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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
GW got a big hole to dig itself out of. I don't think this'll do it.

I can't see how restricting the flow of CP and level setting secondaries would make things worse. And as mentioned by others - not having to print points makes them a lot more flexible.

As for the size of the hole - it isn't quite that large right now. Knights and CSM don't seem poised to upset things, either ( yet ).

They're potentially good steps, but GW is in a hole even if you're not seeing it.

This new CP Thing can be very interesting if it really is 1/2 Starting CP with +2 per Turn.

That changes Strike Force games from 12 + 5 = 17 CP to 6 + 10 = 16 CP, while Incursion changes from 6 + 5 = 11 CP to 3 + 10 = 13 CP. That a modest change of -1 CP over a Strike Force and +2 CP over an Incursion game.

More important then the modest change in overall CP is the massive impact this has on the amount of CP you have available during army construction. In both game sizes, purchasing additional detachments or taking only a non-CP refunding detachment will seriously reduce the amount of CP you have available for additional Relics, Warlord Traits, Strategic Reserves and start of game stratagems.

ccs wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Technically, I believe the CP rules etc are simply relevant for that Mission Pack. So when you play a mission from the new CA mission pack as a casual matched play game, you would use the new objectives etc, but if you play e.g. a Nachmund mission, you would use the rules and objectives found in Nachmund.

Well, I doubt you have any greater insight than I do on it & I inferred from both the article & video that the objectives are tied to the mission pack. One of us will turn out to be wrong in a couple of months.

Isnt that exactly what i wrote?

 alextroy wrote:
This new CP Thing can be very interesting if it really is 1/2 Starting CP with +2 per Turn.

That changes Strike Force games from 12 + 5 = 17 CP to 6 + 10 = 16 CP, while Incursion changes from 6 + 5 = 11 CP to 3 + 10 = 13 CP. That a modest change of -1 CP over a Strike Force and +2 CP over an Incursion game.

More important then the modest change in overall CP is the massive impact this has on the amount of CP you have available during army construction. In both game sizes, purchasing additional detachments or taking only a non-CP refunding detachment will seriously reduce the amount of CP you have available for additional Relics, Warlord Traits, Strategic Reserves and start of game stratagems.

Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!
Maybe this is their attempt to bring folks to lower sized games.

The whole half CP at the start double CP during the game really hurts the only viable list Guard have right now. If I now want to take pure infantry Guard that’s all my CP gone.

 Gert wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it be kind of a problem, if you stilled used out dated and illegal rules for your secondaries though, or the CP limits etc

Anything not in the most recent GT mission pack is optional, so no.

ftfy

Anyway, they mentioned free points on the website as well and they've done it in the past already.
They'll just upload a pdf with all the updated point costs.

Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.

I like the change, as it limits the tactics of relying on tons of CPs and combo in the first two turns of the game. Things like command re-roll or massed pre-game strats to improve several characters were silly concepts and I'm glad if they are limited or go entirely.

I would have gone even further by halving the initial CPs pool and keeping the 1CP per turn refund. In a 2000 points game that still means up to 11 CPs to spend, which IMHO is more than enough CPs.

Hopefully now that points are free they'll actually feel more comforable updating them alongside the Balance Dataslate instead of just throwing more and more rules bloat about.

A man can dream...

 Sim-Life wrote:
Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.

I think it was both. It's not that uncommon for armies to spend 3-5 CP prior to the game on extra relics, WLT etc, then spend another 4-6 in the first turn to increase damage output or pre-game move. For some armies ending Battle Round 1 on 2-3CP is fairly common.

It's true that a big part of this problem is the number of strats as well. If there were fewer strats in general, we'd see lower CP usage per turn/round. Nowadays it seems like almost every time a unit worth more tan 120 points shoots or gets shot there's a pause while one player or another decides which strat to use.

I kind of liked giving characters WLT/Relics. I guess you can say this should be covered by points - and maybe it will in 10th - but still.

