The new CP amounts, a question of what's balanced?

[MegaVolt87]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

The problem with buying CPs pre-game is that undermines the philosophy of them being reactive to in-game situations. Stratagems were used to replace things like Smoke Launchers that people never bought because they were always the first thing people ditched to save points. If you turn them into pre-game purchases, you are back to the situation we were in before where some stuff never gets taken. No one would pre-buy Smoke over THP but sometimes smoke will come in handy during a game.

 

I'm not quite following how that has really changed anything then. From not buying something because points has become not using something because command points. In that instance, smoke launchers should just be a part of a unit to use instead of an upgrade. Same for many of the strats, should be rolled back into base unit profiles as unit rules to at least use the game mechanics they offer. By making strats, we have the by product of not being able to properly point cost units now. 

[MARK0SIAN]

10 hours ago, Karhedron said:

The problem with buying CPs pre-game is that undermines the philosophy of them being reactive to in-game situations. Stratagems were used to replace things like Smoke Launchers that people never bought because they were always the first thing people ditched to save points. If you turn them into pre-game purchases, you are back to the situation we were in before where some stuff never gets taken. No one would pre-buy Smoke over THP but sometimes smoke will come in handy during a game.

I think you’re right but I think this is more a case of evidence that inappropriate things have been turned into stratagems. Like smoke launchers isn’t some great tactical play, it’s a piece of equipment the vehicle should just have and be able to use. 
 

It’s like they wanted all the cool stuff and good abilities to come from strats and so they’ve taken a lot of things that just make no sense as strats. Transhuman for example, why is it marines are sometimes tough to wound and not other for no real reason? 
 

I’d much prefer if they turned strats into much more strategic level abilities and slimmed down the amount that are abilities for individual units and just give them this abilities on their datasheet. 

[chapter master 454]

That is the area I agree. Stratagems are a neat idea and I feel could be fun but ultimately fell apart due to lack of actual use of systems within the game. Keywords for example is another one. If you look at many card games, they show many ways you can employ that system to great effect, Magic the Gathering most notably while Yu-Gi-Oh also employs this system, though it is a bit more odd ball in how it handles it (lots of "if it has X stat with Y type" sort of thing).

Not wrong ether about ditching pieces of wargear that didn't do much. Smoke launchers got cut, grenades got left behind (because back then they were even more clumsy to use) and various other pieces of wargear just got left by the wayside. Comically, there is one instance of what you would consider a "stratagem" being a weapon in Tau: The photon grenade. It is just a simple grenade attack with usual blast but only needing to hit is needed to inflict -1 to hit in combat. If that was a stratagem I assure you no-one would use them.
This constant putting of Wargear as stratagems is somewhat further perplexing when they recently gave stratagems keywords but never acted on that; "Battle Tactic", "Epic Deed", "Requisition" and "Wargear" are all keywords used for stratagems now that have minor relevance depending if your army has those niche traits that benefit those types. Out of these, only one truly has a unique mechanic that is universal to it, "Requisition" stratagems are universally our pre-game warlord traits, relics and such like boons. This gives it a distinct feel and place. However the other 3 just fail in all regards because none of them have requirements to meet outside their own requests.
Wargear sounds like this sort of stratagem is unlimited in use per turn by multiple units (but only once per unit that turn), possibly even having a 1CP discount for the first wargear stratagem used each turn. These are the pieces of gear they use regularly, they will employ them with routine effect, however they don't provide any sort of overwhelming power or boost, more are helpful or possibly niche use cases.
Battle Tactics sound like they should be something that you get to use 1 of per turn and require your warlord to be present on the field to instruct and oversee. These should be wide reaching effects that require some form of condition to be met to get the benefit of (Such as having X unit in front of Y unit or having X number of Y units some distance apart). These are the stratagems you are GOING to use, these are cards you build around or in mind when your list is built. It is in the name of the stratagem keyword after all.
Epic Deeds sounds like something that is reserved for Non-Troop, Non-Dedicated-Transport units. Each of these is a once per battle effect and only 1 can be used per turn (though can be in tandem with Battle Tactics and Wargear). These are the things that would make legends or are even possibly why the unit is well regarded. They are powerful abilities but aren't just a basic thing, often allowing the unit to do something that within lore they may do but often doesn't because...well...it isn't epic if it always happens right?

