KT mini-codex suggests you finish that soup quick, brothers!

[Marshal van Trapp]

 

 

I sort of like them as an incentive to taking troops. Maybe you could do 1-2 CP per troops slot, or 1-2cp per 100pts of troops, or something?

Troops already have a significant incentive with objsec. The challenge is balancing CPs between small elite/specialist armies and large horde armies at the same point tier. Neither should inherently have more CPs just on that army style alone. If anything, more CPs should be given based on number of HQs (not troops), since CPs represent tactics/skill employed by the army leaders. That's entirely why we get a bonus CP with Bjorn.

Actually, let's build upon this. Every HQ unit has it's own CP value that it provides to the army. This keeps people from spamming cheap hq for cp (could make horde style hqs only grant 1cp per 2-3 of that unit, or even have CP 0 HQ choices) and gives more specialist armies a more balanced CP acquirement method (more expensive HQ could be worth more CP)

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

Honestly I like that with the addition of every 2 troop units net you one cp also. Gotta have that bonus for troops

[Ratherdashing]

I don't think Obsec is currently enough of an incentive without also giving extra CP for troops. I also agree that troops should grant CP based on points cost so IG don't have the same glut of CP as currently. HQ makes sense to give CP except that no one needs an incentive to take them.

 

I like getting 1 CP per 200 points spent, with points spent on troops counting double.

[PeteySödes]

I don't think Obsec is currently enough of an incentive without also giving extra CP for troops. I also agree that troops should grant CP based on points cost so IG don't have the same glut of CP as currently. HQ makes sense to give CP except that no one needs an incentive to take them.

 

I like getting 1 CP per 200 points spent, with points spent on troops counting double.

 

Obsec is almost useless for elite armies in its current form.

[Gherrick]

Logistically, troops and CP have no association. I get the desire to reward usage of troops, but the game rules need to support this, and CP calculation is not the right place for it IMO. It should probably be more related to unit cost than anything else, as troops should be the least specialized unit in any army, and thus the most easily populated and outfitted.

 

CPs should be based by your HQs allotment (PP/points). Thus, having 10 cheap HQs or 5 more expensive HQs both totaling the same PP/points should yield the same number of CPs. That one knight HQ worth 600pts is now worth the same CPs as 600pts worth of IG commissars.

[thymidine]

I think CP should just be fixed in match play. 10 per side in a 2k game. No regeneration.

 

I get they want to reward certain army compositions, but that can never be balanced. Some armies (i.e. guard) are just better at troop-heavy lists than others (i.e. space marines).

[Kallas]

 

I don't think Obsec is currently enough of an incentive without also giving extra CP for troops. I also agree that troops should grant CP based on points cost so IG don't have the same glut of CP as currently. HQ makes sense to give CP except that no one needs an incentive to take them.

 

I like getting 1 CP per 200 points spent, with points spent on troops counting double.

 

Obsec is almost useless for elite armies in its current form.

ObSec really needs to scale. The Imperial Knight Heirloom 'Banner of Macharius Triumphant' is a good template: it gives a Knight ObSec and counts as 10 models. That should get baked into more Codexes:

 - Hordes: 1 model

 - Mid-elite (Astartes, possibly things like Eldar): 2/3 models

 - Elite (Grey Knights, Custodes, possibly Deathwatch): 3-5 models

 - Rare/Special (eg, Banner of Macharius Triumphant): 5-10 models.

 

That'd require a little more brainpower on a case by case basis, but it would allow more powerful models to actually take objectives away from hordes. A squad of 5 Marines would (assuming a 'counts as 2' ObSec) counteract a full Guardsman Infantry squad, which makes sense.

 

That'd give at least some teeth to the more elite armies.

[M.Redbeard]

 

 

 

 

I don't think Obsec is currently enough of an incentive without also giving extra CP for troops. I also agree that troops should grant CP based on points cost so IG don't have the same glut of CP as currently. HQ makes sense to give CP except that no one needs an incentive to take them.

 

I like getting 1 CP per 200 points spent, with points spent on troops counting double.

Obsec is almost useless for elite armies in its current form.

ObSec really needs to scale. The Imperial Knight Heirloom 'Banner of Macharius Triumphant' is a good template: it gives a Knight ObSec and counts as 10 models. That should get baked into more Codexes:

- Hordes: 1 model

- Mid-elite (Astartes, possibly things like Eldar): 2/3 models

- Elite (Grey Knights, Custodes, possibly Deathwatch): 3-5 models

- Rare/Special (eg, Banner of Macharius Triumphant): 5-10 models.

