Buying Command Points

[someone2040]

I haven't played much AoS 2 so haven't suffered first hand at any of the abuse.

But I will say that I think it's a good idea, but poorly implemented in some areas.

For starters, why aren't they actually a thing you properly buy rather than being given? It seems stupid that not only are you more likely to get a triumph, but you also get to double dip and get your command point you were after.

Secondly, I really really really wish you could buy artefacts with them. As a player who doesn't want to build their armies around battalions, it's super disappointing that artefacts are still tied to them (and not only that, command points!). Really wish I could just buy an extra artefact slot if I wanted to.

 

Overall though, I think a lot of the 'command point' abuse can be solved by just fixing the command abilities. It's just laziness on GW's part that they've fixed some but not others.

[Skabnoze]

20 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

Secondly, I really really really wish you could buy artefacts with them. As a player who doesn't want to build their armies around battalions, it's super disappointing that artefacts are still tied to them (and not only that, command points!). Really wish I could just buy an extra artefact slot if I wanted to.

I agree.  I was disappointed to see that you could effectively use 50 points to buy a command point but there is no mechanism to do that for artifacts.  I play a bunch of allegiances that simply don't have a battalion option at all, and since there are no generic battalions in the game it means that those armies get just one artifact.  I would like to have more than one snazzy item in some of those armies.  For example, I would like to have more than one item in Spiderfang or Moonclan.

I honestly prefer the way old GW games handled magic items & wargear as they just let you purchase it and put a cost onto the items.  All artifacts in AoS are effectively priced the same and that skews a lot of them much more to being better or worse.  You will never see some of the realm artifacts chosen because there are some that have the same effect but then extra stuff.  Why get +1 to hit when you can get +1 to hit and +1 to wound?  If they had different point values then people might consider one over the other.  And if you just spent points on magic items people might be willing to take both in their army.

I expect that the artifact system works the way it currently does for simplicity, but I would like to see some way to get extra artifacts that is not tied to battalions.

[Bellfree]

5 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Tabling people and alpha strikes are part of the game.  I think command points are fine the way they are.  Everyone can buy them so everyone has access to the same rules.

I think that if people are having a hard time with the game or getting tabled that a better answer would be to look at what is happening in the game and try to learn from mistakes being made so that being tabled is not happening as much.

Alpha striking is a fairly straight forward and common tactic, but the obvious defense is to position your models in such a way that only expendable screening units can be targeted.  Thats part of what makes the game fun, countering things like this.  

This isn't how anything works. So if I buy command points I can use that CA that grots have that let them double the amount of damage their attacks do? Or is that NOT a rule I have access to as stormcasts?

And what happens if they look at the game, fix the mistakes, and STILL get tabled? What happens if they make dramatically less mistakes than their opponent and STILL get tabled? Armies can absolutely be too strong and not every loss or tabling comes as a result of an error. This is a math game, if his numbers are bigger than yours, you're gonna die.

How do you do that if they can A. Bypass your screen in some way or B. You play an army that doesn't have access to screen. If you can't think of an answer that doesn't start with 'ally in' then you've hit a balance issue.

[Mikester1487]

4 hours ago, PJetski said:

In theory, sure.

In practice you get shot off the table in the first turn and then they casually stroll over to the objectives.

Anvils of the Heldenhammer with 12 Longstrikes and as many command points as they can get.

A cap on starting CP might be the right solution.

I think having a cap on how many times you can use cp on a unit would be a more effective way.

[stratigo]

6 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I agree its not even across all armies, but competitively the armies that one would play to be viable should have a more even access to these items.

For armies that are not currently viable, I hope that Games Workshop addresses that and adds abilities for them as well.

 

The answer to "Command points are too strong for some armies" really shouldn't be "lol, why are you playing other armies?"

[Deadkitten]

I'm in favor of one Command Ability per unit.  It is sort of fun to manage the resource with an eye to an explosive turn but not at the cost of the abuse.  GW said they want supporting heros to show up on the table more often and for their abilities to be more used but why use that when you can just stack the best one?