Stratagems need an overhaul and looked at hard. The system has potential but they went too hard on removing special rules from units and more just took some scissors to datasheets and then PVCed them elsewhere in the codex with blurbs and numbers put to them...like some horrific flesh-lab creation of the Dark Eldar...or maybe even Fabulous Bill.

[Lord_Ikka]

After playing a couple of games with the now reduced CP, I've got some thoughts. 

1- Having less CP off the bat (in general and because of pre-game expenditures) means that my thoughts on strats are more focused and I'm not just throwing away CP on re-rolls to try to get a less-than-likely save off. Not a bad thing, just different, and probably better for making me pay attention to what strats are really good for my army. I'm all for something that makes me play smarter, so the CP reduction is ok with me.

2- The double regeneration of CP has been really nice- it allows me to save up for an offensive strat or go ahead and use a defensive strat as needed. Very much like this change, as it has given me a lot more options just on defense to help out on the opponent's turn.

3- Not a big fan of removing the free WT/relic and charging for both. I would rather have at least the WT be free and then charge for any relics that you want to take, as that seems better as far as fluff goes (your leader has inherent traits that make him good, while relics are rarer), but I can live with it. Just not super happy with it, especially since it seems like if you have a named character as your Warlord then you have to take the WT for CP. 

[Helias_Tancred]

On 6/26/2022 at 3:58 AM, MARK0SIAN said:

... Finally, from a more personal and subjective point of view, I’m just glad to (hopefully) see strats become less of an issue for the game. I feel like the game has simply become all about the strats and which combos you can make with them and the relic/warlord traits/secondaries rather than the units themselves. Hopefully this will reign that in a bit. 

My sentiments as well. Creating killer combos between Strats and WL Traits/Relics was becoming annoying and creating a style of 40k I didn't enjoy. Like you I also felt large pools of CP and constant use of stratagems had changed the game in ways I didn't enjoy. 

 

Stratagems and command points have a place in the game but they should be used less frequently and in more clutch situations and the CP pool remain small. They should enhance the game, not BE the game (which is how it was starting too feel). 

[Sugarlessllama]

I think I am looking forward to playing with fewer CP. The change to charging for the WLT and Relic is sad, but if that's the price to rein in stratagems, then it is a price I'm willing to pay.  

[Special Officer Doofy]

I'm a fan of the changes. While I like things being flavourful and fluffy, I care more about the balance of the game. GW has a hard enough time balancing datasheets and point costs, everything else is just more stuff for them to juggle (faction rules, mono bonus(es), faction specific secondaries and strategems). So the less strategems used, the better.

As far as the first relic and warlord trait now costing a CP each, I kind of like that too. I've come across friend's lists before that had only named characters and no one to give a relic to or their codex had crap warlord traits for the build they are trying to do. Now those lists are not hindered by getting the free ones but not being able to use it as effective as other lists.

[Gothical]

I like the reduction in the number of Command Points that the detachments offer, and love that you generate a CP in both players' command phases. The former means you have to choose whether to spend the points on a turn-1 blitz or save them up for later in the game, reducing the chance of a one-sided blow dealt before the other player can actually make a move. Having the regeneration in the opponent's command phase means you can use some of the reactive stratagems or choose to take the punishment and save the additional point to use on a more powerful stratagem than you might otherwise have had. Both add to the tactical depth of the game and I like it.

I don't like the change to having to pay for the first Warlord Trait and Relic (especially Warlord Trait). Whilst this does enhance the choice of spending pre-game to boost characters or having the points to use throughout the game, I think it is just too much of a limitation and too restrictive on one of the few customisation options that many HQs have left. The newer books have limited how much you can stack Relics and Traits, stating how many times you can use the "additional relic" or "additional warlord trait" stratagem in each size of game, which is a change I approve of to combat some of the more ridiculous combinations you can create.

The Warlord and Relic costs are especially an issue when you are looking at bringing one of the alternative detachment choices which don't refund any CP even if your Warlord is part of those detachments, if you still got the free Trait & Relic then at least they can still be a consideration, but weirdly taking a more "elite" or "specialised" formation means you end up with a more "generic" leader who doesn't have personal command flair or access to the armoury despite their apparent station to lead such forces.

 

On 7/6/2022 at 9:21 AM, Putrid Choir said:

As far as the first relic and warlord trait now costing a CP each, I kind of like that too. I've come across friend's lists before that had only named characters and no one to give a relic to or their codex had crap warlord traits for the build they are trying to do. Now those lists are not hindered by getting the free ones but not being able to use it as effective as other lists.

