A fix to CP farms.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

Well knights don’t have any troops and even a basic Custodes troop unit is 52 points per model. You’re basically saying “You’re playing an army I don’t like so you don’t get CP.”

 

For a Custodes player, a Brigade is literally, mathematically impossible to fill at 2000 points. The most they can ever get is maybe 2 battalions and that would cost 1384 points with just the 6 min troops units and 4 shield captains. So in reality they usually end up with about 8 or 9 CP for the match. Not even enough to play 1 Strat per turn on average.

 

Why shouldn’t people have CP just because they play a certain faction? As I said before, you’ve already paid the penalty for fielding those semi-immortal elites. You paid it in points, lack of models and difficult board control.

[GuardDaddy]

One line to rule them all.

 

CP can only be spent on faction that generated them.

 

Done

[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?

Well knights don’t have any troops and even a basic Custodes troop unit is 52 points per model. You’re basically saying “You’re playing an army I don’t like so you don’t get CP.”

 

For a Custodes player, a Brigade is literally, mathematically impossible to fill at 2000 points. The most they can ever get is maybe 2 battalions and that would cost 1384 points with just the 6 min troops units and 4 shield captains. So in reality they usually end up with about 8 or 9 CP for the match. Not even enough to play 1 Strat per turn on average.

 

Why shouldn’t people have CP just because they play a certain faction? As I said before, you’ve already paid the penalty for fielding those semi-immortal elites. You paid it in points, lack of models and difficult board control.

 

I said it before and i'll say it again. Some armies are good without Brigade and L32 if played correctly. Mono Custodes for 2250 pts were 10 of 50 on regional tournament. So please.

 

+ ARMY FACTION: Adeptus Custodes

+ ARMY FACTIONS USED: Adeptus Custodes

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

== Adeptus Custodes Battalion detachment ==

 

HQ 1: Captain-General Trajann Valoris [250]

HQ 2: Shield-Captain [126]

Guardian Spear (12), Misericordia (4)

 

Troops 1: Custodian Guard Squad [163]

Sentinel blade (9), Storm shield (10), 2 Guardian spears (24), 2 Misericordia (8)

Troops 2: Custodian Guard Squad [163]

Sentinel blade (9), Storm shield (10), 2 Guardian spears (24), 2 Misericordia (8)

Troops 3: Custodian Guard Squad [163]

Sentinel blade (9), Storm shield (10), 2 Guardian spears (24), 2 Misericordia (8)

 

FA 1: Caladius Grav-tank [315]

 

HS 1: Telemon Heavy Dreadnought [310]

2 Illiastus accelerator culverins (120)

____________________________________________

 

== Adeptus Custodes Vanguard detachment ==

 

HQ 1: Shield-Captain on Dawneagle Jetbike - Warlord [164]

Misericordia (4), Relic - Auric Aquilis

 

Elite 1: Custodian Wardens [201]

Elite 2: Contemptor-Achillus Dreadnought [245]

Elite 3: Vexillus Praetor [122]

Guardian Spear (12), Vexilla Magnifica (30), Misericordia (4)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Total: 2250

CP: 9

 

P.S.: Do not imagine what i'm sayimg 'cause i'm saying what is ment to be said.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

Well knights don’t have any troops and even a basic Custodes troop unit is 52 points per model. You’re basically saying “You’re playing an army I don’t like so you don’t get CP.”

 

For a Custodes player, a Brigade is literally, mathematically impossible to fill at 2000 points. The most they can ever get is maybe 2 battalions and that would cost 1384 points with just the 6 min troops units and 4 shield captains. So in reality they usually end up with about 8 or 9 CP for the match. Not even enough to play 1 Strat per turn on average.

 

Why shouldn’t people have CP just because they play a certain faction? As I said before, you’ve already paid the penalty for fielding those semi-immortal elites. You paid it in points, lack of models and difficult board control.

I said it before and i'll say it again. Some armies are good without Brigade and L32 if played correctly. Mono Custodes for 2250 pts were 10 of 50 on regional tournament. So please.

