Can you get by without command points?

[Lysere]

 

 

How about neither player using CPs and Stratagems? Would that perhaps improve balance at least or bit?

No.

It wouldn't.

Guard funnily enough don't care about CP, at least not for example, like Blood Angels do.

 

As a chaos player, eating a 'Vengeance for Cadia' volley at every single opportunity is pretty lame.

 

That one stratagem makes the matchup really unpleasant- as if guard weren't bad enough.

 

 

I'd have sympathy if Chaos didn't have Death to the False Emperor and Prescience. I only play imperial armies so it kind of hurts.

[Gherrick]

I think skipping CPs/strategems altogether might be the real cure overall. The system is horrifically flawed and morbidly unbalanced. Without them you can still have a fairly competitive game I think. I'll have to try this out next time I play.

[Panzer]

I don't see how the Stratagem system is horribly flawed. The CP farm is broken as hell and the way to get CP could get adjusted quite a bit but overall the system is fine.

[thewarriorhunter]

I am hoping to see something that addresses the issue with this year's chapter approved. either give the farm to everyone, or limit it in some way to those that have it.

[Exilyth]

Could I get by without command points?

 

With Astra Militarum - sure. I'd just crush the enemies of the emperor under the boots of my soldiers/threads of my tanks/landing gear of my valkyrie/papertrail of the adeptus munitorum.  

 

With Adeptus Astartes - maybe. The Redemptor dread really needs the reroll from the captain stratagem'd into chapter master. Also the heavy bolter and missile launcher stratagems are quite usefull. And grabbing another relic can be nice. So I'd at least have to run another list.

 

 

 

Not using command points/stratagems can also be a usefull tool to adjust your lists power when playing against weaker lists.

[SickSix]

What do you guys think about the possible change that detachments can't share points?

 

That seems like it would fix a lot.

[Ipsen]

I would prefer something like what I've proposed here. I personally like allies and wouldn't want any changes to unduly penalise their use.

[Kallas]

What do you guys think about the possible change that detachments can't share points?

 

That seems like it would fix a lot.

Fixes the symptom (people using a lot of CP generating things/regen on powerful things) and not the ailment (CP access, armies and stratagem power balance is off kilter).

 

To break it down:

- Some armies/units have access to good stratagems and good units to apply them to (eg, Knights). Some of these have limited access to CP, some don't.

- Some armies have ok stratagems/units, but have a tough time getting enough CPs (or conversely, like Guard, have good units but not great stratagems) to really make it a viable combination.

- Some armies have bad units and bad stratagems (eg, Marines).

 

Basically, it's an interconnected problem that's rooted in poor inter-Codex balance (simply compare Grey Knights to Space Marines to Guard to Eldar/Knights; there's a huge power gap between GK and Eldar/IK) that needs a solid addressing. Powerful stuff needs to be kept in check (that is happening reasonably well) and bad stuff needs properly brought up (not yet happening; CA points changes are usually minor on the buff side of things, and points changes alone are usually not the issue, plus GW shouldn't be careless with points adjustments otherwise you might wind up with 10pt Grey Knights and 6pt Guardsmen).

 

Essentially:

- Bring up the bottom tier

- Bring down the top tier

 

It's not a quick fix, and it needs some more coordination between the Codex writers than, from an outside perspective, appears to be happening.

[Panzer]

 

What do you guys think about the possible change that detachments can't share points?

That seems like it would fix a lot.

Fixes the symptom (people using a lot of CP generating things/regen on powerful things) and not the ailment (CP access, armies and stratagem power balance is off kilter).

To break it down:

- Some armies/units have access to good stratagems and good units to apply them to (eg, Knights). Some of these have limited access to CP, some don't.

- Some armies have ok stratagems/units, but have a tough time getting enough CPs (or conversely, like Guard, have good units but not great stratagems) to really make it a viable combination.

- Some armies have bad units and bad stratagems (eg, Marines).

Basically, it's an interconnected problem that's rooted in poor inter-Codex balance (simply compare Grey Knights to Space Marines to Guard to Eldar/Knights; there's a huge power gap between GK and Eldar/IK) that needs a solid addressing. Powerful stuff needs to be kept in check (that is happening reasonably well) and bad stuff needs properly brought up (not yet happening; CA points changes are usually minor on the buff side of things, and points changes alone are usually not the issue, plus GW shouldn't be careless with points adjustments otherwise you might wind up with 10pt Grey Knights and 6pt Guardsmen).

