CP regeneration. Degenerate or Ok?

[totgeboren]

@Markosian and sfPanzer

I personally think CP makes most sense as tool to encourage armies that are a bit more all-round armies compared to spam armies. It is simply impossible to perfectly balance all the units against each other, so a workaround is to encourage people to take a wide range of different units. One unit will almost always be the 'best' choice, so rewarding variation is a reasonable blanket rule to improve balance.

Yes, some themed forces like Deathwing would be punished, but these are easily remedied by keyword-specific CP-rules. Like "a Detachment with the Deathwing faction uses X/Y/Z to calculate CP for Terminator squads instead of that found on the Terminator squad datasheet."

I think how many CP are rewarded to a particular army theme should be balanced by playtesting, essentially asking: "If someone makes a army of just Knights, how many CP does it need to produce balanced games against an all-round SM army?"

GW should use CP to tweak balance instead of doing as now, where it is separate from unit balance and as such disrupts game balance even more.

[Captain Idaho]

Let's not pretend there's a whole bunch of players who are fluff players who take soups to simulate their vision of the hobby. Since when did Hive Fleet Chronus and Kraken join forces?

 

If you're a fluff player, you won't mind taking an army that has limitations to your soup playing because you're there for fun and fluff reasons, right?

[Ipsen]

I feel like heavily buffing the other relics and warlords traits may be the answer. Making it an actual trade off when a player picks the cp regenerating perks such that only in using that additional cp can they stand up to someone using another option. As it is players really lose out on nothing for picking grand strategist/kurovs aquila/veritas vitae/lord of hidden knowledge.

 

Alternatively i feel that these kind of rules should not be present on warlord traits or relics at all.

[Ishagu]

I will agree that it's very un-fluffy how the disposable horde armies have the most strategic brilliance.

 

Every member of an Astartes force is a veteran with over a century of experience. With the Custodes it's probably a millennia of training and strategic education.

 

The Astartes should be swimming in command points but for some reason the Guard have better strategic acumen and greater Battlefield flexibility, and soldiers who can reload with greater efficiency than Astartes or run twice as fast.

 

Edit - typo

[MARK0SIAN]

@Markosian and sfPanzer

 

I personally think CP makes most sense as tool to encourage armies that are a bit more all-round armies compared to spam armies. It is simply impossible to perfectly balance all the units against each other, so a workaround is to encourage people to take a wide range of different units. One unit will almost always be the 'best' choice, so rewarding variation is a reasonable blanket rule to improve balance.

 

Yes, some themed forces like Deathwing would be punished, but these are easily remedied by keyword-specific CP-rules. Like "a Detachment with the Deathwing faction uses X/Y/Z to calculate CP for Terminator squads instead of that found on the Terminator squad datasheet."

 

I think how many CP are rewarded to a particular army theme should be balanced by playtesting, essentially asking: "If someone makes a army of just Knights, how many CP does it need to produce balanced games against an all-round SM army?"

 

GW should use CP to tweak balance instead of doing as now, where it is separate from unit balance and as such disrupts game balance even more.

I agree that more rounded lists should be encouraged and CP can help with that but I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

 

Using CP to tweak balance issues might be feasible but it assumes the balance issues only need a slight tweak. In reality some units and even entire armies are hugely imbalanced when compared to others. You won’t fix spammed units with CP because they’re often just so much better as an option. They need a more fundamental change in their rules. The other thing is that you can give as much CP as you like but if the stratagems for a particular force aren’t very good then it won’t help. You could give me 20 CP for taking marine tactical squads but if I’ve got nothing worth spending it on then it’s worhless.

 

Playtesting the CP of various armies would also be difficult. A Knight army would need a different amount of CP against a marine army compared to what it would need against a tyranid one or a Necron one.

 

Encourage well rounded lists by all means but if the armies, and specifically the units, don’t encourage well rounded lists then something like CP isn’t going to change that unless you make the stratagems God Tier.

[Trevak Dal]

If I was to attempt a "fluffy" imperial soup army, it would be mostly guard base, infantry and artillery, with space marine forces in deep strike (drop pods), full 10 man marine squads etc.

[Panzer]

The thing is that GW uses CP to encourage us to take more Troop choices ... just that cheap horde Troops aren't bad choices and cost only a very small amount of a 2k points list so you still have tons of points for tanks and stuff to use your CP on while Troops like Tacticals etc. aren't that great AND cost a lot of your available 2k points so you have less to spend on better units to use your CP on.

I understand that GW wants us to use more Troop units which is completely fine, but such an approach only works if each faction suffers from the same problem. They do not. A proper re-design of the actual Troop units would've been better obviously.

[bluntpencil]

One way to do it would be to return Imperial Guard selections to how they used to be - You must buy a Platoon for a Troops choice.

 

This has several benefits - Platoon Commanders, Command Squads, Commissars, Special Weapons Squads and Heavy Weapons Squads no longer suffer from Rule of 3, and Guard have more reasonable amounts of Command Points.

