Equivalent Points costs for our Stratgems

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Broken?

 

It's literally heavy bolter profile. Ie the most entry level anti-infantry in the game. Guardsmen and Gaunts still save it on 6's, 5+ if in cover. Marines save on a 4+, 3+ if in cover. Anything T6 or higher doesn't care.

 

I've actually used the 10x Strikes with 'Psybolt' and it is overwhelmingly mediocre. They land, maybe waste their target (its very dependent on cover, target armour save, whether you can even get all 10 of them inside rapid fire range anyway), then die. Strikes are still just Tac Marines in terms of durability, which is pretty weak in 8th edition meta (you're either saving on 6's against quality fire, if that, or getting drowned in torrents of wounds).

 

You might want to actually play more of the top armies and then tell me heavy bolter is OP.

[Capt. Mytre]

Broken?

 

It's literally heavy bolter profile. Ie the most entry level anti-infantry in the game. Guardsmen and Gaunts still save it on 6's, 5+ if in cover. Marines save on a 4+, 3+ if in cover. Anything T6 or higher doesn't care.

 

I've actually used the 10x Strikes with 'Psybolt' and it is overwhelmingly mediocre. They land, maybe waste their target (its very dependent on cover, target armour save, whether you can even get all 10 of them inside rapid fire range anyway), then die. Strikes are still just Tac Marines in terms of durability, which is pretty weak in 8th edition meta (you're either saving on 6's against quality fire, if that, or getting drowned in torrents of wounds).

 

You might want to actually play more of the top armies and then tell me heavy bolter is OP.

 

For 3 points, yes

 

You just ignored everything I said, again. I've literally covered everything you just said in the post before. You're argument hasn't changed. I'm not going to attempt a conversion when you don't actually provide a counter and just reiterate the exact same point you posted before, failing to address the rebuttal - and then put words in my mouth.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Capt. Mytre

[Reclusiarch Darius]

For 3 points, yes

 

You just ignored everything I said, again. I've literally covered everything you just said in the post before. You're argument hasn't changed. I'm not going to attempt a conversion when you don't actually provide a counter and just reiterate the exact same point you posted before, failing to address the rebuttal - and then put words in my mouth.

 

But they don't cost 3 points. You can't ignore platform costs, which is what you keep doing. Also they will likely only get to fire at full efficiency once per game, maybe twice. If the enemy have 'Auspex Scan' or similar, you may not even get a rapid fire off with it, which largely renders it worthless.

 

The strategem also costs 2CP, which means when factoring in other considerations (the odd critical re-roll, 'Heed', 'Psychic Onslaught' which is usually better anyway, 'Aegis' or 'Channeling' for critical points in the psychic phase), you will usually use it once per game. Especially considering the 10x man unit you used it on will almost certainly be mauled/wiped after doing so. They're only Tac Marines defensively.

 

Heavy bolter profile rapidly drops off the better the Toughness and saves of the target. As an actual example, I fought Tau recently and a full barrage took 2 wounds off a Crisis Commander, with above average to-hit and wound rolls as well. Partly that was Stims I think, but the point still holds, 3+ is still quite reliable.

 

Against T3 the only change is that you inflict -1, you still only wound on 3's. T4 the effect is more noticeable because you will wound on 3's, and of course T8 on 5's. But I wouldn't rely on 'Psybolt' storm bolter except to clear other infantry. Once you have to deal with T5+ multi-wound with a decent armour save, it's pretty meh.

[Capt. Mytre]

 

For 3 points, yes

 

You just ignored everything I said, again. I've literally covered everything you just said in the post before. You're argument hasn't changed. I'm not going to attempt a conversion when you don't actually provide a counter and just reiterate the exact same point you posted before, failing to address the rebuttal - and then put words in my mouth.

 

But they don't cost 3 points. You can't ignore platform costs, which is what you keep doing. Also they will likely only get to fire at full efficiency once per game, maybe twice. If the enemy have 'Auspex Scan' or similar, you may not even get a rapid fire off with it, which largely renders it worthless.

