders and HQ to create Cp is not an issue?

what do you do with armies that have cheap HQ?
What do you do with armies that have extremely good HQ's complared to armies with HQ's so bad they might aswell jump out the airlock of existence?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
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.

Really you think anyone's taking tac squads for CP when the 32 cost less than 15 basic bolter tacs? Also you can have 5 units of lootas if you want, only 1 is getting each strategum per turn anyway.

Scouts see play before tac marines.

Cultists don't see play anymore before CSM; just took a flat out buff off 1 CP / squad of CSM in a army that relies massively on CP.

Here's a completely off-kilter thought - make CP something you gain during a game, by controlling objectives in objective games or killing units in kill-everything games. Give both players a small starting pool so that relics can be bought.

Then make CP the win condition. whoever has most at the end of the game wins.

some units would have CP-generation, EG if a unit of Tankbustas destroys a vehicle, gain D3 CP.

you have to then balance using CP to stay alive / kill the enemy with the CP you need to win.

It also means that both players have the same chance of getting CP, but it is based on how you play, not how you build your list.

 some bloke wrote:
Here's a completely off-kilter thought - make CP something you gain during a game, by controlling objectives in objective games or killing units in kill-everything games. Give both players a small starting pool so that relics can be bought.

Then make CP the win condition. whoever has most at the end of the game wins.

some units would have CP-generation, EG if a unit of Tankbustas destroys a vehicle, gain D3 CP.

you have to then balance using CP to stay alive / kill the enemy with the CP you need to win.

It also means that both players have the same chance of getting CP, but it is based on how you play, not how you build your list.

Only problem is that this just results in snowballing. As it is now shooting is deadly enough that depending on match up and terrain going first will already allow some lists to kill a large amount of the opponent turn 1. Only losing some models but still having CP left for some powerful stratagems is sometimes their only chance to come back. Waiting for the right moment to combo it off.

If they now also get extra CP for killing and controlling parts of the board the opponent will really struggle to get back. Perhaps if many many more things were balanced around it it could work but as of now it would only make things worse. Especially since armies like AM can shoot well, contest objectives and dont really need to use the CP for game winning stratagems. I as a BA player would be in even more trouble against an AM list since not only am I getting screwed by artillery and cheap infantry, now I don't even have cp for using my powerful stratagems which is the only way I can claw my way back. The Astra player is already just throwing CP at things just because he can, he doesnt actually need them like I do. So not starting with them doesnt hurt him in the slightest while it cripples almost my whole list.

Klickor wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Here's a completely off-kilter thought - make CP something you gain during a game, by controlling objectives in objective games or killing units in kill-everything games. Give both players a small starting pool so that relics can be bought.

Then make CP the win condition. whoever has most at the end of the game wins.

some units would have CP-generation, EG if a unit of Tankbustas destroys a vehicle, gain D3 CP.

you have to then balance using CP to stay alive / kill the enemy with the CP you need to win.

It also means that both players have the same chance of getting CP, but it is based on how you play, not how you build your list.

Only problem is that this just results in snowballing. As it is now shooting is deadly enough that depending on match up and terrain going first will already allow some lists to kill a large amount of the opponent turn 1. Only losing some models but still having CP left for some powerful stratagems is sometimes their only chance to come back. Waiting for the right moment to combo it off.

If they now also get extra CP for killing and controlling parts of the board the opponent will really struggle to get back. Perhaps if many many more things were balanced around it it could work but as of now it would only make things worse. Especially since armies like AM can shoot well, contest objectives and dont really need to use the CP for game winning stratagems. I as a BA player would be in even more trouble against an AM list since not only am I getting screwed by artillery and cheap infantry, now I don't even have cp for using my powerful stratagems which is the only way I can claw my way back. The Astra player is already just throwing CP at things just because he can, he doesnt actually need them like I do. So not starting with them doesnt hurt him in the slightest while it cripples almost my whole list.

