Jump to content

A fix to CP farms.


HallofStovokor

Recommended Posts

I think part of this can be solved with something my friend and I discuss often

 

There needs to be a forth way to play. More specifically a subset of matched play: organised event play.

 

A lot of people play matched rules regularly for the granularity. I haven't had people complain in casual games about CP farms because even if the L32 are around its not an abusive list they're up against.

 

In this subset they could then go onto limit CP sharing and farming as it seems competitive games are the larger reason this is an issue.

This allows GW to keep the general framework in place without impacting sales too significantly as they keep saying competitive tournament players are only a small part of their market.

I'm doubtful about that. It would be more work to separate those rules, with another layer to consider regarding balance. At the same time, you'll likely have significant overlap.

 

And at the end of the day you have no guarantee that peopld wouldn't just shift more or less fully over or just ignore it for getting too complicated and messy. That way you'd ultimately end up creating another way to play that either render another playsyle obsolote or ends up being obsolete itself.

I think part of this can be solved with something my friend and I discuss often

 

There needs to be a forth way to play. More specifically a subset of matched play: organised event play.

 

A lot of people play matched rules regularly for the granularity. I haven't had people complain in casual games about CP farms because even if the L32 are around its not an abusive list they're up against.

 

In this subset they could then go onto limit CP sharing and farming as it seems competitive games are the larger reason this is an issue.

This allows GW to keep the general framework in place without impacting sales too significantly as they keep saying competitive tournament players are only a small part of their market.

Would there be a purpose to that mode? The same can be achieved by open play with points. I'd like to see CP sharing gone from normal matched play, myself.

Yeah sure, let us all love the free world of subjectivity. OF COURSE anyone is free to do as he wants. And for exactly the same reason, one is free to state what he does or does not like. Despite your attempt to downplay it, there is wide consensus that the interaction of the CPs and Allies systems is having significant pejorative effects (in balance terms, especially) on the enjoyability and playability of the game. Thus, a lot of people would like a fix. Simple as that.

 

It is a problem mostly expressed in competitive environments, but certainly not limited to that. So, it is a broad issue. You can like that or not, but that is the situation.

 

I won't even reply to the claim that fluff if largely subjective in regard to the soup issues, because that is just false.

I'm more than happy to get less CP's for my Guard, have too many of the damn things already. Less for Horde armies is fine with me.

 

I also echo others in wishing that CP's were much more finite than they are now so real thought has to be put into using them. Or just get rid of them altogether, the game is plenty fun and complex enough without them.

 

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%.

 

 

It's a very situational one.

  • It can only be used by Cadians unit.
  • It can't be used by the first Cadian unit.
  • The first Cadian unit has to be good/lucky enough to cause a wound, but bad enough that you don't want to save it for after you've used the stratagem (usually mortars or lasguns fishing).
  • The target unit has to be something that's worth burning 2CP over and firing half your army at, usually a LoW or a Knight.

I probably wouldn't mind if it went to 3CP and it removed the restriction of having to wound it first.

It would still be better than that Fire On My Position" stratagem for 3CP and Aerial Spotter stratagem for 2CP.

Yeah, I mean, there's definitely some weirdly priced strategems out there. Overlapping fields is definitely worth 2 or 3 cp, where some of the 3cp ones should prolly be lowered to 2 or even 1. I think GW is still trying to get a handle on the pricing for then.

 

One line to rule them all.

 

CP can only be spent on faction that generated them.

 

Done

This seems all too obvious.  A good house ruler perhaps since GW doesn't seem to motivated to address the issue?

 

I'm struggling to see why people would agree to that as a house rule.

 

- If they agree, then they probably weren't using allies to begin with (or at least not for any significant CP gain).

 

- If they are using allies for CP gain, then I don't see why they'd willingly give that up.

I don't think anyone at my local gaming clubs uses allies to be fair.

It's much more fun playing as, and playing against a mono faction.

 

It gets boring pretty quickly when everyone has Knights, Loyal32, and some small battallion of whatever they fancied bringing.

Flat rate CPs based on point size of the battle, not what you bring. 500/1000/etc.

 

Allow bonus CP for certain warlord traits or special characters.

 

You’d see less stupid soup combos and wouldn’t have to nerf CP recoup abilities as much.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.