 

The strategem also costs 2CP, which means when factoring in other considerations (the odd critical re-roll, 'Heed', 'Psychic Onslaught' which is usually better anyway, 'Aegis' or 'Channeling' for critical points in the psychic phase), you will usually use it once per game. Especially considering the 10x man unit you used it on will almost certainly be mauled/wiped after doing so. They're only Tac Marines defensively.

 

Heavy bolter profile rapidly drops off the better the Toughness and saves of the target. As an actual example, I fought Tau recently and a full barrage took 2 wounds off a Crisis Commander, with above average to-hit and wound rolls as well. Partly that was Stims I think, but the point still holds, 3+ is still quite reliable.

 

Against T3 the only change is that you inflict -1, you still only wound on 3's. T4 the effect is more noticeable because you will wound on 3's, and of course T8 on 5's. But I wouldn't rely on 'Psybolt' storm bolter except to clear other infantry. Once you have to deal with T5+ multi-wound with a decent armour save, it's pretty meh.

 

 

You have to be kidding me, right? My first comment in this thread, my first sentence, explicitly stated the opposite of what you think I said.

 

When balancing the points for the upgrade, you need to consider the cost of the base unit. For example, custards don't have a "cheap" platform to spam their bolters with. We do, in the form of PAGK. Keep in mind that RF2 S5 AP -1 D1 is super potent - a 10 man squad will kill most infantry squads. +5 points per model is probably good. Psycannons and Psilencers wouldn't get an upgrade as Psycannons already fire those rounds and Psilencers fire mind bullets. I'd also make one for "heavy" weapons, such as HB/Autocannons/Hurricane Bolters/Assault Cannons that costs ~20 points for the same +1S -1AP.

 

On a side note, I had an idea that if Psybolt ammunition became a upgrade, you could have a stratagem (say, 2-3cp) that you could then use as a "supply drop", and upgrade a squad for the rest of the game. It would be "free points" however.

 

So no, I don't "keep saying that". I'm also saying that it would be a decent upgrade for 5 points each model. My specific point revolves around how GML said, since we already have a cost via the Custard codex, it would transition to ours, and his calculation is based on that. I was saying that for 3 points, it would be OP. It would need to be 5+ for it to be remotely balanced.

 

Maybe read the full thread next time?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

It's a very arbitrary distinction. Also as I keep reiterating, you can't take the cost of a weapon in another faction and apply it equally across all. GW does that I know, but it's dumb.

 

You place a very high premium on S5 -1 D1 shooting. I'm telling you from both theoretical and practical experience, it's really not that great. Decent against infantry, that's about it. Your arguments to the contrary are weak and unconvincing. Let me know when heavy bolters take over the meta in your area.

 

Psybolt used to be a 20pt upgrade per squad (IIRC, might have been 2pt per model or something). Given that it's likely to happen once per game, if that, I'd price it the same in 8th. That brings a full 10-man Strike squad to 230 points, which is about as expensive as they can go really. If you priced it at 50pts for a full 10-man squad (and lets be perfectly honest here, that's the only time you'd use the current Strat or buy this upgrade), it's too expensive and will be ignored. Your imagined 'balanced' price point is simply too high.

 

Honestly, I'd use 'Psychic Onslaught' most of the time instead (and I'm fine with it being a Strat, 2CP is too expensive however). Putting storm bolters into 'okay you might kill more infantry on the turn they drop', versus 'every turn  you have command points, your GMDK can fire S8 heavy psycannon with -2AP and essentially a grav-cannon with worse AP'. I probably wouldn't make 'Psychic Onslaught' a purchasable upgrade, as it's auto-take unless you astronomically overprice it (at which point, same as your idea, it gets ignored). Or I'd rework the 'psychic' guns to have better profiles and just make them more expensive.