Also an issue, elite armies might not have the durability or units to controll enough objectives feasibly.

But it's outside the box and gaining CP through objectives might be better and or more easily balanceable then the Shitshow we got now.....

Not Online!!! wrote:

Klickor wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Here's a completely off-kilter thought - make CP something you gain during a game, by controlling objectives in objective games or killing units in kill-everything games. Give both players a small starting pool so that relics can be bought.

Then make CP the win condition. whoever has most at the end of the game wins.

some units would have CP-generation, EG if a unit of Tankbustas destroys a vehicle, gain D3 CP.

you have to then balance using CP to stay alive / kill the enemy with the CP you need to win.

It also means that both players have the same chance of getting CP, but it is based on how you play, not how you build your list.

Only problem is that this just results in snowballing. As it is now shooting is deadly enough that depending on match up and terrain going first will already allow some lists to kill a large amount of the opponent turn 1. Only losing some models but still having CP left for some powerful stratagems is sometimes their only chance to come back. Waiting for the right moment to combo it off.

If they now also get extra CP for killing and controlling parts of the board the opponent will really struggle to get back. Perhaps if many many more things were balanced around it it could work but as of now it would only make things worse. Especially since armies like AM can shoot well, contest objectives and dont really need to use the CP for game winning stratagems. I as a BA player would be in even more trouble against an AM list since not only am I getting screwed by artillery and cheap infantry, now I don't even have cp for using my powerful stratagems which is the only way I can claw my way back. The Astra player is already just throwing CP at things just because he can, he doesnt actually need them like I do. So not starting with them doesnt hurt him in the slightest while it cripples almost my whole list.

Also an issue, elite armies might not have the durability or units to controll enough objectives feasibly.

But it's outside the box and gaining CP through objectives might be better and or more easily balanceable then the Shitshow we got now.....

Unless CP and stratagems were the primary resources and not a force multiplier it would just be even more snowballing. Elite armies suffer the most but even if you fix that it would still snowball in horde vs horde matchup or gunline vs gunline.

If you could only kill a fraction of what is possible now and it became much much more about objectives and using them to do stuff, then perhaps. Bit like in Warhmachine were you could actually build lists that didnt need to actually kill a single model to win on turn 2 or 3 just by controlling the objectives and using only control abilities to control the board.

The only thing that should win the game is board control

warpedpig wrote:
The only thing that should win the game is board control

No.
Swamp armies are not particullary fun to play against, trust me. I have one.

They need to fix blast weapons and flamers that’s all. Also need to give all non heavy weapons rapid fire

warpedpig wrote:
They need to fix blast weapons and flamers that’s all. Also need to give all non heavy weapons rapid fire

And by consequence accomplishing what?

No more melee armies and even more Deadly shooting Phasses?

Melee units should move up in transports. Deep strike. Etc. having hordes of infantry walking right down the middle of the board SHOULD cause you to have huge casualties. The whole system should be fixed. It’s got a lot of flaws now

warpedpig wrote:
Melee units should move up in transports. Deep strike. Etc. having hordes of infantry walking right down the middle of the board SHOULD cause you to have huge casualties. The whole system should be fixed. It’s got a lot of flaws now

Then by this logic, any footslogging units should be a lot cheaper and the transports should be more expensive. To accurately replicate realistic firepower, but maintain the fact that armies in the fluff do actually charge headlong as a horde and win, you are talking 2pts per hormagaunt, 2pts per ork boy, 1pt per grot.

Then this falls down when they face a mixed list who cannot drop them al lat ranged, as "realistically" if a hormagaunt makes it to a guard squad, lots of them, if not all of them, should die. certainly if a lone ork boy made it, let alone a nob.

this isn't supposed to be a pure-shooting game. shooting is too powerful at the moment. the game needs to become less killy to increase it's fun, not more killy.