[totgeboren]

If Datasheets rewarded CP, Troops could have a special rule that you get CP from each unit that is part of your Troops, but for the other categories (Elites, Fast and so on) you only get CP from one entry.
Lets say Tacticals gave 3 CP for a full 10-man squad, Terminators gave 2 CP and Dreadnoughts gave 1 pts. A Detachment with 3 10-man tacticals, 1 squad of Termies and 1 Dreadnought would then give 9 CP from the Tacs, and 2 from the Termies, but no from the Dreadnought since only one Elite can be counted. So 11 in total.

 

If one wants to reel in abuse, only allow the Detachment the Warlord belongs to to count for CP generation.

[sairence]

As a Guard player, I have a massive gripe with every imperium player taking tiny batteries to support their actual force. I feel it gives my army an undeservedly bad rep. And it causes nerfs to things that actual Guard players weren't actually guilty of abusing to even remotely the same degree as soups, like Conscript-spam.

 

First step should definitely be to restrict WL-selection to your biggest detachmeny pointswise. Maybe that's already enough.

[MARK0SIAN]

One way to do it would be to return Imperial Guard selections to how they used to be - You must buy a Platoon for a Troops choice.

 

This has several benefits - Platoon Commanders, Command Squads, Commissars, Special Weapons Squads and Heavy Weapons Squads no longer suffer from Rule of 3, and Guard have more reasonable amounts of Command Points.

The thing is though, it’s not just an imperial guard issue. It’s a problem with every faction that has access to dirt cheap, effective troops.

 

We are in danger of focussing this issue with CPs on Guard because that’s the ones we see abused the most as a CP battery but we’ve got to be careful that:

 

1) Any fixes we create correctly affect the CP imbalance across all factions.

2) Codexes that can be abused for CP are not unduly damaged when used as a force on their own.

[Kallas]

The thing is though, it’s not just an imperial guard issue. It’s a problem with every faction that has access to dirt cheap, effective troops.

 

We are in danger of focussing this issue with CPs on Guard because that’s the ones we see abused the most as a CP battery but we’ve got to be careful that:

 

1) Any fixes we create correctly affect the CP imbalance across all factions.

2) Codexes that can be abused for CP are not unduly damaged when used as a force on their own.

Yeah, for sure. Nids, for example, can fill their Troops (Rippers), Fast Attack (Spore Mines), Elites (Lictors) and Heavy Support (Biovores) super cheaply. A Brigade only costs about 540pts for all of the mandatory Troops/E/FA/HS. For Marines, the Troops alone cost an absolute minimum of 330 (6x5 Scouts).

 

One of the biggest issues is initial CP generation: it's supposed to represent good command structure and fluidity of the force, which should mean that elite armies (Marines, Custodes, Eldar/Harlequins, etc) would have more. But they don't, so the whole thing is just off kilter.

[Rogue]

What if you gave CPs a points value, and let players buy them as part of their army list?

 

It would generate some tactical decisions - do I buy more troops, but have less flexibility; or do I take less, but leave myself more able to utilise them fully.

 

It would also make balancing easier, because the value of the CP could be codex specific (Marines pay x per CP, Guard pay y, Orks pay z and so on).

 

Bloodbowl had something similar it the team-building stage, where you could allocate some of your initial gold to buying team rerolls, and it felt like it worked there.

[Captain Idaho]

I'd limit usable Stratagems to the Warlord's faction and also say only detachments made up of said faction generate CPs. In addition, no Relics allowed except Primary faction.

 

It would fix things straight away. All those allies and soups would disappear except people who those who do it narratively and for theme.

 

Why should you be punished? I've heard people say this. Um, how about game balance? You already are shoring up weaknesses by cherry picking from multiple Codex books.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think CP should be set based on the point level of the game, and how many different codex you used in making the army. I'd restrict relics and warlord traits to one battalion or brigade which would be mandatory and give primarch's a rule that allows them to be warlords as an exception.

 

so for example at 2000 points a pure custodes army would get max cp (around 15 for example) if they added some guard for scoring, and deep strike threats they'd drop down to 12, if in addition they ran a knight they would drop down to 9.

 

This would reward one codex armies and scale based on points so small games don't get silly.

[Beams]

I'd limit usable Stratagems to the Warlord's faction and also say only detachments made up of said faction generate CPs. In addition, no Relics allowed except Primary faction.

 

It would fix things straight away. All those allies and soups would disappear except people who those who do it narratively and for theme.

 

Why should you be punished? I've heard people say this. Um, how about game balance? You already are shoring up weaknesses by cherry picking from multiple Codex books.

How about taking an Inquisitor to lead a force of Deathwatch/sisters/greyknights and some tempestus Scions (Stormtroopers)?

 

Or maybe playing sisters is getting a little stale since we only really have one option, and I want to add some gaurd for variety, since they are both normal humans, and both are incredibly pervasive in the imperium. Even if i'm adding a deathstrike missile (which is super fun, if terrible) and a couple of squads of infantry I get dirty looks.

 

But now I'm faced with the issue where if I take the inqusitior as the warlord like he should be, I have no strategems. Or in the second case, I have to decide whether to remove my sisters ability to deny the witch, which has been in the fluff forever, and martyrdom which has been a part of sisters crunch forever, or render that deathstrike even more useless?

