Command Points Modification

[old git]

From a purely personal viewpoint I'm of the opinion that the CP system is open to so much abuse that a new way of using them is needed. CPs can come from potentially numerous sources, not to mention regenerating CPs. How about this?

 

CPs can only be spent by the detachment that generates them with the +3 from being battleforged able to be spent across the army.

[toaae]

This is a pretty common suggestion. So far, GW has reluctant to change too much about CP, so I wouldn't expect to see this, even though I think it's a reasonable change.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I have found that games without Strats are more fun, makes CP generation irrelevant.

[Slasher956]

yep... its that time of the week again... CP generation and how to fix it time!

 

lets see the options:

 

only the warlord's detachment can generate

         detachments other than the warlords generate half amount

         non warlord facton detachments generate half, and cant re-gen CP

         you only get the strats from the warlords faction

         who cares its all fine in my meta

         Use Kill Team method - little generated every turn

         wait till 9th Ed

 

have I missed one?

 

Edit - added missed options in Italics

[Brother Casman]

yep... its that time of the week again... CP generation and how to fix it time!

 

lets see the options:

 

only the warlord's detachment can generate

         detachments other than the warlords generate half amount

         non warlord facton detachments generate half, and cant re-gen CP

         you only get the strats from the warlords faction

         who cares its all fine in my meta

 

have I missed one?

One you might have missed could be "generate a few points at the start of each turn instead of having a pool at the start of the game" (the Kill Team method)

[Ficinus]

Wait for 9th ed.

[FlamingDeth]

Also missed, generate CP based on points/power level instead of tying it to detachments.

[ERJAK]

For those of you making suggestions, please try to keep in mind that many many people get put into situations where they're playing people they don't know and don't necessarily trust and need to be able to keep track of what their opponent is doing.

 

Trying, on the fly, to match CP up to detachment, especially when up against a mono army, would be impossible.

[FlamingDeth]

What's so tricky about it? I see that response thrown around a lot and it doesn't seem that tricky to keep track in game that moves as slow as 40k. Have a piece of paper, write down the factions/detachments with the number they start with, put down a tally mark next to it for each CP spent. Or bring a couple of different colored d10s or d20s or whatever and count down whenever a CP is spent.

 

Not saying that dividing CP by faction is the cure all to CP woes, but keeping track of them doesn't seem like a good counterargument.

[Slasher956]

What's so tricky about it? I see that response thrown around a lot and it doesn't seem that tricky to keep track in game that moves as slow as 40k. Have a piece of paper, write down the factions/detachments with the number they start with, put down a tally mark next to it for each CP spent. Or bring a couple of different colored d10s or d20s or whatever and count down whenever a CP is spent.

Not saying that dividing CP by faction is the cure all to CP woes, but keeping track of them doesn't seem like a good counterargument.

How many things should one person have to keep track of?

Cp, FP, vp, turns, objectives, mission... keep on like this and the table will look like an infinity or dystopian wars table... both of those last time I played had at least double the amount of tokens than models on the table..... let’s try and keep the game a light game not one where you spend half the game going err what’s this token /rule/ condition etc etc

[MARK0SIAN]

We’ve also got to remember that one of the original goals of the CP system was to encourage balanced lists, particularly those including lots of troops instead of just elites/heavies etc.

 

Any solutions we propose must take that into account and either link the CP to troops or encourage troops in some other way if the suggestion is going to gain traction with GW.

 

I’m not saying this is the best way to go with CP or anything, just that it’s the way GW want to go and we’ve got to work with that if we want any success.

 

However, finding a solution that works fairly for Custodes at one end and Imperial Guard at the other (and everyone in between) may not be possible without a major reworking of the system that I believe can’t really happen without a new edition. There’s simply too many issues with CP at the moment that no single solution will be able to fix them without creating other issues.

[Ishagu]

From a purely personal viewpoint I'm of the opinion that the CP system is open to so much abuse that a new way of using them is needed. CPs can come from potentially numerous sources, not to mention regenerating CPs. How about this?

 

CPs can only be spent by the detachment that generates them with the +3 from being battleforged able to be spent across the army.

It's far too limiting.

 

And what about Knights and AdMech? They are in the same codex but require different detachments and keywords.

 

And what about any generic Lord of War that belongs to the same faction?

[m0nolith]

Wait for 9th ed.

It, like every edition, is going to have serious problems as well.

[Ishagu]

There are no serious problems. Just some under powered or slightly over powered armies.

[m0nolith]

There are no serious problems. Just some under powered or slightly over powered armies.

I disagree with that statement.

If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be, as Slasher956 said, a weekly thread about CP generation issues.

[Dracos]

T4 , 3+ has had a serious survivability issue in 8th. I'm surprised there wasn't/hasn't been a stratagem to help alleviate the problem. Chaplain giving an armor reroll or something.