I’ve said many times before that the cover and concealment rules are very weak for 40k and that infantry should be difficult to kill when hiding behind cover unless you blow away the cover or use indirect fire weapons. The weapons should be more lethal but the lnfantry should be hard to hit. This gets into building and terrain types having a toughness and armor and wound value.

 some bloke wrote:
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.

Well there would still be a FOC, of course, so you'd still have your 'need to take x troops and x HQs' with a limit of 3 on units. I'm talking of CPs in a vacuum nearly, not negating any other rules.

catbarf wrote:
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.

Why could you still not have customisable characters? Yeah, a group may offer more CP but really I can't see how this system would be different from what it is now apropos 'combos'. You're not locking stratagems, unit selection or wargear behind a 'accessibility' CP tax just to have in the first place (yes, still to utilise), you're simply saying that 'n' commander generates 'x' additional CP, except in this case we have two additional points - the ones that generate 2 instead of 1 are traditionally more expensive and very limited in what armies they can be present (exactly as they are now) and secondly, that other than that, a select few HQs and special characters only generate one additional CP, making the difference the same as it is now. I don't think this proposal would have that much effect on the game and what you're describing kind of already exists, I don't think this would increase or decrease that effect. Some units synergise better with others, stratagems or not, that's kind of the way reality is.


Issues with cheaper HQs shouldn't be that much of a problem. Yes, you may be able to get more but we're talking 1 or 2 command points in exchange for other useful things such as heavy weapons, more infantry and beyond.

I think getting more or less CP just for having a couple troops is BS. Maybe if they made it a % of total force. Imperial guard gets vastly more points than a fluffy army list of saim hann wild riders for example

CP should be generated by holding objectives and killing enemy units. Not by overloading your army with troops like imperial guard cheese ball lists

warpedpig wrote:
CP should be generated by holding objectives and killing enemy units. Not by overloading your army with troops like imperial guard cheese ball lists

So all non mobile armies can go sit in a corner then?
Great suggestion.

They sit in a corner anyway and shoot. And if you shoot you are killing. And if all you can do is sit in a corner and not move then make a new army list for capturing some objectives. What a sad army. Sitting in the corner. Never moving. Just rolling dice. How lame. How boring.

warpedpig wrote:
They sit in a corner anyway and shoot. And if you shoot you are killing. And if all you can do is sit in a corner and not move then make a new army list for capturing some objectives. What a sad army. Sitting in the corner. Never moving. Just rolling dice. How lame. How boring.

What a boring army, Wind riders just scatbikes and stupid little flying tanks, no durability, no standing power, no melee.


See, same can be applied to your chosen army and anyother.
Might i suggest you actually realize that?

Saim hann moves. It shoots. It has one of the best melee units in the game. It has it all. It’s not a dead fish army.

warpedpig wrote:
Saim hann moves. It shoots. It has one of the best melee units in the game. It has it all. It’s not a dead fish army.

It is, again exactly.
My point is, just because you don't like a playstyle or prefer one that should not mean that your suggestions should ignore these styles. Or other armies which might or might not have the options required.

Therefore my suggestion, think about suggestions in terms of consequence.

Saim hann gets screwed for CP. it gets screwed because the CP system is highly beneficial towards one army type. The cheap infantry armies. So it isn’t fair that just because you have a certain army you get screwed out of CP from the get go. I can’t change the fact saim hann is all jetbikes.

CP should be earned in the game and not just fished out to the hordes armies by default. Everyone could start with five. And then you earn the rest by holding objectives or scoring kills.

Sitting in the back and just rolling dice is truly pathetic though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saim Hann should have wind riders count as troops. That would be more fair under the current system.

warpedpig wrote:
Saim hann gets screwed for CP. it gets screwed because the CP system is highly beneficial towards one army type. The cheap infantry armies. So it isn’t fair that just because you have a certain army you get screwed out of CP from the get go. I can’t change the fact saim hann is all jetbikes.

