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.

Been thinking of trying a different approach to detatchments and command points and was wondering if anyone had done anything similar or had any thoughts.

Basically your battleforged army starts with 10 CP, at 2000 points. You then spend CP to buy detatchments. Fluff wise it's justified with the warlord struggling to order multiple elements of an army. Gameplay wise it still rewards factions who can fill large detatchments while penilising soup lists, using multiple "chapter tactics" and excessive unit spam.

Currently thinking all detatchments should cost 3 CP excluding Brigades which are free and auxiliary detatchments at 1 CP.

Hmm. That might work. I've mostly played aeldari so far this edition, so I tend to struggle to spam useful troops and thus to farm a bunch of CP. Under the system you're proposing, my competitive lists would probably look very similar to what they do now but spread across fewer detachments. That would most likely end up being either a brigade or a spearhead. Most games, I run around with 5 - 7 CP (usually a batallion plus a spearhead or outrider). Under your system, I'd likely be looking at paying 3 CP for a single detachment.

So basically, I'd probably break even on CP or even come out a little ahead, but I'd also have a more difficult time fielding an army with a high number of both (Elite or FA or HS) and a high number of (Elite or FA or HS) unless I broke down and took 3 squads of troops.

I'd also probably never play aeldari as I'd either...
A.) Lose out on 3CP just for fielding kabalite warriors instead of avengers or rangers or for mixing a solitaire into the army or...
B.) Lose out on all my craftworld traits/stratagems if I tried to play a single aeldari detachment.


I see this as basically a horizontal change for an army like mine (which is fine) and as a significant boost for armies that work well on their own. If we assume that friendless factions like Tau, Necrons, and Orks end up being pretty solid once their books have been out for a while, then this will be a big buff for them as they weren't taking allies above <chapter> level anyway.

I'm thinking...
* Asuryani are mildly nerfed by it but potentially get CP more easily.
* Drukhari at this point in time like it because it means they don't need to use their crummy troops any more, but they might hate it depending on what the codex gives us.
* Harlequins don't mind it much themselves, but their allies probably take offense to giving up stratagems/traits/CP for the privelege of hanging out with the clowns.
*Ynnari don't like it because you have to give up 3CP to take a second detachment with access to stratagems and traits. But then, Ynnari are already actively a nerf for most of your army outside of a couple abusable combos, so that's arguably not too big a deal.
* Orks/Tau/Necrons probably love it unless mixed clan/sept/dynasty rules end up being extremely appealing.
*IG probably don't like it much because they were probably better at CP farming before.
*Marines trade cheap mixed chapters for the ability to stop wasting points on tacticals (unless they really like fielding scouts, in which case they might be mildly peeved.) Probably a similar response to that of asuryani.

Command Points should really be used for Stratagems.

I don't like the idea of tying them to detachments, mostly because I thought the idea of detachments was to get people playing with all of their models.

This would be a disincentive to collecting models outside a main range to use as allies.

I get it that some people would like to see a heterodox force on the table and think taking units from multiple Codexes is really just a way of avoiding the weaker options from a primary book.

My take is that's just an old way of thinking, where a Codex was constructed around a Force Organization Chart. A Codex these days is really just a collection of Dataslates, Stratagems, Psychic Powers and Warlord Traits. It's not meant to dictate all of the options in an army, just the ones in a detachment.

To address the OPs original question, I had a thought like that, but it worked the other way. All detachments should include command points, and you should get bonus command points for pulling units from multiple Codexes.

It's often hard to use Stratagems from different books, as the units that would really benefit from them compete for the points. For example. Chaos Cultists with Tide of Traitors compete with Bloodletters for Denizens of the Warp, you can't really use both unless you want to sacrifice rerolls. An additional 3 CPs for each Codex would make things a little more synergistic.

What it should be is you can only ever gain the chapter tactic/hive fleet/ whatever and relics and stratagems of your warlords detachment.

So if you have one full ultramarines detachment with your warlord in there then you get ultramarine strats, relic, and trait. Any other ultramarine detachments will also gain their ct.

Do you take a imperial guard patrol to supplement? Too bad! It awards you no access to their strats, no relics and they cannot choose a regiment.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Command Points should really be used for Stratagems.

I don't like the idea of tying them to detachments, mostly because I thought the idea of detachments was to get people playing with all of their models.