Essentially:

- Bring up the bottom tier

- Bring down the top tier

It's not a quick fix, and it needs some more coordination between the Codex writers than, from an outside perspective, appears to be happening.

Pretty much.

Restricting CP usage to its own detachment fixes the CP farm aka the second category you mentioned since it's their only way to keep up with the top tier lists of the first category.

However it wouldn't change anything for the first category nor the third category so the strong would still be strong and the weak would still be weak.

The CP farm needs to be stopped but that alone won't magically balance the game at all.

[Xisor]

Might a set allotment of CPs be a better way of doing it?

 

E.g. Divorce (or at least seriously adjust) CPs from detachments. Detachments are a way of accessing units, and tie detachments to game size. E.g. 1 detachment per 750 points, or part thereof. So a 1000-1500pts game is 2 detachments, 2000pts is 3.

 

It'd be a complex fit, and maybe slightly unwielding, but the alternative would be having to more carefully tie CPs to keywords.

 

Which might work.

 

E.g. You gain warlord traits/strategems not based on all your keywords, but your unifying keyword.

 

So an Imperial Soup faction gets Imperial Warlord Traits and Strategems (like AoS's grand alliances). To model strange-but-viable combos specifically, you could do, say, a Third War Keyword, which represents Imperium but with a few choice Blood Angel/Salamander focus points, to field alongside Imperial Guard.

 

Hell, if that (in Drukharii style) tied armies more closely to specific formations, that might work too.

 

----

 

I don't see a clear way out of the woods at the moment.

 

The temptation to ban Imperial Soup is understandable, but it is foolish too because it is exactly what the keywords was there to allow - Marines and Guard fighting in iconic roles. Its just a bit... Specific in its effect.

 

Better to roll with unifying keywords, reign in soups, but also give Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari a flavour of their own.

 

Might even allow for some fun like optionally adding in "Empire Auxiliaries" for T'au forces with Genestealer Cults or Necrons or Imperial Guard or something daft/fun.

 

----

 

The areas where, I suspect, care needs to be taken:

- CP regeneration

- unique but widely useful strategems (Vect's Deny for the Black Heart)

- circumventing universal hard boundaries (flipping charge from deep strike from not very reliable to very reliable...)

 

Beyond them, tieing things relatively tightly to keywords seems to work.

[MrZakalwe]

I think giving CP generation a keyword would solve it tbh (i,e. CP generated from an Astra Militarum battalion could only be used on Astra Militarum or Generic stratagems) and I don't think the fact the system persuades people to bring troops choices is a bad thing (that bit's actually fluff friendly). 

 

I've been looking and I can't see any unintended consequences aside from the buffs this would give Tau/DE and those would be easily dealt with. 

[Ipsen]

Tying cp to the faction that created it would just nerf smaller or elite factions into the ground. Inquisition, Sisters of silence, Assassins, Grey knights, Custodes and yes... Knights, would have little to no access to cp, and the majority of those struggle as it is.

[Xisor]

Struggle, or not dominate?

 

Assassins, Inquisitors and Sisters of Silence aren't important considerations, purely on the basis that they barely exist as 'real' forces in 8th Edition, and with Custodes and Knights, they have inherent power in themselves.

 

You could double tag it.

 

CPs are generated with a keyword (three of which are freely chosen/universal in Battle Forged lists, the remainder originate from units/relics or detachments).

 

But pair that with keywords for the strategems too.

 

E.g. all Codex Adeptus Astartes strategems need Adeptus Astartes CPs.

 

Some Knight/Custodes 'make things effective' strategems could be more... loose.

[Zuvassin]

I like the idea of there being stronger/more available faction-only stratagems/CPs for armies that are mono-Blood Angels or mono-Craftworld Eldar, and weaker/less available sets for the 'alliance' level (Imperium, Eldar) that replace those for soup armies.

[Panzer]

I like the idea of there being stronger/more available faction-only stratagems/CPs for armies that are mono-Blood Angels or mono-Craftworld Eldar, and weaker/less available sets for the 'alliance' level (Imperium, Eldar) that replace those for soup armies.

 

That would be ideal but unfortunately GW thinks "soup" means having units from different factions in the same detachment while having detachments from different factions in the same army is completely fine. Their view of what is soup and what is not is honestly the biggest let down from GW for me in recent times.