That is a good point I had not considered. I suppose there is a fairness in the player that chooses not to take a Trait or Relic getting some sort of bonus against a player who does.

Perhaps a better solution, bearing in mind what I view as the issues with the additional cost, is a line added to the Warlord Trait and Relic selection rules that state that if no Trait/Relic is chosen then you gain 1 additional Command Point - same end result of the player without suitable Relic/Trait choices getting a measure of balance against a player who chooses to take them without causing what I see is too much restriction on Command Points.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Gothical

[phandaal]

The WLT/Relic thing certainly pushes named characters to the fore. To the extent that a faction has good characters to use, they benefit. Factions that rely on build-a-character are going to suffer.

[Slave to Darkness]

Paying for a Warlord trait sucks, paying for a relic Im cool with, too many armies always run the same relics. Feels like that quote from Black Adder... 

Moving on to relics, we've got shrouds from Turin, wine from the wedding at Cana, splinters from the Cross, err, and of course there's stuff made by Jesus in his days in the carpentry shop — pipe racks, coffee tables, coatstands, bookends, crucifixes, a nice cheeseboard, fruit bowls, waterproof sandals ... oh, I haven't finished that one yet.

 

Is there some dodgy Ecclesiarchy types knocking out these things somewhere?? Mind you in the Inquisitor novels from the olden days Jaq Draco does comment if all the 'parts' of the Emperor were reassembled he would be a multi limbed monstrosity... But if the in game relics are fakes then they shouldnt work... 

[Medjugorje]

the main point i see this positive is because there are lists which "LOOK" like SH**

 

I want to play against armies which look like ones ( 2-3 characters, 3 Troops, 1 elite guard, 2 vehicles for example) but especially CSM lists look like (3 Monsters, 3 Monsters with wings, 1x5 troops, 4 characters).

 

Less CPs brings us to more Battallions which should be the "norm"

[XeonDragon]

Lots of great points. As someone who got a whole 2 games of crusher stampede in and then 2 games with the new tyranids codex before all the changes, I can honestly say I find keeping up with the rules etc. tiresome. I've only played 3 games with the new CP limit (1 with nids, 2 with raven guard successors), and it really hurts. My general sense is that it might make people focus more on math-hammer as a unit selection, i.e. building armies based on the best, most efficient units on a 'stand alone' basis, rather than a WLT/relic aura/stratagem buffed basis (hello assault centurions!). Not sure if that would be good or bad for the game overall?

Nothing further to add except this:

What if you started with 2CP for your warlord and 1CP for each other character and  then 1CP was generated per turn, per character? That's it. 

They are called command points. Back in 2017 GW said (my bold added):

Quote

Stratagems are a key part of the new Warhammer 40,000 game. These represent your army’s commanders marshalling their forces and vital orders coming down from high command (that’s you!).

So.... if there are no commanders (characters) left on the table, what do the other units have? Their training and experience (their datasheet). That's it. So what if stratagem use was also tied to characters? i.e. each character can "use" one stratagem per turn? (or per phase?) Maybe those changes would make the game less CP and stratagem focused, whilst still allowing "hero hammer", with the risks it might entail? (i.e. if all the characters get killed, no stratagems could be used at all).

 

 

[Cleon]

Am I missing a clarification somewhere? When I read the update I took it that special characters would need to be selected as the warlord AND pay the CP to activate their warlord trait, but it seem others have read differently that they get it for free?

[Slave to Darkness]

On 7/8/2022 at 1:26 AM, XeonDragon said:

Lots of great points. As someone who got a whole 2 games of crusher stampede in and then 2 games with the new tyranids codex before all the changes, I can honestly say I find keeping up with the rules etc. tiresome. I've only played 3 games with the new CP limit (1 with nids, 2 with raven guard successors), and it really hurts. My general sense is that it might make people focus more on math-hammer as a unit selection, i.e. building armies based on the best, most efficient units on a 'stand alone' basis, rather than a WLT/relic aura/stratagem buffed basis (hello assault centurions!). Not sure if that would be good or bad for the game overall?

Nothing further to add except this:

What if you started with 2CP for your warlord and 1CP for each other character and  then 1CP was generated per turn, per character? That's it. 