 

That'd require a little more brainpower on a case by case basis, but it would allow more powerful models to actually take objectives away from hordes. A squad of 5 Marines would (assuming a 'counts as 2' ObSec) counteract a full Guardsman Infantry squad, which makes sense.

 

That'd give at least some teeth to the more elite armies.

I was thinking that since there is a push for Power Levels (for example with the DS rule), maybe go for the units PL to determime control? It is a single number per unit, can be planned and optimized with certain cons (having to add more models to an infantry unit that might not be optimal) and is a relatively simple way of determining who controls it. It changes the balance so elite armies have a bit of am edge with smaller units amd more punch, while the hordes can still counter it by playing to their strength in numbers. Maybe a bit of a silly idea (more so with the dislike for PL) but this seems like an easy way to determine control amd not hurt Space Marines or such.

 

As for the the idea the the new Factions mini-dexes, I like CP tied to factions. It still allows soup, but undermines CP farming without your main army (and put kf top of my head there are fewer really strong IG Stratagems so their overall power I think will remain similar or a bit lower). Make the battle forged points the same Faction as your Warlord amd you can still play soup but have to more careful, while giving mono armies an edge

[Tokugawa]

copy&paste:

 

"They play soup so I lose! if only monodex played I will have chance to win."such self-comfort thought is common.

 

But the truth hurts:if there really come a monodex tournament, mono Raven and mono Taranis would beat them harder.

[M.Redbeard]

copy&paste:

 

"They play soup so I lose! if only monodex played I will have chance to win."such self-comfort thought is common.

 

But the truth hurts:if there really come a monodex tournament, mono Raven and mono Taranis would beat them harder.

Probably. They are still very strong. But for example restricting the CP to the Detachment that generated them would shake some things. Seeing the list that won NOVA if I am seeing correctly is a Castellan, an IG Brigade and a BA batallion. For that list restricting the CP would mean the Knight gets no points in a list like that, meaning no extra Warlord Trait, Relic or Ratating Ion shileds. That is pretty brutal for how some poeple play them. The BA would have 5 which means if they want two Death Visions of Sanguinius, they couldn't do Descent of Angels and Honour the chapter or Only in Death Does Duty End. It would change a lot of the synergies soup armies have, and come up with new strategies. Might be a good change (mind you I don't think in my local meta is a lot of soup, I have seen only a player or two use Knights+ another army) for the geenral cmoetitive meta.

[WLBjork]

Heaven forbid that GW fix the issue with detachments then.

 

Platoon: 1 low level HQ, 2-4 troops*, 0-1 elite, fast attack and/or heavy support.

 

Company: 1 high level HQ, 2-4 platoons*, 3 low level HQs, 2-4 elite, fast attack and heavy support.

 

Most small games could be played with platoons or companies (as opposed to a "brigade" not much bigger than a platoon...good old GW naming conventions).

 

The more advanced formations are then reserved for Apocalypse - although some players may want to use them in a low level game for a special mission e.g use a heavy support company to break through a bunker network.

 

*I'd prefer 3 minimum, but that would hamper flexibility too much. Suppose the total elite/fast/heavy choices could be also limited to not exceed the total number of troops choices present.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think CP should just be fixed in match play. 10 per side in a 2k game. No regeneration.

 

I get they want to reward certain army compositions, but that can never be balanced. Some armies (i.e. guard) are just better at troop-heavy lists than others (i.e. space marines).

 

I would rather have a slightly higher starting CP total, then have that thresh hold decrease per Ally/certain detachments. So for example in a 2000 point game we start with 15, but if you take a supreme command detachment, and have one ally you might only get 10. 

[Marshal van Trapp]

 

 

I think CP should just be fixed in match play. 10 per side in a 2k game. No regeneration.

 

I get they want to reward certain army compositions, but that can never be balanced. Some armies (i.e. guard) are just better at troop-heavy lists than others (i.e. space marines).

I would rather have a slightly higher starting CP total, then have that thresh hold decrease per Ally/certain detachments. So for example in a 2000 point game we start with 15, but if you take a supreme command detachment, and have one ally you might only get 10.

Oh this is actually interesting, what if you had a higher total and each detachment COST CP?

 

Say per 1000pts (or 50PL) you start with 10CP and each detachment cost its ORIGINAL value in CP. So 3 for battalion, 5? For Brigade, 1 for each of the special ones and 0 for a Patrol.

 

I'd say that would make it way more fair especially for elite armies

[M.Redbeard]

 

 

 

I think CP should just be fixed in match play. 10 per side in a 2k game. No regeneration.