 

Restricting the player to only one source of strategems is going to ruin the ability to make fun and vaired armies, and is only going to shoehorn the meta towards soup, with the soup being the cheapest, most efficient bodies, and then either Custodes or blood angels.

[Ishagu]

Limiting strats generated to a particular detachment isn't a good idea and punishes elite armies even more. The methods of obtaining CP need to be refined as detachment cost between armies varies wildly.

[bluntpencil]

Another way to limit CP batteries:

 

Units (Guard infantry, Ripper Swarms) which can be abused to make cheap Battalions could be required in greater numbers to fill a Troops slot.

 

For example:

 

In order to fill a mandatory Troops slot, you must take 2 units of Infantry.

 

Simple, and raises the cost of a minimum sized Infantry Battalion to 300, instead of 180.

 

I'd also make Platoon Commanders, Commissars, and similar, 1-2, like Space Marine Lieutenants, to get around the rule of 3.

[Ishagu]

I'm in favour of bespoke detachment requirements for each individual army.

[Beams]

I'm in favour of bespoke detachment requirements for each individual army.

We've been there, and it was a travesty.

 

As for "fixing" guard, just bring back the platoon structure. It's not going to upset any guard players, and it's going to prevent the "loyal 32" from ever showing up again.

[Captain Idaho]

Of course it doesn't punish elite armies. My suggested fixes makes it do elites armies (without soup) have more units that benefit from the CP available. Those Guardsmen supporting the Custodes get no additional benefits, being purely supportive numbers and guns to the (let me guess) 3 Jetbiker Captains you take.

 

You want an Inquisitor army? Then take one. All the mixes of units are your benefits over my pure force. If you want all the CPs then take the Primary Detatchment for an army that can use them.

 

Tough luck. Why should everyone suffer because you want an Inquisitor Warlord?

[MARK0SIAN]

Another way to limit CP batteries:

 

Units (Guard infantry, Ripper Swarms) which can be abused to make cheap Battalions could be required in greater numbers to fill a Troops slot.

 

For example:

 

In order to fill a mandatory Troops slot, you must take 2 units of Infantry.

 

Simple, and raises the cost of a minimum sized Infantry Battalion to 300, instead of 180.

 

I'd also make Platoon Commanders, Commissars, and similar, 1-2, like Space Marine Lieutenants, to get around the rule of 3.

But you can’t introduce a rule like this that is specific to one army to limit CP batteries without having a negative effect on the force as a whole. It’s unfair to expect a guard player who is playing a purely Guard army to take 120 infantry to fill out a brigade.

 

This is what I meant in my earlier post. We cannot create rules, adjust points, change stats or otherwise tweak for specific armies purely so they won’t be used as a CP battery. It negatively impacts the army as a whole when it is played on its own.

 

The solution lies in global changes that affect every army. Changes to detachments, changes to rules on soup armies, changes to the way CP is given and so on.

[PiñaColada]

As far as fixing CP goes there would probably have to be several distinct changes implemented.

 

I have argued in the past that your warlord must come from your primary faction. Primary faction in this case is defined as more than 50% of your armies point value. So a 1750 point army must consist of a faction occupying at least 875 points. Those points could be allocated over one, or several detachments. This being a requirement for being battleforged. Any faction (or subfaction) not part of your warlords generate 0CP for that detachment and cannot generate additional CP throughout the game via stratagems/relics/psychic powers. By subfactions I mean different craftworlds/hive fleets or even space marine chapters within the same book etc. I'd love to see something like this as a beta rule, it's not perfect but would be a big step in the right direction IMO. 

 

A simpler solution would be to implement a minimum point requirement for detachments to "unlock" their CP bonus. A batallion has to be over 500 points to give 5CP otherwise it only gives 1CP. A Brigade must be at least 1250 points otherwise it only gives 5CP.

 

As a more personal preference I'd also get rid of all CP regen traits & relics and simply replace them with a +1CP at the start of the battle. Obviously that's not as good but it'd make them less of auto-take relics/traits and we'd start to see more variance in lists.

[Brother Casman]

I'm thinking that I'd probably adopt the command point system from AoS. You start the game with 1 (+1 for each battalion), and every turn you generate 1. There's a few abilities that allow you to generate d3, but that's about it.

 

Translating this to 40k would mean that detachments would give you 1 each (maybe 2 for battalions, 3 for brigades). I'd adjust all of the regeneration artifacts to give an extra d3 at the start of the battle (maybe) and reduce the cost of strategems (to 1 or 2 command points). That's where I'd start, anyway.

[Finkmilkana]

Limiting CP generation to a “primary” faction overly punishes small factions with few different units (inquisition, Custodes, sisters, etc) that need to soup to fill certain roles while tyranids, marines, Eldar etc can still happily mix their dozens of different data sheets. Such a limitation would only make sense if all factions had a minimum number of stuff they could mix, otherwise we are just back at “play a large faction that has both cheap troops and punchy units or expect to loose”. Souping right now is a great equalizer, as it allows small factions to shore up their glaring weaknesses. Punishing them for it by taking most of their CP is not a feasible solution.