This would be a disincentive to collecting models outside a main range to use as allies.

Based on different detachments rewarding fewer CP for detachments that can spam specialist slots and stratagems/relics/warlord traits requiring players have at least one "pure" detachment, I think the intention is to make allies a viable option with trade-offs. I'm not sure most people would be on board with mixed armies having an innate advantage (even above the advantage provided by souping general).

I get it that some people would like to see a heterodox force on the table and think taking units from multiple Codexes is really just a way of avoiding the weaker options from a primary book.

Personally, I've really enjoyed the local tournaments that only allow for a single detachment. I've found that there's actually more diversity in army composition because people can't just spam the soupy net lists.

My take is that's just an old way of thinking, where a Codex was constructed around a Force Organization Chart. A Codex these days is really just a collection of Dataslates, Stratagems, Psychic Powers and Warlord Traits. It's not meant to dictate all of the options in an army, just the ones in a detachment.

Counterpoint: The OP's suggestion doesn't force mono-faction armies; it just acknowledges that having a less restricted range of options (soup) is an inherent advantage and requires people pay for getting the most out of that advantage.

To address the OPs original question, I had a thought like that, but it worked the other way. All detachments should include command points, and you should get bonus command points for pulling units from multiple Codexes.

If the OP's suggestion punishes people for bringing in allies, doesn't this proposal just punish people for not spending money on a second army and codex? Should IG + marines be a more valid option than pure marines? Under your proposal, you'd be rewarding people for utilizing a wider range of models that perform various jobs more efficiently than a single faction's units. So they already have the advantage of soupy unit ranges and soupy synergy, and then they'd get more CP than a non-soup army on top of it. Is this your intention? Genuine question. You seem to have a very different set of design objectives than I usually do, and that's neat.

It's often hard to use Stratagems from different books, as the units that would really benefit from them compete for the points. For example. Chaos Cultists with Tide of Traitors compete with Bloodletters for Denizens of the Warp, you can't really use both unless you want to sacrifice rerolls. An additional 3 CPs for each Codex would make things a little more synergistic.

That hasn't been my experience at all. Most stratagems benefit either a single unit or a small group of units. So whatever CP I don't spend before turn one (deepstriking, relics, etc.) are available to use mid-game on whatever seems like it will be most useful at the time. If anything, I find it's easier to make use of stratagems when using multiple books because similar-but-different stratagems can be used in the same phase.

Owning multiple cars and having $20 for gas doesn't make it harder to drive. It just means I have to choose how much gas to put in each car. If you want CP left over for rerolls, then doesn't that mean you should simply budget around that? Only spend $15 on gas so you can afford a snack while you're driving around, so to speak.

Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to players having easier access to more CP in general, but that's a semi-distinct topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
What it should be is you can only ever gain the chapter tactic/hive fleet/ whatever and relics and stratagems of your warlords detachment.

So if you have one full ultramarines detachment with your warlord in there then you get ultramarine strats, relic, and trait. Any other ultramarine detachments will also gain their ct.

Do you take a imperial guard patrol to supplement? Too bad! It awards you no access to their strats, no relics and they cannot choose a regiment.

I'd worry this might interfere with potentially fluffy moments though. Having three flavors of eldar deepstriking with their own webway stratagems is cool. Having dark angels that feel like dark angels hanging out with catachans that feel like catachans is cool. GSC missing out on their future stratagems because they opted to hang out with tyranids is less cool. The issue is when souping offers too great of a mechanical advantage over those who can't or don't want to soup.

So with that in mind, I'd suggest that soup usually isn't a huge problem in casual and narrative games, but that it does due debatably negative things to the game in competitive matched play. So with that in mind, I'd propose that many of the suggested changes to allies/detachments/CP generation that we see on this forum be limited to certain tournament formats rather than being used in more generic formats.

The fluff was never a problem in the past when stratagems and chapter tactics didnt exist for everone.

Its not a problem now. You take the units you take and any advantages they would have are subverted by being under the command of a different armies warlord

Wyldhunt wrote:

If the OP's suggestion punishes people for bringing in allies, doesn't this proposal just punish people for not spending money on a second army and codex? Should IG + marines be a more valid option than pure marines? Under your proposal, you'd be rewarding people for utilizing a wider range of models that perform various jobs more efficiently than a single faction's units. So they already have the advantage of soupy unit ranges and soupy synergy, and then they'd get more CP than a non-soup army on top of it. Is this your intention? Genuine question. You seem to have a very different set of design objectives than I usually do, and that's neat.