 

I get they want to reward certain army compositions, but that can never be balanced. Some armies (i.e. guard) are just better at troop-heavy lists than others (i.e. space marines).

I would rather have a slightly higher starting CP total, then have that thresh hold decrease per Ally/certain detachments. So for example in a 2000 point game we start with 15, but if you take a supreme command detachment, and have one ally you might only get 10.

Oh this is actually interesting, what if you had a higher total and each detachment COST CP?

 

Say per 1000pts (or 50PL) you start with 10CP and each detachment cost its ORIGINAL value in CP. So 3 for battalion, 5? For Brigade, 1 for each of the special ones and 0 for a Patrol.

 

I'd say that would make it way more fair especially for elite armies

Nice idea but very abusable I think, mainly by elite armies. First you can spam as many patro detachments as possible. With three you can have as many as 6 HQ, elites, heavy support, fast attack and flyers, meaning all other detachments can be safely be ignored by most armies. The only ultra elite army with an issue with that is Knights (which I don't mind losing a bit of CP). The other is that it turns the tables around completely. Horde armies can't spam patrol detachments as easily and fill up the points. So while they have more units they also have to start with less CP than elites and weaker. Elites also lose all incentive to take troops. Even if Patrol spam was stopped as Pete mentioned before, we are already at a disadvantage in troops due to Obsec so elite armies can safely ignore troops all together and fill with other detachments. And elite and Heavy support armies for me are missing something, and seeing how CP are valued we'd see a lot less troops on the tables from every party involved. This change I feel overly favours the other side, so it isn't balanced either. CP generation needs probably an overhaul, but mainly in competitve play I think farming and sharing CPs is a bigger issue (I know several people dislike BotLS due to valid reasons but a recent article pointing out how it is ridiculous that the BA use half of the CP when they created only 5 CP is a point I agree with).

[Marshal van Trapp]

 

 

 

 

I think CP should just be fixed in match play. 10 per side in a 2k game. No regeneration.

 

I get they want to reward certain army compositions, but that can never be balanced. Some armies (i.e. guard) are just better at troop-heavy lists than others (i.e. space marines).

I would rather have a slightly higher starting CP total, then have that thresh hold decrease per Ally/certain detachments. So for example in a 2000 point game we start with 15, but if you take a supreme command detachment, and have one ally you might only get 10.

Oh this is actually interesting, what if you had a higher total and each detachment COST CP?

 

Say per 1000pts (or 50PL) you start with 10CP and each detachment cost its ORIGINAL value in CP. So 3 for battalion, 5? For Brigade, 1 for each of the special ones and 0 for a Patrol.

 

I'd say that would make it way more fair especially for elite armies

Nice idea but very abusable I think, mainly by elite armies. First you can spam as many patro detachments as possible. With three you can have as many as 6 HQ, elites, heavy support, fast attack and flyers, meaning all other detachments can be safely be ignored by most armies. The only ultra elite army with an issue with that is Knights (which I don't mind losing a bit of CP). The other is that it turns the tables around completely. Horde armies can't spam patrol detachments as easily and fill up the points. So while they have more units they also have to start with less CP than elites and weaker. Elites also lose all incentive to take troops. Even if Patrol spam was stopped as Pete mentioned before, we are already at a disadvantage in troops due to Obsec so elite armies can safely ignore troops all together and fill with other detachments. And elite and Heavy support armies for me are missing something, and seeing how CP are valued we'd see a lot less troops on the tables from every party involved. This change I feel overly favours the other side, so it isn't balanced either. CP generation needs probably an overhaul, but mainly in competitve play I think farming and sharing CPs is a bigger issue (I know several people dislike BotLS due to valid reasons but a recent article pointing out how it is ridiculous that the BA use half of the CP when they created only 5 CP is a point I agree with).

What if we combine all these ideas instead then. You start with 10CP per 1000pts/50PL, all detachments cost CP (make patrols cost a single CP), and then HQ units each then also generate CP for the army. Then the final fix, only units with ObjSec can take objectives, like the good old days. And give elite armies the ability to get ObjSec on more than just troops. Either that or just give a flat CP and ignore everything else... I honestly dont know how else to fix it

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

I've been thinking of a buy system where you buy you slots. 1 cp per hundred points or 5 pl. 1st 2 HQ and first 3 troops free. Subsequent troops 1cp each. Subsequent HQs 2 co each. First 2 HS, FA, Elite, and Flyer 1 cp each, subsequent 2 cp each. Tweakable but this is what I see as valid just do away with the various formations. Give a 3 cp for mono codex. Leftover CP is yours for the game.