 

+ ARMY FACTION: Adeptus Custodes

+ ARMY FACTIONS USED: Adeptus Custodes

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

== Adeptus Custodes Battalion detachment ==

 

HQ 1: Captain-General Trajann Valoris [250]

HQ 2: Shield-Captain [126]

Guardian Spear (12), Misericordia (4)

 

Troops 1: Custodian Guard Squad [163]

Sentinel blade (9), Storm shield (10), 2 Guardian spears (24), 2 Misericordia (8)

Troops 2: Custodian Guard Squad [163]

Sentinel blade (9), Storm shield (10), 2 Guardian spears (24), 2 Misericordia (8)

Troops 3: Custodian Guard Squad [163]

Sentinel blade (9), Storm shield (10), 2 Guardian spears (24), 2 Misericordia (8)

 

FA 1: Caladius Grav-tank [315]

 

HS 1: Telemon Heavy Dreadnought [310]

2 Illiastus accelerator culverins (120)

____________________________________________

 

== Adeptus Custodes Vanguard detachment ==

 

HQ 1: Shield-Captain on Dawneagle Jetbike - Warlord [164]

Misericordia (4), Relic - Auric Aquilis

 

Elite 1: Custodian Wardens [201]

Elite 2: Contemptor-Achillus Dreadnought [245]

Elite 3: Vexillus Praetor [122]

Guardian Spear (12), Vexilla Magnifica (30), Misericordia (4)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Total: 2250

CP: 9

 

P.S.: Do not imagine what i'm sayimg 'cause i'm saying what is ment to be said.

Guard is one of the strongest armies in the game before you even start adding in command points, so by that logic should they not receive any because they can be played well on their own and without a lot of CP?

 

If you’re saying that an army shouldn’t have CP if it can be played well without CP then you need to prioritise Eldar first of all, then maybe Guard, and only then do you get onto Knights and as for Custodes they’d be quite far down the list.

 

CP as a game mechanic needs to be balanced. But it is not the balancing tool between armies. That is what points are for. It sounds like you want to take the approach that the better an army is, the less CP it should have, but that entirely voids the points system because 2000 points of any army are supposed to be the same standard as 2000 points from any other army.

 

So if that system worked correctly, by the time you have arrived at your 2000 point list, those sides should be as evenly matched as possible. If you then deliberately treat those two sides differently in terms of how much CP you give them (like you want to) then before the game even begins you’ve made it imbalanced.

 

TL:DR you cannot have both points and CP be the way you balance armies against each other. The systems are too separate and varied for it to work. Therefore deliberately giving some sides less CP creates an imbalance.

[TheShredder]

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

 

I think we disagree on what 'really bad' means.

 

If you mean 'not the absolute best in the game', then sure. But Soup is always going to take that spot so long as allies are all upside with no drawbacks.

 

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.

 

And what about everyone not running the most cutthroat lists possible? The ones that can't just delete a Knight every turn. Or which don't include the requisite 200 infantry models to keep Knights off objectives.

 

I guess they just get to eat .

 

Both can't play for Objectives because of not enought bodys on the field or in case of the Knights. 

 

There is a maximum of 6 objectives in any game, with many missions having fewer than that.

 

How many bodies do you need?

 

 

Even 2 Grots could take a Objectiv from them so.

 

So what? Grots can't take objectives if they've been reduced to paste by Knights' ludicrous firepower. 

 

What's more, Knight players in particular have already elected to play a skew list. They're virtually immune to small arms fire and highly resistant even to many anti-vehicle weapons, whilst being nigh impossible to tie up in combat.

 

Why should they get to eat their cake and still have it? 

[domsto]

 

 

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

I think we disagree on what 'really bad' means.

 

If you mean 'not the absolute best in the game', then sure. But Soup is always going to take that spot so long as allies are all upside with no drawbacks.