[Zuvassin]

A bit over-simplistic, but I feel like it'd be easy to just say "if this army only requires a single codex, use that book's CP/strategems/warlord traits/etc. If 2 or more codices are required, then you are limited to the generic/universal ones from the main rules."

 

Maybe count indices as a separate codex for this as well.

[Wassa]

As a guard player, I don't think the fact that the guard has a lot of CPs is a bad thing for pure guard armies. 1 CP to AM is worth a lot less than 1 CP to a marine army.

 

Realistically, we have -a lot- of crappy units and honestly -a lot- of crappy strategems, though we do have the shining star Vengence for Cadia but otherwise they're all pretty meh.

For example:

-1CP to improve a 40 point infantry squads save by 1 for an armour save roll isn't -that- bad and it frees the opponent to just shoot at another 40 point squad.

-1CP to heal 1 wound on a vehicle, thats like 12 points of wounds?

-2CP to reroll 1 artillery vehicles failed hit rolls.

-1CP to use a D3 instead of a D6 for a moral test, a reduction of 3ish, which is 12 points?

 

When an elite army uses 1CP they end up buffing a lot more points worth than AM do which is fine as they get less points.

 

 

The problem comes when elite armies use the guard to get more CPs, and then use those points to buff elite troops which is what is happening at the moment.

I hate seeing all these Imperium armies take an allied detachment of guardsmen just for the CPs as it really gives us a bad name!

 

I would suggest that CPs generated by detachments can only be used by those factions which would make it a lot fairer.

[Kallas]

Guard stratagems aren't that bad: Take Cover for example has good internal synergy with IG Psychic Powers (particularly Psychic Barrier), other stratagems (like Combined Squads, to make them a particularly difficult to shift unit sitting on an objective), and the more potent units (most notably Bullgryn for a 2++ or a 0+ save [or -1+ in cover!], or a base 4+ Scion unit).

 

While it's certainly true that Guard units cost less and tend to do less on an individual level, with the sheer amount of CP to spend they can be buffing a proportionally similar amount of points across their different units. Not to mention that elite units generally don't actually perform particularly well outside of a few select ones (Deathwatch Storm Bolter Veterans, Smash Captain, etc) and they are usually considered great because of stratagems (especially Smash Captains).

 

It's not a clear cut "Guard stratagems bad; others good", especially if you look at Space Marine factions. Codex: Space Marines has very few good stratagems with most of them being very situational and/or expensive (either in CP or opportunity cost, such as Killshot/Linebreaker Bombardment needing multiples of a certain tank and requiring proximity).

 

I definitely agree that it's an issue having Guard being used as CP batteries, but that's because the CP system (and balance of stratagems) is pretty :cuss -ed up. I would also agree that Guard shouldn't get nerfed, if anything I'd like to see something like Grand Strategist get changed to only work on Guard stratagems (it galls me that Guard have expert strategists comparable/superior to much longer lived, entirely war-oriented super humans, particularly when one is essentially a Demi-God!)

[KillerClamato]

In regards to the original post, I'd say CP should be at least a consideration, even if you play an army that has poor stratagems or, throne take you, an index list.

The three basic stratagems in the rulebook are pretty good, but the primary use I have for CP is to re-roll objectives in Maelstrom games. I play R&H, and I find that even without a host of army-specific stratagems I can often win games just by being able to mulligan bad objectives with the 15 CP I get from my brigade 2k list. This is an extreme example, but I'd say just having a pocket full of CP for things like that can have exponential benefits for even really weak armies.

I don't necessarily agree with souping, and in fact I think allying should be far more limited than it even is now. CP battery is a problem with the game and I think artificially inflates the importance of CP in armies, especially ones that normally would not have much access to them.

If you asked me how I'd fix that, then I'd say brigade and battalion detachments should give different amounts of CP based on whether or not your warlord is in them. If your warlord is in a battalion or brigade detachment, then it will give you the current amount of CP that it gives now, 5 for Bat. and 12 for Brigade. If your warlord is not present in these detachments, then it they should be reduced, perhaps to their pre-big FAQ levels. I would also say that you can only use stratagems, relics, <Your Dudes>, and other codex specific rules from the codex that makes up the detachment your Warlord is in. I think that might do a lot to curb the CP battery problem.