[Marshal van Trapp]

This whole thing has got me thinking, what if 40k switched over to the AoS style of points and formations?

 

Formations cost points and require specific units but give army specific benefits instead of CP. Then instead CP is generated per turn and can be used as such. I feel like that would really benefit 40k and fix this whole mess.

 

Edit: Someone just informed me that this is apparently kinda how 7th edition worked and it didn't work at all...

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

I think limiting CPs generated by detachments to the faction they belong to is a grand idea and I actually suggested it as a fix to the soup problem in another thread on the subject, looks like someone at GW had a similar idea, bring it on I say!!

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

I think CP should just be fixed in match play. 10 per side in a 2k game. No regeneration.

 

I get they want to reward certain army compositions, but that can never be balanced. Some armies (i.e. guard) are just better at troop-heavy lists than others (i.e. space marines).

I would rather have a slightly higher starting CP total, then have that thresh hold decrease per Ally/certain detachments. So for example in a 2000 point game we start with 15, but if you take a supreme command detachment, and have one ally you might only get 10.

Oh this is actually interesting, what if you had a higher total and each detachment COST CP?

 

Say per 1000pts (or 50PL) you start with 10CP and each detachment cost its ORIGINAL value in CP. So 3 for battalion, 5? For Brigade, 1 for each of the special ones and 0 for a Patrol.

 

I'd say that would make it way more fair especially for elite armies

 

 

I think threshold was a bad choice of words. That is closer to what I was intending having the starting cp total be the max., I think you still need a 3 detachment limit, and I don't think most of the formations should cost cp. The ones that cause problems are heavy support detachments, lord of war detachments, and supreme command detachments. So I would put a cost on those, and on detachments from other codex. 

 

I'd also requre a battalion or a brigade, and your warlord and relics would have to be in that detachment. I don't think it would be perfect but I think the current way of generating CP isn't fair. 

[Stoic Raptor]

So this topic implies that mini-codex booklets will spell an end to soup, yet a topic implied just the opposite - that they will make soup even easier for some factions.

Obviously, they can't both be right - but it is possible that they can both be wrong. ;)

[PeteySödes]

So this topic implies that mini-codex booklets will spell an end to soup, yet a topic implied just the opposite - that they will make soup even easier for some factions.

Obviously, they can't both be right - but it is possible that they can both be wrong. ;)

Feel like citing the other topic?

[MeatGrinder]

So this topic implies that mini-codex booklets will spell an end to soup, yet a topic implied just the opposite - that they will make soup even easier for some factions.

Obviously, they can't both be right - but it is possible that they can both be wrong.

 

Easier? Probably the wrong word to use. If this change goes through its likely you'll see a return to purely cherrypicking and spamming the best units as allies, rather than building towards CP gain. Those supreme command detatchments of 3 jetbike captains, spearheads of 3 dunecrawlers, and so on.

[Stoic Raptor]

Feel like citing the other topic?

 

In case you didn't see it:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/350339-mini-codexes-the-way-forward-of-small-factions/

 

Plenty of discussion about it on FB groups as well.  You're free to arrive at your own conclusion about which result we will see - I'm merely pointing out that this whole thread is jumping to a conclusion that's refuted elsewhere.

[PeteySödes]

 

 

Feel like citing the other topic?

In case you didn't see it:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/350339-mini-codexes-the-way-forward-of-small-factions/

 

Plenty of discussion about it on FB groups as well. You're free to arrive at your own conclusion about which result we will see - I'm merely pointing out that this whole thread is jumping to a conclusion that's refuted elsewhere.

Eh, I 100% disagree on who’s conclusion jumping. On one hand we have a rule in hand and a topic that has “suggest” in the title and the other a “if they keep doing x we’ll have y” speculation thread.

 

We know hey are going to address soup in the FAQ and this mini faction has a rule we’ve seen that gates its CP. if they keep doing that than I don’t care how many mini factions they put out, soup as we know is changed completely. Soups in a competitive setting are about synergy not siloed parts.

[MeatGrinder]

 

Feel like citing the other topic?

 

In case you didn't see it:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/350339-mini-codexes-the-way-forward-of-small-factions/

 

Plenty of discussion about it on FB groups as well.  You're free to arrive at your own conclusion about which result we will see - I'm merely pointing out that this whole thread is jumping to a conclusion that's refuted elsewhere.

 

 

Thats not making soup easier, in fact that thread doesnt even have a lot to do with what we are talking about. We're talking about the changes to how CP are generated and who can use them, not about including new factions. We are talking about soup in a competitive environment, where you need to go monofaction to maximise CP generation, not soup as in just throwing in other factions into the list for the craic.