 

Supply drop strat wouldn't be used, pure and simple. We already are starved for Command Points. Your proposed interaction is also really wonky, and actually works counter to the whole point of Strategems (they're re-usable buffs so long as you have an applicable unit alive to benefit). 

[Gentlemanloser]

I was hoping the take away from this thread would be that at 2CP, Psybolt Ammo is vastly too expensive for what it does. :(

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Oh I agree. I'd go further and say that even for 1CP, or a points cost, it's still kinda meh.

[Capt. Mytre]

It's a very arbitrary distinction. Also as I keep reiterating, you can't take the cost of a weapon in another faction and apply it equally across all. GW does that I know, but it's dumb.

 

You place a very high premium on S5 -1 D1 shooting. I'm telling you from both theoretical and practical experience, it's really not that great. Decent against infantry, that's about it. Your arguments to the contrary are weak and unconvincing. Let me know when heavy bolters take over the meta in your area.

 

Psybolt used to be a 20pt upgrade per squad (IIRC, might have been 2pt per model or something). Given that it's likely to happen once per game, if that, I'd price it the same in 8th. That brings a full 10-man Strike squad to 230 points, which is about as expensive as they can go really. If you priced it at 50pts for a full 10-man squad (and lets be perfectly honest here, that's the only time you'd use the current Strat or buy this upgrade), it's too expensive and will be ignored. Your imagined 'balanced' price point is simply too high.

 

Honestly, I'd use 'Psychic Onslaught' most of the time instead (and I'm fine with it being a Strat, 2CP is too expensive however). Putting storm bolters into 'okay you might kill more infantry on the turn they drop', versus 'every turn  you have command points, your GMDK can fire S8 heavy psycannon with -2AP and essentially a grav-cannon with worse AP'. I probably wouldn't make 'Psychic Onslaught' a purchasable upgrade, as it's auto-take unless you astronomically overprice it (at which point, same as your idea, it gets ignored). Or I'd rework the 'psychic' guns to have better profiles and just make them more expensive.

 

Supply drop strat wouldn't be used, pure and simple. We already are starved for Command Points. Your proposed interaction is also really wonky, and actually works counter to the whole point of Strategems (they're re-usable buffs so long as you have an applicable unit alive to benefit). 

 

Proved that you put words in my mouth, and you're in denial.

 

HB are not comparable, I've been over that but you didn't find a unit that costs 250 points or less that fires 40 shots. HB would be great if you could fire that many shots, that cheap - but they fire max 12/24 shots with one unit - and they cost 10 points. There's no discussion when you fail to actually address what I said, and at this point I can't be bothered explaining it to someone with such disregard.

 

It's sad really, I'd expect more from a mod.

 

I was hoping the take away from this thread would be that at 2CP, Psybolt Ammo is vastly too expensive for what it does.

 

Yes, but this was known ages ago, same for CP differences between armies. I posted (on reddit) a thread that foretold how unbalanced it would be, but of course everyone was like "wait and see" or "elite armies have less units, so they can make use of their strats more efficiently". Even with cheap access to CP, it's too expensive, and for us it's worth ~33% of our CP.

 

For 1cp with proper CP generation, its a great strat.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Capt. Mytre

[Gentlemanloser]

Can't disagree there.  I've been long posting in the various Balance threads here that CP generation needs to be divorced from Detachments/Units.

 

With more CP and dropped to 1CP I'm sure Psybolt Ammo would see more use.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Proved that you put words in my mouth, and you're in denial.

 

You know, that's exactly it. Mea culpa.

HB are not comparable, I've been over that but you didn't find a unit that costs 250 points or less that fires 40 shots. HB would be great if you could fire that many shots, that cheap - but they fire max 12/24 shots with one unit - and they cost 10 points. There's no discussion when you fail to actually address what I said, and at this point I can't be bothered explaining it to someone with such disregard.

 

It's sad really, I'd expect more from a mod.

 

S5 AP-1 D1 isn't heavy bolter? I guess I need to read the weapon profiles more.

 

Ah I see. I guess you win this round.