 

[Malios]

From this particular gamer's perspective, command points are the worst part of 40k 8th edition. I won't go too much into this, but my general dislike of them in 40k 8th edition is that people are building their armies to supplement their command points, not using command points to supplement their army. And whats worse in 40k is that you can't afford not to use command points and stratagems in most cases (dark eldar being the exception who can shut down stratagems, but look at the backlash over that): you're stuck with command points and stratagems as a fundamental mechanic.

 

Now, Age of Sigmar is entirely different to 40k 8th edition: your command points accrue over time rather then starting with a giant pool and your command points allow you to use your heroes command abilities. I can't be mad at this because for most auper deathstars to build up enough command points, it takes time. There's also a hard counter to command points in Age of Sigmar: kill the heroes. Easier said then done yes, but if you kill that hero the opponent can't spend command points on that command ability. This adds on a layer of finesse to the game which 40k 8th edition severely lacks: killing heroes before they can use their abilities (and keeping them alive) is just as vital as using your own heroes command abilities at the right time.

 

But, the fundamental problem is still there: designing the army to supplement the command abilities and maximising command points rather then using such to supplement the army it's built to support. There's no real simple solution to this other then "player self restraint." But, "player self restraint" is like common sense: few people have it, or want to apply it.

[Qaz]

I rather not have artefacts be bought, then you'll see "Lens" and "spellmirrors" also every game since it's more access able and relatively cost to include is 'cheaper' (not trying to fit a battalion).  Let's people optimize even more

On the command point issue, although it is seemingly an 'abuse' situation. I don't think it's breaking the game or making the game not fun to play. The Anvils of Heldenhammer 12 longstrike list for example, would not do well against 1) a board with trees (line of sight blocking terrain); 2) Another list that beta-strike the longstrike for less (E.g 2 celestor ballistae);  3) Idoneth Deepkin 

At least not as bad as seraphon 4 engines list. That I can't figure a way to fight it.

2 hours ago, Bellfree said:

... of an answer that doesn't start with 'ally in' then you've hit a balance issue.

Unfortunately, 'ally in' is part of the balance. Think of all the duardin races depending on the Stormcast wizards. 

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Qaz said:

I rather not have artefacts be bought, then you'll see "Lens" and "spellmirrors" also every game since it's more access able and relatively cost to include is 'cheaper' (not trying to fit a battalion).  Let's people optimize even more

Possibly, but this depends upon how you implement it.  Right now it is a generic item that any hero can take, but that can be changed.  Items can be put into categories that only certain types of heroes can take.  Age of Sigmar already does that to some degree.  And from there it depends upon how you cost them.  If all items are equally costed then you are correct and you will see the same ones non-stop.  But if the more powerful ones are priced higher then people will move to what fits into their builds.

Imagine if all endless spells had the same price.  I imagine if they all cost the same thing you would almost never see spells like Quicksilver Swords.  That spell is not amazing, but I think it is pretty good for the low price point it sits at.  It is sitting right in a good price that could let it fit into a lot of lists just to fill out a few left over points.  Magic items used to be like this long ago.

[AaronWilson]

I don't have a problem with people buying CPs's with points, I 100% have a issue with being able to stack the same command ability more then once on the same unit. I don't know what GW were smoking then they thought a grot doing 32-64 a hit was okay. With the post 2 week FAQ coming very soon, I 100% expect it to be changed that can you use the same command ability more then once per phase, but they do not stack on a single unit. 

[Qaz]

2 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

Possibly, but this depends upon how you implement it.  

Yes but easier access to artefacts can double down on strengths or cover weaknesses. Or it becomes like 40k with 2-5 different relics on powerful units (knights, custodes, IG)

You bring a good point about item internal balance. However I rather see still restricted behind battalions. If realm artefacts are priced, allegiance ones should too.  Therefore my suggestion would be, one artefact allowed for having an allegiance (but pay necessary points) and for each battalion, you can buy another artefact.

If GW were to go down this way, it'll slowly become 'Warhammer Fantasy'

[Guest]

I think AoS should go down the free-to-play route. You should be able to exchange real-world cash for the in-game currency of command points. About £5/$7 seems about right for a command point to me. That would make it fairer for everyone. Just pop your money in the post to GW along with a self-addressed envelope and receive your command point voucher within 5-7 working days (longer outside the UK, priority delivery available for an additional fee).