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

And what about everyone not running the most cutthroat lists possible? The ones that can't just delete a Knight every turn. Or which don't include the requisite 200 infantry models to keep Knights off objectives.

 

I guess they just get to eat .

Both can't play for Objectives because of not enought bodys on the field or in case of the Knights.

There is a maximum of 6 objectives in any game, with many missions having fewer than that.

 

How many bodies do you need?

 

Even 2 Grots could take a Objectiv from them so.

So what? Grots can't take objectives if they've been reduced to paste by Knights' ludicrous firepower.

 

What's more, Knight players in particular have already elected to play a skew list. They're virtually immune to small arms fire and highly resistant even to many anti-vehicle weapons, whilst being nigh impossible to tie up in combat.

 

Why should they get to eat their cake and still have it?

As much as i want to i will not answer your Question because it is not the main Topic of this treath.

All i want to say it was a Combined Decision from all the Players in my Group which includes Guard Players,AdMech,Dark Angels,Custodes,Knights,Space Wolfs, Tau,Deathwatch,Tyranids,Eldar,Dark Eldar,....

So it is not just because I have a easy Game against them

Its because everybody has a Easy Game against them.

[Shamansky]

 

Guard is one of the strongest armies in the game before you even start adding in command points, so by that logic should they not receive any because they can be played well on their own and without a lot of CP?

 

If you’re saying that an army shouldn’t have CP if it can be played well without CP then you need to prioritise Eldar first of all, then maybe Guard, and only then do you get onto Knights and as for Custodes they’d be quite far down the list.

 

CP as a game mechanic needs to be balanced. But it is not the balancing tool between armies. That is what points are for. It sounds like you want to take the approach that the better an army is, the less CP it should have, but that entirely voids the points system because 2000 points of any army are supposed to be the same standard as 2000 points from any other army.

 

So if that system worked correctly, by the time you have arrived at your 2000 point list, those sides should be as evenly matched as possible. If you then deliberately treat those two sides differently in terms of how much CP you give them (like you want to) then before the game even begins you’ve made it imbalanced.

 

TL:DR you cannot have both points and CP be the way you balance armies against each other. The systems are too separate and varied for it to work. Therefore deliberately giving some sides less CP creates an imbalance.

 

Oh really? And could you please tell me why is the Guard considered to be that strong? Surely not because everyone and their boyfriends take a Knight/Custodes/AdMech/Space Marines/you name it detachment with L32 and call that soup "Astra Militarum".

If, as you suggest, all armies would have the same quantity of CP based on the points, then stratagems should cost more. Because as it was mentioned pointswise 1 CP spent on the Guard unit is very much less impact on the game than 1 CP spent on a Knight.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

Guard is one of the strongest armies in the game before you even start adding in command points, so by that logic should they not receive any because they can be played well on their own and without a lot of CP?

 

If you’re saying that an army shouldn’t have CP if it can be played well without CP then you need to prioritise Eldar first of all, then maybe Guard, and only then do you get onto Knights and as for Custodes they’d be quite far down the list.

 

CP as a game mechanic needs to be balanced. But it is not the balancing tool between armies. That is what points are for. It sounds like you want to take the approach that the better an army is, the less CP it should have, but that entirely voids the points system because 2000 points of any army are supposed to be the same standard as 2000 points from any other army.

 

So if that system worked correctly, by the time you have arrived at your 2000 point list, those sides should be as evenly matched as possible. If you then deliberately treat those two sides differently in terms of how much CP you give them (like you want to) then before the game even begins you’ve made it imbalanced.

 

TL:DR you cannot have both points and CP be the way you balance armies against each other. The systems are too separate and varied for it to work. Therefore deliberately giving some sides less CP creates an imbalance.

 

Oh really? And could you please tell me why is the Guard considered to be that strong? Surely not because everyone and their boyfriends take a Knight/Custodes/AdMech/Space Marines/you name it detachment with L32 and call that soup "Astra Militarum".