 

Damn, I'm sorry to personally let you down :( how can I ever make this up to you? It's gonna keep me up at night otherwise.

Can't disagree there.  I've been long posting in the various Balance threads here that CP generation needs to be divorced from Detachments/Units.

 

With more CP and dropped to 1CP I'm sure Psybolt Ammo would see more use.

 

I think the intention was to reward more well-rounded forces, and limit cheese of previous editions. As per usual, GW crashed and burned on that front. You can see the intention though, with the 'spam Heavy/Elite/Fast' getting less than 'take lots of Troops and HQ's to lead them'. 

 

How would you change it however? I'm okay with the current system for the most part, it's hardly perfect but so long as you have a relic/Warlord trait to regenerate CP, most armies work fine in the existing framework. In our case that mandates Allies of course.

[Gentlemanloser]

3CP per 500 points you play.

[Waking Dreamer]

3CP per 500 points you play.

 

So every army will have exactly the same CPs to start with, barring special characters/rules that give extra CP or CP regen?

[Gentlemanloser]

Yup.

[Danarc]

I like the idea that not all army have the same amount of CP. Maybe it could be better linking another sum of CP to the models. 

Near the current way to obtain CP every army should add a number of CP depending on how many models are played. 

1-20 models +3

21-40 models +2

41-60 models +1

61+ models no CP 

 

Summoned models could create a problem. How to solve it?
 

[Gentlemanloser]

If armies have differingg CP, how do you stop people taking cheap, low mini count Guard Battalions for extra CP?

[Danarc]

If armies have differingg CP, how do you stop people taking cheap, low mini count Guard Battalions for extra CP?

You don’t.

But a guard with 3 batallion (60+ models) has 12 CP while a GK with a batallion and a vanguard (21-40 models) today has 7 CP, with my proposal it have 9 CP. a little remodulation.

 

But including a small guard batallion for 3 CP (that is at least 32 models) prevent you taking CP with my proposal.

[Capt. Mytre]

Honestly, I think that some armies should just get double CP for each mono-detachment made of them. IE, GK get +6 CP instead of +3 for a battalion detachment. Same for Custards.

 

The other option is that you remove all CP regeneration abilities from other armies and move them to Elite armies. Absolutely stupid that an army that can already accumulate more CP than anyone else, also has the ability to regain them or cheapen their stratagem usage.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Capt. Mytre

[Adeptus]

I think the easiest way to 'balance' CP is to ensure, one way or another, that both sides have the same amount.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I think this relates directly to the earlier issue (dunno if it was this thread or the other one) which is that there is currently no advantage to pure armies. 

 

Something simple like 'if you army is all from one codex you get +3CP' works fine. It's not scalar (like doubling detachment bonuses would be), but it offers a small bump to elite forces taken purely from one book. Soup still works fine in this system to, so those people can't complain.

[Danarc]

I think this relates directly to the earlier issue (dunno if it was this thread or the other one) which is that there is currently no advantage to pure armies. 

 

Something simple like 'if you army is all from one codex you get +3CP' works fine. It's not scalar (like doubling detachment bonuses would be), but it offers a small bump to elite forces taken purely from one book. Soup still works fine in this system to, so those people can't complain.

so a pure IG army will have 15 CP?

[Waking Dreamer]

 

 

 

I think this relates directly to the earlier issue (dunno if it was this thread or the other one) which is that there is currently no advantage to pure armies.

 

Something simple like 'if you army is all from one codex you get +3CP' works fine. It's not scalar (like doubling detachment bonuses would be), but it offers a small bump to elite forces taken purely from one book. Soup still works fine in this system to, so those people can't complain.

 

so a pure IG army will have 15 CP?

It was suggested a little while back that mono armies that have 7CPs or less gain a bonus 5CPs. That would put typical mono GK armies just a couple CPs shy of a mono IG army. Fair?

 

Makes more sense thematically, as lorewise, any IG troops I would pick to ally with my GKs are just going to get Inquisitioned at the end of the battle, whether we win or lose...

