A fix to CP farms.

[HallofStovokor]

We all know about the loyal 32 and how much everyone hates the guard because of it. A solution that would discourage but not remove the option would be to give every faction playing mono-armies an extra 3 CP. Have this tied to regimental keywords or their equivalent keywords for other factions. This would stop armies from mixing and matching their best traits. Scions could be brought in any regiment, but if they want the 3 CP, they can't be in their own detachment. There would still be a CP benefit for the loyal 32, but for only 2 additional CP they must sacrifice units for their primary faction.

 

It would be the middle ground to prevent further nerfs to the Guard. The Custodies and Knight players wouldn't feel like they had their armies nerfed and actually have options to be competitive without soup.

 

Please let me know what your opinions are.

[TheShredder]

You still get more CP by taking the Loyal 32 than by playing a mono army.

 

I don't understand how this is supposed to fix anything.

[HallofStovokor]

It makes the choice between more Knights or 2 CP. This makes the loyal 32 less of a no brainer. I admit that it might not be perfect, but it might work.

[Tokugawa]

Why "fix"? I should be proud of "being hated" as a Guard player.

 

Are there anyone hating marines in 8th?

[Lord Raven 19]

I like the idea and think that maybe just you only get the base 3cp if you are mono-faction

[Cruor Vault]

It makes the choice between more Knights or 2 CP. This makes the loyal 32 less of a no brainer. I admit that it might not be perfect, but it might work.

 

The Loyal 32 are worth vastly more than a mere 2CPs.

 

They're bodies to block DS, capture OBJ, prevent charges, and perform chaff clearance.

[TheShredder]

It makes the choice between more Knights or 2 CP. This makes the loyal 32 less of a no brainer. I admit that it might not be perfect, but it might work.

 

Except that it doesn't solve the problem in the slightest.

 

The issue is that Souping both allows you to easily cover your army's inherent weaknesses (by taking the best units from other armies) and also allows a net gain in CPs by doing so.

 

This does not fix either of those. IKs are still getting more CPs as a reward for covering their weakness. Why would this change anything?

 

 

If you actually want to fix Soup, how about something like this:

 

- Any detachments that do not share at least one faction keyword with your Warlord (not counting Imperium, Chaos, Tyranids or Eldar) can never generate CPs by any means.

- You may not use any Stratagems from a different codex to that of your Warlord (except for Rulebook and CA stratagems). 

 

Now, if the IKs want to include the Loyal 32, then they will either get 0CPs by doing so or else will have to make a company commander their warlord, thus losing access to all their juicy IK stratagems.

 

If you implemented this in addition to the OP's suggested rules, then it would be even more impactful. In the above example, the IK army would now be losing out on 3CPs in return for including the loyal 32. 

[HallofStovokor]

Now, if the IKs want to include the Loyal 32, then they will either get 0CPs by doing so or else will have to make a company commander their warlord, thus losing access to all their juicy IK stratagems.

 

If you implemented this in addition to the OP's suggested rules, then it would be even more impactful. In the above example, the IK army would now be losing out on 3CPs in return for including the loyal 32.

I actually like that idea. I still think the keyword needs to be more specific than Astra Militarum or Knights. I think it should include sub-factions. This should affect more than just IK and custodies.

[TheShredder]

 

Now, if the IKs want to include the Loyal 32, then they will either get 0CPs by doing so or else will have to make a company commander their warlord, thus losing access to all their juicy IK stratagems.

 

If you implemented this in addition to the OP's suggested rules, then it would be even more impactful. In the above example, the IK army would now be losing out on 3CPs in return for including the loyal 32.

I actually like that idea. I still think the keyword needs to be more specific than Astra Militarum or Knights. I think it should include sub-factions. This should affect more than just IK and custodies.

 

 

Well, it will also affect stuff like Eldar allying with Dark Eldar and/or Harlequins, any Chaos alliances, etc..

 

Regardless, how much more specific would you want to make it? 

[Biscuittzz]

It makes the choice between more Knights or 2 CP. This makes the loyal 32 less of a no brainer. I admit that it might not be perfect, but it might work.

 

You are seriously undervaluing the power of even 2 CP. The loyal 32 is close in points to say another armiger class unit. What's more important to their army, the armiger or the 2CP? Most likely the 2 CP. That's another 2 Rotate Ion shields for normal knights and possibly another rotate for the dominus classes if they had a spare cp. Even machine spirit resurgent is only 1CP. One more additional use of these strategems in a game will be ten times more efficient than another armiger.

