BIG Preview Speculation

[Halandaar]

 

 

I think CP should be calculated based on the size of the primary detachment or faction in the army. So if you have 3 small detachments you won't get much, but one large one will generate more points.

So exactly how it works now then?

 

No. How on on Earth did you take away that meaning from what I said? 

 

 

You never mentioned points value in your original post. "Size" on it's own is vague enough that I understood you to mean that detachment with more units in it (i.e. a Brigade) would get more CPs than multiple smaller ones (i.e Spearheads), which is exactly how it works now.

[Guest Triszin]

which very much doesnt fit the current design paradigm for elite armies - and wont without changing all the codexes again straight away.

 

Ishagus suggestion wouldn't really help elite armies any more than swarm armies, all it would really do is reward running brigades, which does help mono faction armies at least, so thats kinda neat.

 

Command points being generated by heroes (primarly HQ, but perhaps certain elite ones too), with different heroes generating different amounts would make sense.... they're COMMANDING after all. Probably in a new hero phase like AoS.

At the same time you could encourage max sized squads, specific squads at Max could give 1 command point.

 

30 boys? 1 cp. 16 blood claws, 1 cp.

[Marshal Loss]

I'd rather a CP system like we have in Adeptus Titanicus. Far better balanced.

[Ishagu]

Right now unless you're playing Astartes there are no negatives and only positives for running multiple detachments from multiple factions.

 

Why build a full Harlequins army when it's strictly better to bring in Craftworlds on top, as an example.

 

What I'm suggesting would take away the CP benefit awarded for detachment type and having multiples, and instead move it to the size of the primary detachment.

 

This way a full Harlequins army will have more CP to play around with than one mixed with Craftworlds, and it's even thematic. A singular force would be more adept at pulling off advanced maneuvers during battle, reflected by having more strats to play with.

 

There needs to be more incentives for thematic armies, and they need to be sufficient as to have a tangible competitive consideration.

 

CP generation should not be tied to unit sizes as this once again benefits horde armies. A full Guard squad is 40 points, a full Custodes unit is near 300. My suggestions puts Elite and horde armies on 100% even footing when it comes to CP generation, and that's why it's good. As an extra bonus it rewards armies drawn from a single faction. You're still free to take the greatest hits from multi factions, but as a trade off you'll have far less CP to play around with.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Ishagu

[Tyriks]

I'd rather a CP system like we have in Adeptus Titanicus. Far better balanced.

How does it work in AT?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

I'd rather a CP system like we have in Adeptus Titanicus. Far better balanced.

How does it work in AT?

Stratagem points are primarily based on game size. Both sides get X points depending on how large their armies are.

 

Second, your opponent gets more points depending how many factions you bring. So if I bring one Legio, you get two extra points, if you bring two, I get four.

 

Third, because in AT it's less likely that the games will be exactly matched points wise, there are underdog bonuses. So if one army brings a larger army, the smaller army gets extra strat points based on the scale of the points difference.

[Marshal Loss]

 

 

I'd rather a CP system like we have in Adeptus Titanicus. Far better balanced.

How does it work in AT?

Stratagem points are primarily based on game size. Both sides get X points depending on how large their armies are.

 

Second, your opponent gets more points depending how many factions you bring. So if I bring one Legio, you get two extra points, if you bring two, I get four.

 

Third, because in AT it's less likely that the games will be exactly matched points wise, there are underdog bonuses. So if one army brings a larger army, the smaller army gets extra strat points based on the scale of the points difference.

 

Pretty much this. Crucially as well, you purchase your stratagems before the game. Forces you to think carefully about what you want and what you might need in the context of each engagement. It would need some tweaking for use in 40k but stratagems in AT are still powerful, thematic, and fun, but never feel game-breaking (and aren't something you build your entire army around, which is what invariably happens in 40k when the entire system heavily encourages taking detachments for the sake of CP rather than for the sake of a theme).

[Ishagu]

So you want further rewards for soup armies!?

[TootiusNootius]

So you want further rewards for soup armies!?

I think the point was your opponent gets a bonus if you soup. Making it the opposite.

Edited May 22, 2020 by TootiusNootius

[Ishagu]

Nah, bonuses should be applied to your army, not rewarded at random to an opponent.