If, as you suggest, all armies would have the same quantity of CP based on the points, then stratagems should cost more. Because as it was mentioned pointswise 1 CP spent on the Guard unit is very much less impact on the game than 1 CP spent on a Knight.

Guard are very strong as a mono army, they’ve got cheap bodies, great vehicles, good orders, redundancy and tools for pretty much every role which a lot of codexes don’t. If you ran a tournament of pure mono armies Guard and Eldar would be at the top with maybe some chaos. I really doubt you will find a large group of people here, or anywhere who do not agree that Guard are a strong army in their own right.

 

As for Stratagems being more expensive for more elite armies that also doesn’t hold because you’d essentially be giving them less cp. Whilst it is true that 1cp spent on a knight impacts more points (for the record I do think machine spirit resurgent is too cheap though), stratagems for knights are self limiting in a way they are not for guard.

 

Firstly, it’s difficult in a knight army to affect more than one or two knights per turn as some of the stratagems are very situational. You cannot spam stratagems because you don’t have enough models or variety of stratagems. Guard on the other hand can use several different stratagems because of the number and variety of units they possess.

 

The other thing to point out is that just because a stratagem affects more points in a particular army does not mean it actually has any bigger impact or effect on the game.

[sairence]

Strategems affecting two Knights is easily half the Knight army.

 

You canct give equal access to CPs, because certain armies have strategems built for a huge temporary power burst that can easily change the entire course of a battle. Those kind of things are not meant to be used every single turn and the only thing that can really limit that is less access to CPs.

 

Mono Guard is strong in many match ups, like against Chaos. In others it struggles hard. As soon as wide-spread to hit modifiers come in, most mono Guard lists will struggle to gain traction.

[Shamansky]

 

Guard are very strong as a mono army, they’ve got cheap bodies, great vehicles, good orders, redundancy and tools for pretty much every role which a lot of codexes don’t. If you ran a tournament of pure mono armies Guard and Eldar would be at the top with maybe some chaos. I really doubt you will find a large group of people here, or anywhere who do not agree that Guard are a strong army in their own right.

 

As for Stratagems being more expensive for more elite armies that also doesn’t hold because you’d essentially be giving them less cp. Whilst it is true that 1cp spent on a knight impacts more points (for the record I do think machine spirit resurgent is too cheap though), stratagems for knights are self limiting in a way they are not for guard.

 

Firstly, it’s difficult in a knight army to affect more than one or two knights per turn as some of the stratagems are very situational. You cannot spam stratagems because you don’t have enough models or variety of stratagems. Guard on the other hand can use several different stratagems because of the number and variety of units they possess.

 

The other thing to point out is that just because a stratagem affects more points in a particular army does not mean it actually has any bigger impact or effect on the game.

 

Oh man... Never saw a mono Guard on tops of tournaments. There is always something like BA or Custodians in the roster. Eldar are not considered because they are GW's favorite lapdogs and will always have many for less price.

 

The Guard is strong now because players are used to limitations and disadvantages. They have the mind set of an underdog that has to really fight for victory every time. And now the Guard has got something that can be played a little easier than usually, of course the overall perfomance rised. 

 

Which AM codex stratagems are not situational and which of them can be spammed more than once at a time?

[duz_]

=][= Lets keep this discussion civil!

 

Any further outbursts and the thread will be closes.

 

Also please refrain from excessive post quoting. Edit out what is not required. =][=

[Gundric]

If you make cp harder to get for everyone, then that brings genuine strategic choice back "do I use that cp for the failed save on my warlord? Or do I keep it to use blight bombardment on that massive chaff unit in my turn?" Forcing genuine hard choices on how a finite resource gets used is a real life command problem, which is why I applauded cp in the beginning. It also makes the command regen relics and warlord traits a dilemma too, do I waste an extra cp to gamble with a regen relic or just use my one freebie and forego another powerful relic. At the moment some armies dont have to make hard choices with their cp, getting multiple regen chances whilst having an abundance of it to begin with. So, keep battle forged as 3, make battalion det +2, brigade +4. Keep all the rest as +1. Just my take on the whole thing.  