[Dead Scribe]

11 hours ago, Bellfree said:

This isn't how anything works. So if I buy command points I can use that CA that grots have that let them double the amount of damage their attacks do? Or is that NOT a rule I have access to as stormcasts?

And what happens if they look at the game, fix the mistakes, and STILL get tabled? What happens if they make dramatically less mistakes than their opponent and STILL get tabled? Armies can absolutely be too strong and not every loss or tabling comes as a result of an error. This is a math game, if his numbers are bigger than yours, you're gonna die.

How do you do that if they can A. Bypass your screen in some way or B. You play an army that doesn't have access to screen. If you can't think of an answer that doesn't start with 'ally in' then you've hit a balance issue.

Then I'd advise them to find an army that is just as powerful and collect that instead.  If losing bothers someone, then to me they shouldn't be playing an army that is weak. 

I don't see allies as an issue nor do I see balance issues if you have to ally because everyone can ally.  Some people just choose not to, and thats their choice but it is a part of the game and one that can be used to adjust the math of your army.

[Dead Scribe]

10 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

The answer to "Command points are too strong for some armies" really shouldn't be "lol, why are you playing other armies?"

People also complain in Magic that some cards are too strong.  That won't stop people from using those cards.  Same here with AOS.  Just as how Magic designs their game with different personalities in mind so too I think do the Games Workshop designers, and designing a strong list building component where there are obvious strong choices appeals to competitive minded players.  

If your army doesn't have access to strong abilities, then I would definitely say its time to change armies or be ok with losing when you face armies that do have strong abilities.  If Games Workshop sees that as a problem then they will FAQ and errata it and we'll start over again figuring out what is strong and what is weak and change armies as needed.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, someone2040 said:

It's just laziness on GW's part that they've fixed some but not others.

Really? Of all the possible reasons, all the complex things that go on behind the scenes, you're settling on 'laziness' as the reason? 

Ok then... 

[AaronWilson]

28 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Then I'd advise them to find an army that is just as powerful and collect that instead.  If losing bothers someone, then to me they shouldn't be playing an army that is weak. 

I don't see allies as an issue nor do I see balance issues if you have to ally because everyone can ally.  Some people just choose not to, and thats their choice but it is a part of the game and one that can be used to adjust the math of your army.

I don't think this is a reasonable response, the responsibility is on GW to produce a game in which every army is viable. Simply saying "don't play armies that lose" isn't really fair, as the onus is on GW to make every army have that opportunity. 

[Dead Scribe]

I give that response simply because we don't have the ability to change the rules, so if we want to play the game and we don't like losing, we have to work with what we've got.  It would be great if all armies were viable, but as I understand that has never really ever been true.

[AaronWilson]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I give that response simply because we don't have the ability to change the rules, so if we want to play the game and we don't like losing, we have to work with what we've got.  It would be great if all armies were viable, but as I understand that has never really ever been true.

Don't you feel a better response be to put some responsibility onto GW on allowing silly things to happen with CA (Like stacking the Grot Warboss, Allowing the SCE unit to to shoot 10 times turn one etc) rather then telling someone to stop playing a army because they're losing? 

[Dead Scribe]

I don't because that doesn't accomplish anything.  That person still has a weak army after blaming Games Workshop for whatever rule is making them weak or the opposition strong.  

For me personally given the choice, if I know my force is lacking or another force is that strong, then I will change armies because complaining about it won't get me any immediate response or fix, and I don't want to have to wait months or years to be able to play in tournaments again and be competitive and viable.

[AaronWilson]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I don't because that doesn't accomplish anything.  That person still has a weak army after blaming Games Workshop for whatever rule is making them weak or the opposition strong.  

For me personally given the choice, if I know my force is lacking or another force is that strong, then I will change armies because complaining about it won't get me any immediate response or fix, and I don't want to have to wait months or years to be able to play in tournaments again and be competitive and viable.