From previous editions of the game, I'm used to OP armies that just spam whatever the most effective unit is over and over again. If 8th edition OP means combining a bunch of diverse units together, that's an improvement. I wouldn't want to change the rules to go back to spam armies. Definitely reward people for using a wider range of models.

It also punish's TAU due to GW's 1 commander per detachment limit and if as hopped by some they role this out to other armies in the FAQ your idea is dead in the water as everyone will be running 3 detachment armies, though it might also kill the tripple shield captain on jetbike custodes lists

Pink Horror wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If the OP's suggestion punishes people for bringing in allies, doesn't this proposal just punish people for not spending money on a second army and codex? Should IG + marines be a more valid option than pure marines? Under your proposal, you'd be rewarding people for utilizing a wider range of models that perform various jobs more efficiently than a single faction's units. So they already have the advantage of soupy unit ranges and soupy synergy, and then they'd get more CP than a non-soup army on top of it. Is this your intention? Genuine question. You seem to have a very different set of design objectives than I usually do, and that's neat.

From previous editions of the game, I'm used to OP armies that just spam whatever the most effective unit is over and over again. If 8th edition OP means combining a bunch of diverse units together, that's an improvement. I wouldn't want to change the rules to go back to spam armies. Definitely reward people for using a wider range of models.

Meh. Bad balance is bad balance. I'm no more a fan of rewarding people for buying 6 riptides than I am of rewarding people for buying a medley of fashionable imperial units.

And while we can all agree that spam was the power gamer's path in the past, that doesn't really have any bearing on improving the game today. I stand by my point that the proposal in quotes would be throwing advantages on top of advantages to players that opt to soup up . Souping up is already advantageous, and the proposal would make it even more so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
The fluff was never a problem in the past when stratagems and chapter tactics didnt exist for everone.

Its not a problem now. You take the units you take and any advantages they would have are subverted by being under the command of a different armies warlord

Eh. Fair point. It's still probably not the direction I'd choose to go, but you make a valid argument. I'd argue that, while it's generally possible to build/play a fairly fluffy list without access to chapter tactics/stratagems...

A.) Some methods of representing fluff in the past now only exist as tactics/stratagems (webway portals spring to mind as do certain chapter-specific characters of old)
B.) Just because you could be fluffy in the past doesn't mean that chapter tactics/stratagems are a welcome enhancement that I'd sort of hate to lose.

An army with lots of jump packs is Raven Guardly. An army with lots of jump packs and dudes that can infiltrate is Raven Guardlier.

 Lance845 wrote:
What it should be is you can only ever gain the chapter tactic/hive fleet/ whatever and relics and stratagems of your warlords detachment.

The partial existence of this rule in Chapter Approved 2017 (for Ynnari) leads me to believe it might become a normal rule. And I'd support it, it's a good idea.

At this point, with how flexible the detachments are, I'm wondering why we even have them. As long as you have 2 hq units, you can pretty well take any combination of units you think of.
How about we drop the pretense that detachments achieve anything?

Army selection becomes 2hq minimum. Then take whatever you want. Everyone gets 9 CP.
Add in the proposal to limit stratagems to those of your warlord's faction.
Maybe limit chapter tactics and their equivalents to your warlord's faction as well.

I think the way the OP suggestion works better is that, if I want to take 9 Heavy Support choices (plus attendant HQs), I'm paying a lot of CP to do so.

I'd rather they tie baseline CP to points/powerpoints. Something like "1 CP per PP" or "1 CP per 20 points". So that it scales more naturally.

Limiting Traits to the Warlord's faction might be really cool. There might be a few odd points (Phoenix Lords become even worse Warlords - no faction trait!), but I like it.

Guard troops fighting under the leadership of Roboute Gilleman aren't using their Cadian or Katchan doctrins as effectively.

A bunch of Dark City rabble supporting a Craftworld incursion aren't exemplifying Red Greif or anything - especially not with a stoic Farseer leading them.

I think they should still be able to name a faction, and take faction-specific options (Kharn could support Abbadon's push to destroy an Imperial world), though.