 

You can't plan for a bonus you may or may not receive. It's too random. In fact I don't rate Titanicus as a game precisely because it's far too random.

 

This kind of thing is fun for narrative play but not for matched. Players want control over their lists and to plan for what they can do with their units and abilities.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Ishagu

[TootiusNootius]

Nah, bonuses should be applied to your army, not rewarded at random to an opponent.

 

You can't plan for a bonus you may or may not receive. It's too random. In fact I don't rate Titanicus as a game precisely because it's far too random.

 

Is it random? I intentionally create a soup army, getting the benefits of taking from multiple armies for example adding a loyal 32 to my Knights army as scoring chaff. My opponent who did not do so is awarded a bonus for using a single army force. That isn't random, that's having a downside to mixing and matching.

 

That seems more than fair to me. 

[jaxom]

 

I think CP should be calculated based on the size of the primary detachment or faction in the army. So if you have 3 small detachments you won't get much, but one large one will generate more points.

I personally think this In regards to command points.

 

Elite armies should have strats baked into the figures. Making them smaller command point requirements, also reflecting them not needing as many orders.

 

Swarm armies should have bucket loads of command points to show you need to micro manage untrained infantry.

 

I.e. grey knights only need 5-8 cp. Gaurd need 15-20.

 

I would also faction lock most strats to mono.

At the same time, encourage Lord's of war, by giving Lord's of war figures strats that effect all the soup.

 

Meaning soup armies can be jack of all trades master of none. While a mono could be master of using the spork but not the slingshot.

 

 

I like the concept, but I wouldn't bake the power into the units because of what that does in terms of concrete points cost versus speculative utility. I do think that armies should generate CP per turn and this could achieve a very similar effect. For example, Grey Knights wouldn't have huge pool of CP, but would generate enough each turn to use what are effectively their squad abilities. Guard would start with a big pool of CP, but would have trouble generating more; personally, I think they're the army the current CP rules were designed around.

 

which very much doesnt fit the current design paradigm for elite armies - and wont without changing all the codexes again straight away.

 

Ishagus suggestion wouldn't really help elite armies any more than swarm armies, all it would really do is reward running brigades, which does help mono faction armies at least, so thats kinda neat.

 

Command points being generated by heroes (primarly HQ, but perhaps certain elite ones too), with different heroes generating different amounts would make sense.... they're COMMANDING after all. Probably in a new hero phase like AoS.

 

This is very much an option, too. I'd definitely like to see faction-locked CP if this happened.

 

However, on the topic of speculation, Harlequins got the WD treatment, but are listed under War of the Spider. Deathwatch is not listed under any of the PA books; but the Necron book is still locked. It's possible we'll see more on that when it gets unlocked. We've also heard nothing about any new Knight rules in Engine War. 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

Nah, bonuses should be applied to your army, not rewarded at random to an opponent.

 

You can't plan for a bonus you may or may not receive. It's too random. In fact I don't rate Titanicus as a game precisely because it's far too random.

 

Is it random? I intentionally create a soup army, getting the benefits of taking from multiple armies for example adding a loyal 32 to my Knights army as scoring chaff. My opponent who did not do so is awarded a bonus for using a single army force. That isn't random, that's having a downside to mixing and matching.

 

That seems more than fair to me. 

 

 

This reveals a split in how stratagems are seen/used. If I've carefully designed my army to have a certain number of CP to be used in a certain way (for example, Blood Angels: Armoury of Baal, Death Visions of Sanginius, Descent of Angels, Forlorn Fury) then extra CP is random. If, however, I see CP as a resource with which to react to circumstances on the board (re-rolls, Transhuman Physiology, Lightning Reflexes, Keen Senses) then any extra CP is a perk. I don't think most players hews to a single place between these two views. At the very least, it's CP you can use for command re-rolls.

 

Perhaps more to the point, it's not the extra CP that seems to be the issue, it's the idea of adapting to the unexpected. Player's are expected to react to the unexpected, whether it be extreme runs of good or bad dice rolls, a spoiler list, or a codex rule that was unknown. What's the difference here now that the unexpected is a benefit?

Edited May 22, 2020 by jaxom

[Medjugorje]

GW can do the opposite here. At the moment every player get 3 CPs for free (as long as the army is battleforged). 

 

So GW could give you 1 CP for a mixed army, 3 CPs for a codex(only) list and 5CPs for a subfraction(only) list.