Edited March 2, 2018 by Waking Dreamer

[Zamtro]

I think the easiest way to 'balance' CP is to ensure, one way or another, that both sides have the same amount.

I actually think you're right on the money there. Armies will still get bonuses from being mono faction etc such as Obsec/+1 psychic tests like us. Plus access to faction specific stratagems. Having equivalent CP just makes it more balanced for all?

[Schlitzaf]

To beat a dead horse, as I talked about in another thread, what gives the straight +3? How do you do so? What I think be better if the purpose is to incentive mono-Codex/Army Builds, is grant 1 additional CP for each shared Keyword Factional Keyword Army Wide. Why?

 

Well, for simplest terms, it actually doesn’t benefit Codex: IG. Codex: IG will have at best/often only get +2 CP from this system (if Keyword Imperium is counted). Imperium and Astra Militarum, because Primaris Pyskers and such do not have (Regiment) Keyword. And to quell “but my Daemons”, sense it’s tied to factional keyword, a mono (God) Chaos army would actually generate +2 CP, were an equivalent Imperial List only generate +1.

 

Then it would reward inner codex ‘purity’. Codex Dark Angels, a mono Deathwing Force would get +4! While assuming we get a Skitarri HQ, an Admech Force with only Skitarri Units would get +4 as well (Imperium, Skitarii, (Forged World) and AdMech). An allied force like Genestealer Cults and IG would actually get only +1 (and hileriously plus 0, if you had a Tyranid, Cult and IG Force as the IG Force doesn’t have Tyranid Keyword).

 

And then another cool factor would be it benefits cross codex souping that are same (faction). SoS taking a Primaris Pysker, would actually have +2 CP (both share Astra Telepathica). Main wrinkle is how Inquisition would be no bueno. A simple change, is any unit with authority of Inquisition during List construction can choose 1 Factional Keyword from a predetermined list to have as an additional faction Keyword in addition to any other faction Keyword (said List could even include a non-Imperial Factions or Forces like say Kroot/Tau).

 

While the obvious issue is non soup armies (Orks, Necrons and Tau) gain little benefit because they have fewer factional keywords, this is my feeling.

 

For Tau, I think they should have more Factional Keywords anyways (like Codex: IG). Kroot could have (Pack) Keyword for sake of example in addition to everything else. Or Codex Wide, have the format be T’au Empire, (Race so Tau/Kroot/Vespid/Etc), (caste/position in empire so Fire/Wind/Auxillia/Ethereal etc), then (Custom, so (Sept), (Pack) etc). Also add more auxillaries and one HQ for each.

 

Necrons and Orks, do not need an incentivetion to mono codex because they cannot ally anyway. Through you could add some keywords for explicitly things for Mecha Orks (Dreads, Kans etc) you could add ‘Mek’. Or go with the (Race/Role) as another means of seperation.

 

In any case, back to the actual thread. I think instead being flat by +3, it should scale by degree of keyword sharing. ‘Shrug’. I do like the idea that mono armies gain more CP. Another idea I think be fun too, is pure dex armies have two warlord traits. One from BRB and another from their Codex. /shrug. Sorry for tangenting

[Capt. Mytre]

While a cool idea and all, it wouldn't fix the massive gap of Elite armies getting 6-7cp and hoard armies having 12-15cp. It would be a small change of two CP at most.

 

The only fix I see that scales properly is that each detachment has "You earn X cp for spending X points". This means that having cheap units isn't an easy way to gain CP, and you can balance how good a detachment type is based on the CP gain and points required. It also means that people stop taking min-size detachments to maximise CP.

 

For example, a brigade detachment: You earn 1cp per 199 points spent on this detachment - you still require that 2 HQ and 3 troops, but then you can build around it, still gaining CP while using other slots (that people don't use now due to the way CP generation works).

[Gentlemanloser]

That's really no different to giving everyone 1CP per 199 points you play, or 3CP per 500.  Regardless of Detachments used.