[chaplain belisarius]

Id do it that you can use the amount of stratagems per 1k points. So 1k army gets one stratagem a turn. 2k get 2. Etc. Cuts down on spamming.

[T1Mb0s!x]

How about a command point for every X points of troops

Let's say 100pts to get the conversation going.

[Ishagu]

How about a command point for every X points of troops

Let's say 100pts to get the conversation going.

What about thematic armies that don't use troops but other infantry?

 

There are no serious problems. Just some under powered or slightly over powered armies.

I disagree with that statement.

If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be, as Slasher956 said, a weekly thread about CP generation issues.

Just because something is mentioned often doesn't mean it's a problem.

 

CP generation isn't dictating the game as much following some recent unit nerfs.

[War Angel]

The problem with these suggestions is that while it might bring balance to an overpowered option, it could be crippling another option unfairly.

[Schlitzaf]

Honeslty I think, and I’ve said it before. The only people who really complain and require the need for this. All those who don’t understand CP. A loyal 32 purely for CP in an Astartes force, is just bad list building.

 

A loyal 32 is 180 point tax. Or 4 Plasma Guns/2 MSU Tactical Squads. Second if we all start speaking competitively your list should always be running 2-3 Smash Captains which are not a tax and what your actual CP is fueling.

 

And 3 Scout squads are 165 points (15 points cheaper). And have similar mobility afforded by Gaurdsman due to behind enemy lines. Can start spread out etc. There is literally no reason a marine should be including a Loyal 32 detachment purely for CP if playing moderately competitively. Also for reference, Rusty 17 is 165, and Faithful 17 are 225 both are opposite ends of a spectrum in this regards for cheap CP.

 

If CP generation is an issue, we could fix it any number of ways. Basic method for example would be increasing CP from speciality detachments for non-Supreme Commander by 3, Super Heavy Detachments by 1 and Patrols to 2, giving an additional one to Battlelion. Increasing a Brigade by 3.

 

Supreme Command be 1

Patrol be 2 CP

So Speciality (Outrider/Vangaurd/Etc) be 4 CP

SHD be 4

Battlelion 6

Brigade 15.

 

Then for every army wide faction keyword universally shared give an army one additional CP (excluding keyword, Aeldari/Tyranid/Chaos/Imperium). So for purist armies you have an additional +2-3 CP. It doesn’t help Necrons for example as much. But Necrons don’t soup.

 

A minor addition would be each time you fully fill out a slot in a detachment get another CP. Allowing you to avoid an HQ tax for a speciality and let certain setups have a Faux Specialty take to them. A fully filled patrol would be 7 CP!

 

Also it creates more gradiance for lists. An list Outrider, filling HQ, Troop, in addition to its basic CP, grants +5. Battlelion be nominally better (+7) until you realize that it only takes 2 units to fill the other non troop or fast slots. Meaning it’s much easier to get the CP for slot filling.

 

And best of all? Between all three changes, it’s not just a net CP increase, its a benefit to every army. And not a weird sideways nerf.

[Slasher956]

hrm... I wouldnt say that the complainers dont understand CP.   Its a case of what are they and how do the interact with the game?

 

well they are the cost /payment for strats.... which leads to the question

 

What are strats?

 

At a base level they are rules and tricks that allow an army to play like the fluff says they go to war.... ie If I want to play a fully fluffy Alaitoc army I actually need to use the strategems (1 for webway assault, 1 for re-deployment etc etc)...but are possibly to powerful (if not on their own, then when combined with other rules of an army) to be simply extra army rules

 

So the issue with CP is actually an issue with the underlying mechanic of the Strategems... by universally upping the CP what you are doing is allowing more of these possibly game altering rules to be used.  which in turn alters the balance.

 

 

Personally my solution would be keep CP as is, how ever limit the Strats you can take to the number of HQs* of your warlords faction, which must be listed in the army list to be used.

*Knights can be characters

[T1Mb0s!x]

I like the idea, but does it nerf the factions that are strong on the strat front more than the weak?

If you could bring 3 battalions before you would still be able to use 6 strats.

[Ishagu]

I'd argue that the cheapest infantry in the game is still too efficient.

Guardsmen could increase in price to solve their status as auto include detachments.

[Claws and Effect]

From a purely personal viewpoint I'm of the opinion that the CP system is open to so much abuse that a new way of using them is needed. CPs can come from potentially numerous sources, not to mention regenerating CPs. How about this?

 

CPs can only be spent by the detachment that generates them with the +3 from being battleforged able to be spent across the army.

You run into problems there though.

 

If a detachment only generates 1 CP then any Strategems that cost 2 or more are unusable.

 

A better fix would be to adjust the CP costs of Strategems based on the army. Armies that have no problem running a Brigade in a normal game have more 2 or 3 CP Strategems, while armies that struggle to even field a Battalion have cheaper ones.