[BitsHammer]

Reworking CPs seems like a risky proposition give some units like Veteran Primaris arent unit choices but CP upgrades for unit choices.

Risky, but better for game health long term. It's not like a new system couldn't give large amounts of CP in large game sizes plus, even if we generate per turn you have 3 for Battleforged you could use to unlock stuff pre-game if you wish.

 

Not to mention it's not like some of that stuff shouldn't see a proper update anyways.

[Marshal Loss]

So you want further rewards for soup armies!?

 

No? C'mon man, try actually reading posts for once before responding to them. It was clearly stated above that the more factions your opponent takes, the more CP you get.

 

In Adeptus Titanicus, each player gets a certain number of CP based on the size of the game. If one player has far more points than another, the other player receives some more CP. Each player also receives an additional 2 CP for each faction your opponent takes. So if I took a force comprised of 3 separate factions, and you took one, you would receive 6 bonus points and I would receive 2.

 

This means that the larger the game, the more CP each player gets, and the more factions somebody takes, the more CP their opponent gets. Want to take a huge soup army? Sure, but your opponent is going to have a few more CP to play around with.

 

I think a system like (but not identical to) this would be great in 40k. It isn't a reward for soup armies, but nor is it a crippling punishment.

 

Nah, bonuses should be applied to your army, not rewarded at random to an opponent.

 

There is nothing random about it.

 

You can't plan for a bonus you may or may not receive.

 

Heaven forbid people have to think carefully about which stratagems they select in advance rather than having a library of options to draw from in every conceivable context.

 

In fact I don't rate Titanicus as a game precisely because it's far too random.

 

Right.

[Ishagu]

The bonuses to mono factions needs to be substantial enough that a Harlequins players(example) should actually have a tough choice between a mono faction and bringing allies.

 

At the moment it's not something you consider beyond wanting a themed list.

[BitsHammer]

Right now unless you're playing Astartes there are no negatives and only positives for running multiple detachments from multiple factions.

 

Why build a full Harlequins army when it's strictly better to bring in Craftworlds on top, as an example.

 

What I'm suggesting would take away the CP benefit awarded for detachment type and having multiples, and instead move it to the size of the primary detachment.

 

This way a full Harlequins army will have more CP to play around with than one mixed with Craftworlds, and it's even thematic. A singular force would be more adept at pulling off advanced maneuvers during battle, reflected by having more strats to play with.

 

There needs to be more incentives for thematic armies, and they need to be sufficient as to have a tangible competitive consideration.

 

CP generation should not be tied to unit sizes as this once again benefits horde armies. A full Guard squad is 40 points, a full Custodes unit is near 300. My suggestions puts Elite and horde armies on 100% even footing when it comes to CP generation, and that's why it's good. As an extra bonus it rewards armies drawn from a single faction. You're still free to take the greatest hits from multi factions, but as a trade off you'll have far less CP to play around with.

Right, but with your system and how GW defines "factions" I could still bring 3 detachments of Astartes and gain points for all of them because my army is all keyword "Space Marines".

[Ishagu]

No no, my idea is based on the size of your Primary detachment.

Faction, detachment, army, keywords, all these things are different. If you have 3 smaller Astartes detachments, each a different chapter,  you'll get less CP (on top of losing doctrine bonuses).

Edited May 22, 2020 by Ishagu

[jaxom]

The bonuses to mono factions needs to be substantial enough that a Harlequins players(example) should actually have a tough choice between a mono faction and bringing allies.

 

At the moment it's not something you consider beyond wanting a themed list.

 

I think this brings up another point: should all codexes be designed to a mono-faction standard? I love the Harlequin model range, I love the lore, I love the faction as it is, and - short of a massive range expansion which could disturb the lore and feel of the faction - it strikes me as one that should be used in conjunction with other armies at larger point values (greater than 1500). Harlequins go for hit-and-run raids (smaller point battles) or come in to mess with or help other armies while they fight. So much of their fluff starts with, "So-and-so were doing something and then the Harlequins showed up and they fought against them-over-there; so-and-so then was in a better/worse position when that-other-faction did the other thing."

 

Harlequins, the Cypher of the Aeldari.

[Guest Triszin]

No no, my idea is based on the size of your Primary detachment.