 

One of the main culprits that is usually oerlooked when discussing CP and farming is the strategem power creep that has occured (which we were told was not going to be an issue in 8th ed). IK players can have their knights hitting at the top of their damage table for 1CP. An incredible boost.

 

Grey knights on the other hand pay 2 CP to increase the damage and AP on stormbolters by 1. On a SINGLE UNIT. Not infantry, not army wide but on a SINGLE unit. 2 CP. Incredible.

 

A simple readjusting of all strategems points across the board for factions will do wonders for balance without having to delve into rules changes, keyword limitations, warlord and detachment limitations etc.

[domsto]

I don't get the fix at all.

So basically a Mono Army gets +3CP?

But how does it stop me from taking the Loyal 32 into my Imperium Army?

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m afraid I don’t think any of these ideas are the answer because they don’t address the fundamental problem which has resulted in the existence of the loyal 32 in the first place.

 

The problem is that not all armies have equal access to CP because of the way it is generated.

 

Until you solve that, any restrictions you place on CP, allies or stratagems are simply treating a symptom rather than the cause.

[sairence]

The problem is that not all armies have equal access to CP because of the way it is generated.

 

Until you solve that, any restrictions you place on CP, allies or stratagems are simply treating a symptom rather than the cause.

I'm fairly certain we can rely on that being intentional and by design at this stage. So I'm not holding my breath there.

[Shamansky]

The problem is that not all armies have equal access to CP because of the way it is generated.

 

And i think they should not have the same access to CP as the Guard. As long as most of them have other means to survive on the table and be effective. And it seems to me that their stratagems were intended to be used from time to time and not every damn turn as they are with L32 detachment.

[Kinstryfe]

What I think needs to happen for a simplified fix (though I'd prefer a much more extensive rework to the whole system), is for every codex to be given specific detachments that can only be taken if the army is completely from one codex, which give appropriate bonuses to cp. I don't think allies need to go away, but I do think that they need to be made into something to do for fun or fluff or strategic reasons beyond being a CP farm.

 

Take Knights as an example as they already effectively have two Knight specific detachments. Change them to only give +3/+6 CP if the entire army is Knights. Give them a few more. A Knight Princeps and some armigers giving +Xcp, for example. Something that's fluffy, and effective, and gives a bonus for building around it.

 

Guard don't really need the cp love, but something like a spearhead detachment that includes a Tank Commander and 3 heavy support choices of Leman Russes not only gets Objective Secured like it does now, but gives +3cp instead of +1. Give Marines the option to take a Terminator Captain, another TDA character, and 3 Terminator Squads for a 1st company battalion equivalent.

 

Now that we have specialist detachments anyway, this could be a way to make mono lists more comparible to mixed lists.

[Slasher956]

How to fix CP farms .... all of these threads end up talking about the same options, take your pick of your favorite!   Mine is option 2

 

option 1, alter the CP generation charts - ie change how you get the basic +3, how many you get for each formation

                                                                 a sub category of this option is to go back to having a few generic formation ie the patrol, battalion & brigade ones, but include a faction specific                                                                       formation in individucal codexs

 

option 2, tie CP generation with Warlord keywords - ie if not of the warlords faction /codex you dont generate CPs.... at all, ever ...

 

option 3, CPs can only be spent by the sub-faction that generated them - the book keeping option,  if your Catachans generated the CP then the SL cant spend it

 

option 4, mirror starting CP to either highest or lowest  ie player 1 has 10 CP , player 2 have 6 then both players start with either 10 or 6*  (note this is before you spend any on extra relics)

[Phubar]

option 3, CPs can only be spent by the sub-faction that generated them - the book keeping option, if your Catachans generated the CP then the SL cant spend it

 

 

This! Its the simplest one and i think the most balanced and effective.

[Slasher956]

 

option 3, CPs can only be spent by the sub-faction that generated them - the book keeping option, if your Catachans generated the CP then the SL cant spend it

 

This! Its the simplest one and i think the most balanced and effective.

 

although it does open the question of if there is any limit on generic CPs (ie the +3 for being a battle forged list) and you need to spell out what happens to the CP generated by the relic that gains  CP that the opponent spends

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

The problem is that not all armies have equal access to CP because of the way it is generated.