[domsto]

If you make cp harder to get for everyone, then that brings genuine strategic choice back "do I use that cp for the failed save on my warlord? Or do I keep it to use blight bombardment on that massive chaff unit in my turn?" Forcing genuine hard choices on how a finite resource gets used is a real life command problem, which is why I applauded cp in the beginning. It also makes the command regen relics and warlord traits a dilemma too, do I waste an extra cp to gamble with a regen relic or just use my one freebie and forego another powerful relic. At the moment some armies dont have to make hard choices with their cp, getting multiple regen chances whilst having an abundance of it to begin with. So, keep battle forged as 3, make battalion det +2, brigade +4. Keep all the rest as +1. Just my take on the whole thing.

But that wouldn't solve the problem i think.

It will remain the same just scaled down.

Horde Armys still swim in CP and Elite Armys still will have a very Hard time to generate enought.

[Shamansky]

well if you are aimed for all comers list you should think of dealing with hordes and not just take a pile of lascannons.

I do not see any trouble in limiting CP to faction. Elite armies are already 'elitier'. I think the main CP problem is in people's heads: they just do not want to invent other means to win but taking a CP-farm. That was happening when the Guard was punished because people could not deal with Conscripts, but a pack of heavy bolters and most basic weapons were enough to remove that screen. Nope.'We dunwana lurn nu stuff. Remuv dat bad ting'. Now we see that same laziness. People just want MOAR CP for nothing.

[TheShredder]

To be honest. if I was going to redo the CP mechanic from scratch, I'd probably make it something like:

- If your army is battle-forged, you start with 3CPs, -1 for each allied detachment in your army.
- You gain 1CP per turn.
- You gain 1 additional CP per turn if your Warlord is alive.
- If your army contains at least 1 Battalion, you gain an additional CP per turn.
(Unspent CPs can accumulate.)

Remove all other CP generation and regeneration, and probably a lot of Stratagems as well. Relics would become normal equipment (though they'd retain the 1-per-army and 1-per-character limit), same goes for other Stratagems that should be wargear.

[domsto]

Elite armies are already 'elitier'.

 

Nope.'We dunwana lurn nu stuff. Remuv dat bad ting'. Now we see that same laziness. People just want MOAR CP for nothing.

I don't know where you see the advantage in "Elitier"?

Most Elite Armys have a hard time to compette with Hord Armys.

(And you can't deny that. Look at how many Forum out there have multiple Threats on how to fix Elit Armys.)

Even since the Index Days. Now that everybody has Stratagems this problem was put into a new extreme.

 

But aren't Stratagems and CP the "nu stuff" we have to learn?

[Shamansky]

Alright, alright... All should be winners no matter how good their skills are. Let's give CP to everyone and close this aimless topic.

[Wassa]

Problem with CP is that they are not always equal.

 

 

1 CP to redraw an objective card for all factions is equal.

 

Say 1 CP for a +1 modifier to hit rolls is completely different when applied to:

• a Knight with lots of big weapons. This buffs a lot of firepower for 1CP, but Knights don't get a lot of CP so that's fine.
• a squad of 10 Guardsmen with 9 lasguns (maybe a special and HWT). This doesn't buff a lot, but guard get a lot of CP so that's fine.
• a Leman Russ with 1 big weapon. This essentially upgrades a LR to a Tank Commander for a turn for 1CP, it's ok. a lot of CP so that's fine.
• a squad of 30 Orks. In shooting or close combat this is a pretty big buff. (I don't know much about Ork CP generation).

 

 

If people brought the Loyal 32 for 5CP on it's own, noone would bat an eyelid. However using those 5CP on a Knight makes it ridiculously over powered, which is causing the fuss.

Giving everyone a set number of CP will be a massive buff to Elites, and a huge nerf to Hordes. At least limiting it to factions will rein in the cross faction CP abuse.

