duz_ Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sairence Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZakalwe Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feral_80 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatBrannigan Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wassa Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beams Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsondave Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShredder Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phubar Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 But it could be a widespread unofficial rule, sonething you could not agree to use but in that case you will clearly state "I'm not interested in a balanced play". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wassa Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'm Heckus Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamansky Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Which will require new edition to enact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.