And i think they should not have the same access to CP as the Guard. As long as most of them have other means to survive on the table and be effective. And it seems to me that their stratagems were intended to be used from time to time and not every damn turn as they are with L32 detachment.

But their survivability and effectiveness on the table is what you pay the points for, it’s nothing to do with CP. it’s why a guardsmen costs 4 points and a Custodes costs 52. It’s not CP that make Guard a survivable army, it’s redundancy and points costs.

 

CP are not the balancing factor between armies, 2000 points of Guard should be just as good as 2000 points of marines etc, it isn’t but that’s a whole new discussion :)

 

As for using stratagems rarely, I actually agree. To be honest I’m growing to hate stratagems in general, the game is starting to feel more like some sort of card game “I play this power so you play that power and I’ll use this power whilst you use that one.” It’s becoming less about the models on the table and more about what CP and stratagems you can stack together. I’d much prefer stratagems to be a rare, important event than see three or four played every turn.

[domsto]

I think all of this and similar treads are a bit pointless:(

GW had more than enough chances to fix the CP Problem and i am sure they know about the Loyal 32 and so on. They can't be that blind!

But a change never came, not in the Chapter Approved Books nor in the Big FAQs.

So the only possible reason for this is: It works perfectly as Intended from GW. I also think i read an Interview with a Rulewritter how claimed they design Guard to be the filler for all the Imperium Factions.

 

So i am sure there will never be a Official change to this.

But in my gameing group we already came up with a Houserule for this.

[TheShredder]

But their survivability and effectiveness on the table is what you pay the points for, it’s nothing to do with CP. it’s why a guardsmen costs 4 points and a Custodes costs 52. It’s not CP that make Guard a survivable army, it’s redundancy and points costs.

 

Except that there's also the matter of efficiency. 

 

If you use a stratagem to boost the attack/defence of a guardsman or veteran squad, you're affecting 50-100pts worth of models.

 

If you use a stratagem to boost the attack/defence of a Knight, you're affecting 400-500pts worth of models.

 

If IKs are going to have the same number of CPs as other armies (as opposed to that being the limiting factor for them), then their Stratagems should be costing 4-6CPs, not 1-3.

 

 

To be honest I’m growing to hate stratagems in general, the game is starting to feel more like some sort of card game “I play this power so you play that power and I’ll use this power whilst you use that one.” It’s becoming less about the models on the table and more about what CP and stratagems you can stack together. I’d much prefer stratagems to be a rare, important event than see three or four played every turn.

I completely agree.

[Phubar]

although it does open the question of if there is any limit on generic CPs (ie the +3 for being a battle forged list) and you need to spell out what happens to the CP generated by the relic that gains CP that the opponent spends

Its easy, at least in my mind as i never tested it.

 

Base CPs can be spent on any strat.

 

Faction CPs generated by detatchments can be spent only on that faction's strat.

 

CPs generated during the game belong to the faction that generated them.

[domsto]

 

Base CPs can be spent on any strat.

 

Faction CPs generated by detatchments can be spent only on that faction's strat.

 

CPs generated during the game belong to the faction that generated them.

 

That's basically the same how we manage this in my Gaming Group^^

we only grant Custodes and Knights some extra CP when mono so they can actually use some of their Stratagems.

[Shamansky]

 

 

we only grant Custodes and Knights some extra CP when mono so they can actually use some of their Stratagems.

 

Why?

People need to start thinking ans learn to make choices. You want a pile of semi-immortal elites? No CP for ya bro. Want CP? Take your troops. Got no troops? Tell me why you wanted those man-barbie dolls?

[domsto]

Why?

People need to start thinking ans learn to make choices. You want a pile of semi-immortal elites? No CP for ya bro. Want CP? Take your troops. Got no troops? Tell me why you wanted those man-barbie dolls?

Well because Custodes and Knights are really bad when played Mono.

In allmost all the games i had against a Mono Knight or Custodes list i won easyly Turn 3

Normally a Knight a Turn dies.

Both can't play for Objectives because of not enought bodys on the field or in case of the Knights. Even 2 Grots could take a Objectiv from them so.

So a lot of thinking went into this decision.

Those two Armys are clearly not designed to work allone so we gave them a little help to be somewhat good when played mono.

But that's just our Houserule set so nobody must play it this way, and if some Player says he want's to Play RAW that's also OK for us and we play by the book.

But must people welcome this change.