[TheShredder]

An alternative route would be to give every army the same number of CPs, but price Stratagems relative to the cost of the units they'll buff.

 

As in, giving +1 to hit to a ~500pt Knight should cost roughly 5x as many CPs as giving the same buff to a ~100pt unit. 

[Shamansky]

And what about those stratgems that buff a whole army like Overlapping fields?

[TheShredder]

And what about those stratgems that buff a whole army like Overlapping fields?

 

The honest answer is that I really don't know.

 

The difficulty is that, like Doom, their effectiveness basically ends up depending on the cost of your opponent's models.

[Beams]

And what about those stratgems that buff a whole army like Overlapping fields?

If adding +1 to a single unit is worth 1cp, then adding +1 to multiple should be 3cp. It is only restricted to a single regiment, so there's an argument that the opportunity cost is severe, and it requires a previous wound on the model, so there's definitely an argument for 2cp.

 

It's also worse in a guard army with a bs of 4 and limited rerolls then it would be in say a BS 3+ army with native reroll ones auras, since they would suddenly be hitting with 97ish percent of all shots instead of 66%.

[Feral_80]

To put an end to soup completely would be wrong, some degree of it must be allowed.
To keep CPs separate for every different faction/detachment in an army would work ok, but too much book keeping and too silly a method.
To limit stratagems only to your warlord's faction was useful only to discourage CP farming (loyal 32 with grand strategist attached to a different main army), now it won't solve much.

We all agree that the main issue is cheap allied battallions (ab)used to gain easy CPs.



Thus my solution would be: create a specific 0-1 Allied Detachment. This is the only detachment which can include units with the wider faction keywords (Imperium, etc.), anything else you include in any other detachment must follow the stricter, revised rules for keywords (ie, all from 1 codex). Allied detachments should probably have just enough slots to allow you to field most units without most abuses, possibly something like this to prevent to field 3x smash-captains etc.: 

 

HQ 1-2

Troops 1-4

Elite, FA, HS, Flyers 0-2

Lord of War 0-1

 

Command benefits: 1 CP.

 

Sub-factions/weird codexes such as Inquisitors, Assassins, Custodes, Knights, Ynnari, etc. will be given their own peculiar version of an Allied Detachment, to be included easily by other Imperium/Aeldari, ecc.

That's it. You get the gaming pleasure and tactical variety of allies without abusing CPs, and without changing the system to give all armies the same amount of CPs (which is pure nonsense: some factions, including AM, are *specifically designed and balanced* to have more CPs: try facing Eldar with AM).

Actually, I am pretty sure that when 8th ed was about to come out, in some preview article GW had promised to give each faction a specific, unique detachment. Unfortunately, they never did that.

 

 

Edit: typos & details

[Feral_80]

For a wide number of reasons, including the fact that the way it is done at competitive levels is really unfluffy - some people may not care at all, but they should.

 

More specifically in the case of Guard, many Guard players are understandably pissed off by the fact that they get all the hate for abuses committed by other people who do *not* play Guard (regardless of what they declare in their 'faction') but abuse the loyal 32.

 

The system that GW 'clearly wants' obviously does not work, and has created a lot of unexpected balance problems. Next round AM will probably be nerfed and infantry squads will eventually raise in points: this will hurt the army for no good reason, except to discourage ally shenanigans.

[domsto]

I think what also could become a good way to fix CP is to thin down the amoung of Stratagems.

Many of the Stratagems should just become Wargear options or special Rules.

 

Looking at the new City Battle Box Ruleset, you get a ton of new Stratagems which easyly could be convertet into Special Rules.

For Example you get a Stratagem to buff your Plasma Guns when you are near a Plasma pipeline.

So why isn't this just a Special Rule of that Pipeline?

This would also make Terrain more important.

This would lessen the need for CP for some Armys.

 

A Army should work without Stratagems in the first Place and the Stratagems should be the cherry on the top to make the Army unique.

Sadly this isn't the Case