I guess yesterday I'd been sort of taking the statement literally. I.E. "okay, I start with 12, I've used 6 pre-game, so I half what I have left for 3 and get 2 a turn". That's a bit different to "okay you start with zero."

Slipspace wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.

I think it was both. It's not that uncommon for armies to spend 3-5 CP prior to the game on extra relics, WLT etc, then spend another 4-6 in the first turn to increase damage output or pre-game move. For some armies ending Battle Round 1 on 2-3CP is fairly common.

It's true that a big part of this problem is the number of strats as well. If there were fewer strats in general, we'd see lower CP usage per turn/round. Nowadays it seems like almost every time a unit worth more tan 120 points shoots or gets shot there's a pause while one player or another decides which strat to use.

Sure. But the entire point of a resource such as CP being available for spending is the option to burn it ... um ... non-linear, I guess. Load up a particular key turn. Etc..

If it's supposed to be 2-3 things that essentially just happen every turn/battle round (e.g. stuff like rotate ion shields, pre-nerf Custodes no-rerolls, LFR for Eldar, etc..), it doesn't really need to be tied to a "currency"-style resource like CP. Just make it an army/datasheet/command phase ability that is available for use every turn.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Halving CP is a weird way to go IMO. It didn't seem the problem was too much CP, it was too many strats. I don't think it'll change much because people only used a few of the best anyway Giving people less CP will just compound the problem.

I think it was both. It's not that uncommon for armies to spend 3-5 CP prior to the game on extra relics, WLT etc, then spend another 4-6 in the first turn to increase damage output or pre-game move. For some armies ending Battle Round 1 on 2-3CP is fairly common.

It's true that a big part of this problem is the number of strats as well. If there were fewer strats in general, we'd see lower CP usage per turn/round. Nowadays it seems like almost every time a unit worth more tan 120 points shoots or gets shot there's a pause while one player or another decides which strat to use.

Sure. But the entire point of a resource such as CP being available for spending is the option to burn it ... um ... non-linear, I guess. Load up a particular key turn. Etc..

You can still do that. The total spent will be lower but you're still burning all of it on turn 1 if you want, just achieving less. It's perfectly acceptable to rebalance a mechanic that wasn't working as intended and it may well be that GW didn't think people would so freely spend their CP early. This is the same company that seems genuinely shocked when people see a good unit in a Codex and immediately spam the maximum number, or who were surprised to find SM players in 8th not advancing out of Devastator doctrine. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn this is more in line with how they intended CPs to be used in the first place.

 Blndmage wrote:


Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!

This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Mostly agree. Kinda sucks when most of your vehicles cost CP.

you still use that dumbass rule?

Well, yes, because everyone else does (or expects others to). Because it's "balanced". Otherwise "Gw wouldn't have put it in there". You can't just force your own opinions on others. It's a two player game, after all.

i'm not forcing it on anyone, i'm just lucky that my playgroup's reaction to learning why i was always starting with less CP because of my Levi was "lolwut, its worse than a redemtor"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:
The whole half CP at the start double CP during the game really hurts the only viable list Guard have right now. If I now want to take pure infantry Guard that’s all my CP gone.

I know this is gonna suck but :

Guard isn't a real codex right now, theyre on life support. Once they get their 9th codex, you'll be free to bitch about these things.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
The whole half CP at the start double CP during the game really hurts the only viable list Guard have right now. If I now want to take pure infantry Guard that’s all my CP gone.

I know this is gonna suck but :

Guard isn't a real codex right now, theyre on life support. Once they get their 9th codex, you'll be free to bitch about these things.

Should be free to bitch right now. It's GW's fault.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Mostly agree. Kinda sucks when most of your vehicles cost CP.

you still use that dumbass rule?