They are called command points. Back in 2017 GW said (my bold added):

So.... if there are no commanders (characters) left on the table, what do the other units have? Their training and experience (their datasheet). That's it. So what if stratagem use was also tied to characters? i.e. each character can "use" one stratagem per turn? (or per phase?) Maybe those changes would make the game less CP and stratagem focused, whilst still allowing "hero hammer", with the risks it might entail? (i.e. if all the characters get killed, no stratagems could be used at all).

 

 

CP's being locked to commanders would be good actually. 

[Slave to Darkness]

On 7/8/2022 at 9:29 AM, Cleon said:

Am I missing a clarification somewhere? When I read the update I took it that special characters would need to be selected as the warlord AND pay the CP to activate their warlord trait, but it seem others have read differently that they get it for free?

You would think the warlord trait would be included in the cost of the character itself though. Another wonky ruling by GW that will need a faq.

[jarms48]

Yeah, the relic having a cost I’m fine with. What’s the point of even allocating a Warlord if you have to pay to give them a trait?

[MegaVolt87]

On 7/8/2022 at 10:26 AM, XeonDragon said:

Lots of great points. As someone who got a whole 2 games of crusher stampede in and then 2 games with the new tyranids codex before all the changes, I can honestly say I find keeping up with the rules etc. tiresome. I've only played 3 games with the new CP limit (1 with nids, 2 with raven guard successors), and it really hurts. My general sense is that it might make people focus more on math-hammer as a unit selection, i.e. building armies based on the best, most efficient units on a 'stand alone' basis, rather than a WLT/relic aura/stratagem buffed basis (hello assault centurions!). Not sure if that would be good or bad for the game overall?

Nothing further to add except this:

What if you started with 2CP for your warlord and 1CP for each other character and  then 1CP was generated per turn, per character? That's it. 

They are called command points. Back in 2017 GW said (my bold added):

So.... if there are no commanders (characters) left on the table, what do the other units have? Their training and experience (their datasheet). That's it. So what if stratagem use was also tied to characters? i.e. each character can "use" one stratagem per turn? (or per phase?) Maybe those changes would make the game less CP and stratagem focused, whilst still allowing "hero hammer", with the risks it might entail? (i.e. if all the characters get killed, no stratagems could be used at all).

 

 

 

There is a flaw with this- majority of "stratagems" are actually tactics. Their use is not really dependent on a central figure. A real strategem would be something like a/ the WLT that lets you re-deploy multiple units after deployment or the strategem that lets you designate multiple units for deep strike, those mechanics are more in line with a strategy. Or how you can alter SM doctrine phases etc. There should be a defined split between overall game changing mechanics like that tied to characters vs hitting stuff harder in melee or putting out the dakka, any trained warrior/ soldier can do that without being told on the tabletop + lore by a commander. CP war gear could alternatively be used as a CP sink, so buy smoke launchers once, every vehicle in a detachment can use them X details etc if we must have wargear cost CP instead of rolled into a unit profile like the old days. "what about character aura that just buff stats?" Thats just the boss micro managing you, you can still do the job if they aren't there and this is reflected by having stratagems (really are tactics) that let you dakka/ krump harder for a bit. 

[phandaal]

"Strategem" is a catch-all term right now.

Some Strategems are actual "strategic" decisions like redeployment. Some are tactics, like Ravenwing's hit and run. Some are using special equipment like melta bombs. Some are temporary buffs like Fury of the First or Transhuman.

Aside from GW's rules team flying off the rails with broken Strategems, the bucket is just too big to be implemented properly. A rework would certainly help. Wargear seems like an obvious place to start, along with returning abilities to datasheets.

[Valkyrion]

I don't know enough about all of the specific strats for each codex, but would a blanket statement like 'all WARGEAR stratagems now cost 0CP but can only be used once per battle' help for things like Melta Bombs? 
Something blanket that doesn't need a codex rewrite but can be addressed when codexes are redone one by one. 

[MARK0SIAN]

On 7/13/2022 at 1:41 PM, Valkyrion said:

I don't know enough about all of the specific strats for each codex, but would a blanket statement like 'all WARGEAR stratagems now cost 0CP but can only be used once per battle' help for things like Melta Bombs? 
Something blanket that doesn't need a codex rewrite but can be addressed when codexes are redone one by one. 

The problem is the units aren’t costed to have those abilities for free, even once per battle. They’d need to redo the points for every unit that had access to them. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by MARK0SIAN