 

Faction, detachment, army, keywords, all these things are different. If you have 3 smaller Astartes detachments, each a different chapter, you'll get less CP (on top of losing doctrine bonuses).

The issue I see with that is, it's rewarding brigade armies.

 

Some Marines and some armies have problems creating a brigade army

[TootiusNootius]

 

 

I think this brings up another point: should all codexes be designed to a mono-faction standard? I love the Harlequin model range, I love the lore, I love the faction as it is, and - short of a massive range expansion which could disturb the lore and feel of the faction - it strikes me as one that should be used in conjunction with other armies at larger point values (greater than 1500). Harlequins go for hit-and-run raids (smaller point battles) or come in to mess with or help other armies while they fight. So much of their fluff starts with, "So-and-so were doing something and then the Harlequins showed up and they fought against them-over-there; so-and-so then was in a better/worse position when that-other-faction did the other thing."

 

Harlequins, the Cypher of the Aeldari.

 

 

They almost feel like they should be like Daemons in Narrative play, they have a chance to turn up and help any other Eldar force. They really do not stand alone very well - unless they become the backbone of a new Ynnari range which I doubt.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

Something I'm wondering about is how GW is going to approach a centralized rules repository for this year's Primaris faction...

 

Last year, we had the new codex in August which helpfully brought in the Executioner, the Shadowspear models, and the ensuing Vanguard MPK wave.

 

This year, I don't think they'll do another codex so soon (but not impossible, if they want to continue the tradition of Space Marines being the first faction to get a codex with each edition and they do in fact go the "new edition" route).

 

But if not a new codex, what? I don't think they'll make people carry around their datasheets from their kits for a whole year and then do a comprehensive codex update NEXT year after the presumed heavy hitters wave closes out the main Primaris range...

 

So maybe just a Primaris-specific codex supplement that all Marine armies can use? OR... will this finally be the beginning of an official online repository for datasheets?

[Ishagu]

 

No no, my idea is based on the size of your Primary detachment.

 

Faction, detachment, army, keywords, all these things are different. If you have 3 smaller Astartes detachments, each a different chapter, you'll get less CP (on top of losing doctrine bonuses).

The issue I see with that is, it's rewarding brigade armies.

 

Some Marines and some armies have problems creating a brigade army

Space Marines don't need to. A regular Battalion can fill 2000 points in no time. What would you be lacking with an Astartes Battalion at 2k? I can literally write any multi detachment Astartes list into a single Battalion.

 

Bregades would be used on armies like Guard, for example.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

No no, my idea is based on the size of your Primary detachment.

 

Faction, detachment, army, keywords, all these things are different. If you have 3 smaller Astartes detachments, each a different chapter, you'll get less CP (on top of losing doctrine bonuses).

The issue I see with that is, it's rewarding brigade armies.

 

Some Marines and some armies have problems creating a brigade army

Space Marines don't need to. A regular Battalion can fill 2000 points in no time. What would you be lacking with an Astartes Battalion at 2k? I can literally write any multi detachment Astartes list into a single Battalion.

 

Bregades would be used on armies like Guard, for example.

 

You say that but I don't know a single player who doesn't want as many CP as they can take and would be frustrated that some armies aren't able to double digits for CP.

[Dark Shepherd]

Something I'm wondering about is how GW is going to approach a centralized rules repository for this year's Primaris faction...

 

Last year, we had the new codex in August which helpfully brought in the Executioner, the Shadowspear models, and the ensuing Vanguard MPK wave.

 

This year, I don't think they'll do another codex so soon (but not impossible, if they want to continue the tradition of Space Marines being the first faction to get a codex with each edition and they do in fact go the "new edition" route).

 

But if not a new codex, what? I don't think they'll make people carry around their datasheets from their kits for a whole year and then do a comprehensive codex update NEXT year after the presumed heavy hitters wave closes out the main Primaris range...

 

So maybe just a Primaris-specific codex supplement that all Marine armies can use? OR... will this finally be the beginning of an official online repository for datasheets?

Therell be a booklet for some of them in the box set

Theres Chapter Approved

Non codex adherant Marines due new codexes

 

Admittedly no magic bullets there. Would be funny though if Wolves etc accidentally got the favourable treatment and had everything in 1 book while most marines needed 3 or 4