CP should be earned in the game and not just fished out to the hordes armies by default. Everyone could start with five. And then you earn the rest by holding objectives or scoring kills.

Sitting in the back and just rolling dice is truly pathetic though.

First off: stop your mimimimimiming.

Secondly i totally agree on the cp front that it is an issue but Here's the Kicker IG themselves can't profit out of their massive generated cp Pool, because 90% of their stratagems are worthless.
Meanwhile you also forget that csm get through red Corsairs an equally generated ammount of CP / pts. And I am sorry to say but csm are not "cheap infantry armies"

Thirdly: you pick a list of nearly fast attack only, a unit type that is typically better in nearly every way to the bog standard troops and complain because you didn't bring a battalion?

Fourth your last suggestion kills csm and every other cp frontloading army.


Further Consequence? Everyone and their Motherboard goes back to the minimum troops, killing what little diversity the new system brought in and going back to the day where spamming unit x for list y was the Plan.

i dare say that's a bad thing.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saim Hann should have wind riders count as troops. That would be more fair under the current system.

Now that system worked, so long the role switched units are not broken inherently.
It's bad enough that we needed the ro3 but knowing gw a new scatbike, flyrant etc would instantly be a detriment to the balance then.

You bring up an important point. Basic Troops suck. I posted a fix to this in one of the other threads. Troops need special bonuses They need a real role.

warpedpig wrote:
You bring up an important point. Basic Troops suck. I posted a fix to this in one of the other threads. Troops need special bonuses They need a real role.

Gw did just that, by deciding that troops are there to hold the ground and generate the time / maneouverability / idk what for commanders to use their elite /Fa more efficently via stratagems.

Is it a great thing?
Meh, atleast for guard it's fluffy i guess, same for Tau.

Is it fun though or a good system? (as someone that fields guard, renegades csm)

No, because if your troops suck (cue PA infantry, necron warriors) your screwed or allying.

In case of IoM guardsmen get fielded because cheap and reliable.
In case of csm, you better belive the red Corsairs are everywhere and totally supporting that AL cell and that thousand sons sorcerer cabal....

Shifting unit types might work but I'd rather not have to deal with units that lose RO3 restrictions.

I don’t know all these acronyms

Csm Chaos Marines
Al alpha legion (subfaction)

IoM imperium of Man (imperium)

Fa fast attack.

Ro3 rule of three,

I prefer systems that divorce CP generation from unit selection. From a fluff point of view, plenty of factions should NOT field a ton of units that happen to have the Troop battlefield role. Iyanden and Saim-Hann are great examples of this. Saim-Hann has its guardians and avengers, sure, but fielding an army with tons of those units (at least without skimmer transports) is sort of like fielding a "White Scars" army with lots of devastators and no bikes.

From a mechanics perspective, there isn't necessarily any quality innate to troops that should make them worthy of generating CP when other units don't. Guardsmen are actually pretty useful units for their points even if they don't generate CP because they offer cheap bodies that can screen for characters, zone out deepstrikers, and stand on objectives. Last edition, scatbikes were one of the most killy units in the game despite being troops. Currently, striking scorpions are considered to be pretty sub-optimal despite being an Elite, and guardian defenders (taken as webway bombs) are considered to be quite killy despite being a Troop.

And sure, there are some troops that are just cost-inefficient or that are basically worse versions of a non-Troop unit. To my mind, this means that the Troop has been badly designed if it can't stand on its own merits. If you have to hand out CP to cover up the lack of desirability in a unit, then you probably need to give that unit a reason to exist. Give the unit a special rule or a stratagem that only triggers off of them or some such thing.

I feel like a lot of people have this notion that Troops should be an essential source of CP for some reason, but that concept rings false. Tying CP generation to troops doesn't make sense for many factions' fluff, and it doesn't make sense from a rules perspective.

Semper wrote:
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.

Because we need more incentive to take special characters. Make it equal to generic characters, they should be equal in these terms.

Otherwise I like it.