Sure I can appreciate that, I'm more thinking of the attitude it comes across and the tone you set. When someone is voicing genuine concern about being frustrated about a fundamentally broken mechanic, I don't feel the response "don't play armies that lose" helps the situation in anyway and can lead to arguments / snarky replies which will only snowball into a 7 page thread with people arguing and that's not something TGA is here for.

I agree blaming GW doesn't help the situation at all but if a player is hitting his head against a wall and shares his frustration with the community only to be told "no bro just buy a new army" I can't see that player staying in the game for long. 

[Dead Scribe]

Is there another constructive avenue of approach other than complaining and being negative though?  I think a lot of these things are knee ****** reactions.  I see this a lot in other games and I just don't see it as being very constructive.  

 

[AaronWilson]

I don't think we share the same mindset so I'm happy to just agree to disagree here & not de-rail the thread further.  

Back to the CP issue, do people stopping the ability to stack Command Abilities would solve there issue with being able to spend points on CPs? 

[Mephisto]

6 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

I don't have a problem with people buying CPs's with points, I 100% have a issue with being able to stack the same command ability more then once on the same unit. I don't know what GW were smoking then they thought a grot doing 32-64 a hit was okay. With the post 2 week FAQ coming very soon, I 100% expect it to be changed that can you use the same command ability more then once per phase, but they do not stack on a single unit. 

This is the change I foresee. 1/turn/unit.  

[Skabnoze]

9 hours ago, Qaz said:

Yes but easier access to artefacts can double down on strengths or cover weaknesses. Or it becomes like 40k with 2-5 different relics on powerful units (knights, custodes, IG)

You bring a good point about item internal balance. However I rather see still restricted behind battalions. If realm artefacts are priced, allegiance ones should too.  Therefore my suggestion would be, one artefact allowed for having an allegiance (but pay necessary points) and for each battalion, you can buy another artefact.

If GW were to go down this way, it'll slowly become 'Warhammer Fantasy'

Just because they swapped the system from Warhammer Fantasy to Age of Sigmar does not mean everything that Warhammer Fantasy did was bad.  In fact, Age of Sigmar has borrowed a number of concepts from Warhammer Fantasy and continues to do so.  The new Malign Sorcery is almost exactly the same as the Battle Magic supplement from years ago.  The only real difference is that Battle Magic was full of cardboard and Malign Sorcery has plastic models.  But in game they are almost the same thing.  Both of them contain a huge magic expansion for the game, templates/models for the spells, and greatly expand the amount of magic items available.

The basic army construction unit restrictions such as X number of leaders, Y number of behemoths, at least Z number of battleline are all basically the composition rules from the last couple of editions of Warhammer Fantasy.  The addition of Spell Lores rather than just spells written on unit profiles was taken from previous Warhammer Fantasy editions.  Relic item lists are already pretty much just the magic items from previous Warhammer editions.  Endless Spells are effectively the old "Remains in Play" spells that have existed in Fantasy for multiple editions - just with a slight tweak for who gets to move them around (most of them just used to move randomly in subsequent turns).

Fantasy was around for quite a long time.  I like Age of Sigmar, but I also very much like that it seems that the GW designers keep looking to that game and picking out some of the better ideas that it developed over time.  That game had a lot of lessons learned (and forgotten) over it's lifetime.

I am ok with the current system of relics with the exception that it sucks that you have to have a battalion in order to get extras.  I don't mind a battalion granting another relic, I just find it annoying that it is the only way to get them.  It further separates the armies that have access to battalions and the ones that don't.  If there were some generic battalions then that would solve the issue. 

But, one issue people have with the huge list of items that GW added to the game is that so many of them are massively overshadowed by better relics and many are completely redundant.  This is going to happen when every relic effectively costs the same amount.  People all seem ok with Endless Spells having point costs - why would putting point costs on relics be a bad thing?

[Skabnoze]

4 hours ago, Mephisto said:

This is the change I foresee. 1/turn/unit.  

I could also see GW limiting the amount of times a specific character can use a command ability per turn.  That way if you wanted to drop a specific command ability 4 times in a single turn on different units then you would need to have 4 of that hero around to do it.

I could see them making this change.  There are good arguments for and against this change I would say.