Well, yes, because everyone else does (or expects others to). Because it's "balanced". Otherwise "Gw wouldn't have put it in there". You can't just force your own opinions on others. It's a two player game, after all.

i'm not forcing it on anyone, i'm just lucky that my playgroup's reaction to learning why i was always starting with less CP because of my Levi was "lolwut, its worse than a redemtor"

Well, good for you, I guess? Meanwhile, many of us still have to play by the rule, which is why it needs to be changed to something more sensible, like a 0-1 limit per datasheet, especially in light of this change.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Well, good for you, I guess? Meanwhile, many of us still have to play by the rule, which is why it needs to be changed to something more sensible, like a 0-1 limit per datasheet, especially in light of this change.

Oh it absolutely needs to be changed, but its FW stuff so GW keeps forgetting these exist

PenitentJake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!

This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.

It's probably fairly easy to extrapolate the values for 25 and 100 PL.

Karol wrote:
LoL so the change is that we went from one book with updated rules to, One book of updated rules and you have to sub to our app, or you won't have updated point costs. GW is full of extra smart people.

App or website.

 Jidmah wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


Don't forget us Combat Patrol players!

This is a matched play resource- matched play mission packs only ever apply to Incursion and Strike Force games. Which is funny, because Onslaught is probably the game size that needs this rule most.

It's probably fairly easy to extrapolate the values for 25 and 100 PL.

Combat patrol is fine stating at 3cp, unless somebody really decides to juice up their army with upgrades or something. And bumping Combat patrol to 2cp a turn would be bonkers.

Onslaught runs into a bigger problem of not being able to duplicate the best strats, so I think it's okay, although you could sell me on starting with only 6 CP but generating 3CP a turn.

I am deeply saddened that GW kept the current, absolute gak mission design. So unfortunate.

Sticking with the current mission design and repeatable secondary objectives = Massive FAIL.

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward.


That said, at least GW acknowledges that stratagems are a problem. We'll see how this works out. I'm cautiously optimistic.

 oni wrote:

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward.

You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?

Mike Brandt is the head of the events team or at least thats what he is listed as.

He may have the developers' ears but I'm not sure that he's the one penning the rules.

Repeatable missions are sort of the thing plaguing 40k atm for me. I’m not saying maelstrom of war but a big table of missions requiring different elements would be interesting, as well as decreasing secondaries. I think a lot of meta lists would struggle for points in this type of thing.

Tyel wrote:
I guess yesterday I'd been sort of taking the statement literally. I.E. "okay, I start with 12, I've used 6 pre-game, so I half what I have left for 3 and get 2 a turn". That's a bit different to "okay you start with zero."

I'm betting you start with 6 so if you spend 6 pre-game you're going to start with 0.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward.

You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?

Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Repeatable missions are sort of the thing plaguing 40k atm for me. I’m not saying maelstrom of war but a big table of missions requiring different elements would be interesting, as well as decreasing secondaries. I think a lot of meta lists would struggle for points in this type of thing.

Well wouldn't help in tournaments at least. They would just pick same few all the time like tournaments in aos.

 oni wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:

Mike Brandt = The New Matt Ward.

You say that in every post you make about rules and it makes no sense because Cruddace is in charge of the 40k rules. What exactly do you have against this guy?

Mike Brandt is responsible for the creation of the gakky GT mission design; the gakky fixed objective placement, the gakky rinse & repeat secondaries, the two gakky fixed terrain layouts. It's all entirely his creation. He is the father of this design so to speak.

As opposed to random objective placement where 1 player may be favoured over another and people using gakky terrain layouts then wondering how they lost as an CC army with no where to hide on their approach?

I'm not saying all that stuff is perfect, its not. But it all atleast attempts to address issues that people suffer from.
Stuff like the terrain layouts are clearly a response to tournaments having completely garbage tables.

 Ordana wrote:
As opposed to random objective placement where 1 player may be favoured over another and people using gakky terrain layouts then wondering how they lost as an CC army with no where to hide on their approach?

I'm not saying all that stuff is perfect, its not. But it all atleast attempts to address issues that people suffer from.
Stuff like the terrain layouts are clearly a response to tournaments having completely garbage tables.

And missions that aren't just KiLl PoInTs.