Chapter Tactics is a 40k podcast which focuses on promoting better tactical play and situational awareness across all variations of the game. Today the guys cover the NOVA Open live Twitch cast, and go over faction data, and top lists featured at the tournament.
Show Notes:
- If you want to look at the NOVA stats we talked about click here!
- Our Sponsor the Iron Halo put out a promo video! Check it out!
- Don’t forget to check out our new sponsor! Broken Egg Games.
- Click here for a link for information on downloading best coast pairings app where you can find lists for most of the events I mention.
- Check out the last episode of Chapter Tactics here. Or, click here for a link to a full archive of all of my episodes.
- Commercial music by Music by: www.bensound.com
- Intro by: Justin Mahar
Need help with a list idea? Got a rules question? Want to talk tactics? Then email me at…
frontlinegamingpeteypab@gmail.com
Please do not send an army list in a format such as Army Builder, send them in an easy to read, typed format. Thanks!
I just LOVE the variety at the top tables!
The 8th buy-models-phase is just awesome, at least for geedub stock.
Who ever said power armour codexes were dead outside the fluffy garage game..scouts do really fine. Lets nerf them along with another +10p on guillaman!
Eagerly awaiting the upcoming CA. Tactical marines clearly need a point hike.
Dark eldar – nothing to see, they just need a few buffs and more cheap CPs.
Soups and broken CP systems? Pff, L2P I say!
Solo deathwing could just as easily have taken all the top spots.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/763290.page
I love it when you agree with me Reece:)
You really should learn to play, though. It might perhaps validate some of the opinions you so love to spout.
welp, you’re a bit of a cancerstick. Seems like you have a very low level understanding of the game to go hand in hand with it. Which person in that thread are you, what are you even referencing?
Here’s some very cool data: https://imgur.com/gallery/pSauuJL
It’s “How many top 20+ ppl tournament lists had these units in the summer season” (so 9 squads of infantry is still “once in the list!)
Conclusions I can draw: wow AdMech are terrible. They won 0 tournaments in the summer. That’s crazy. There are some units at the “taken once” because admech made it to top 3 once.
Necrons are basically carried by vaults. If that gets nerfed – RIP. Oh and greater daemons suck :p
BTW, the list has a few enginseers and dragoons. That’s because enginseers are in IG lists and the dragoon+enginseer spam does well in team tournaments because you can match them against gunlines (-2 to be hit)
Yeah, unfortunately AdMech is sitting in a fairly similar bucket to Grey Knights and Necrons right now where they essentially have one gimmick (I would argue that it is Electropriests), and outside of that gimmick the army is essentially dead. They do at least have the advantage of some other semi-decent units (Dragoons, Onagers, Kastellans), but the core of the army is in a pretty sorry state overall.
The data on unit counts is definitely interesting, although we should be careful not to confuse it with data on success rates, because popularity and effectiveness are not the same thing. The Tiger Shark, for example, is almost completely absent representation in those charts despite being one of the most consistently high-performing units in the Tau arsenal; however, since it is an extremely expensive addition to the army (as you really need two of them to get it to work, and they will run you $300 or so apiece) they show very little presence in the charts there.
Still, it’s an interesting data set for visualization purposes if nothing else.
This is the top 3/53ths of every 20+ player tournament in the summer. So while top 3 of every big tournament doesn’t tell the tale of the META, top 3 of every single tournament (Even RTTs at 20+) should really start ringing some bells if a faction can’t win ONE. Or alternativelly if a model, that came out in the middle of summer (Dominus knight) topped the chart.
Oh, sure- like I said, there’s definitely some useful takeaways here. But just like the info we talked about in the podcast, we also shouldn’t mistake the data for any kind of absolute determiner.
That is super fun data.
I watched all the vods (I finally subbed). This is the only time that channel held my attention for more than a couple of minute because it was competitive people talking about competitive games – and not “professional”, censored casual players trying to talk competitive where they call every move “ok” to “good”
And before anyone asks, here is the link to the data file we’re referencing.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yMFHpvtKAgTbTT0MuUYUiPSRov9yZ88m/view?usp=sharing
That data doesn’t load for me. I get 3 tabs, but the 1st 2 are empty.
Yeah, apparently there are some display errors when you load it online? We had the same problem with the last sheets. But if you download it, the whole thing should be there.
That fixes it. Thanks.
I don’t understand this idea that Castellan (Ynnari, whatever) may not be overpowered/correction-worthy because they can be beaten by SOME lists.
Balance means you can beat them (ideally 50% of the time, given roughly equal player skill) by EVERY list. It needs to be even against all-Kroot, double-Starter-Box Primaris played as White Scars, footslogging all-Slaanesh Daemons, etc.. whatever.
Balance is, as the ideal to strive (but obviously never fully achieve) for, balanced against all mathematically possible combination of units available in all books in the game, making the win a true “it’s the player, irrespective of what models they are using”.
Obviously it’ll never be there, but the playtest should, ideally, have Andrew Gonyo and Nick N or whoever play the Castellan list against, say, an all-Deathwing list and an all-Harlequins list without Bikes, etc.. , switch players and lists and adjust points until it’s a 50/50 match whatever the list might be.
The thing is, that level of balance (“absolute balance”) is virtually impossible to achieve- I’m not aware of ANY game that has managed it, regardless of the level of playtesting. There will virtually always be some options that are stronger than others due to any number of factors- the missions used, player inclinations, metagame factors, etc.
And adjusting point values is not enough, especially when it comes to synergetic effects- some units/effects may be fine in 99% of cases but broken in a small handful. (See, for example, the 7E Mega-Wolfstar, which used an otherwise-unremarkable formation to achieve some incredibly broken effects.) Simply changing the prices on units is not, by itself, enough to balance them, because some units will not have an “appropriately costed” middle ground; they will go from broken to useless even within a very small window of price points.
Moreover, I don’t think that literally every list even SHOULD have an equal chance of winning. If you use some sort of random generator to piece together a 2000pt list, that list should not be able to stand on an equal footing with a top-tier tournament army- not because there need to be bad units in the game, but because list design itself is a skill and should require effort on the players’ part to do correctly, just as game play should. I agree that all codices should ideally have multiple viable builds, but the idea that literally every army should have an equal chance of winning is as absurd as saying that every player should have an equal chance of winning- what you are describing is Rock/Paper/Scissors, i.e. a game with no skill component at all.
Also, at no point during the podcast do we say that Ynnari or Castellan lists are fine- in fact, all three of us argue the opposite, that they are almost certainly in need of some kind of correction because they are clearly over-dominant. Just so that is clear.
A) I agree that adjusting points values is not enough. I was oversimplifying there. True, a lot of the issues is how can one point cost fairly represent a Ynnari Spear unit AND an Ulthwe Spear unit, a Raven Castellan with CP farm AND a House Terryn Castellan without CP farm, a Prophets of Flesh Grotesque with 4++ and one with just a 5++, etc..
I also know that level of balance is never fully achievable, but as a game designer, it just be the ideal to strive for, at least in the broad sense that every army needs a fighting chance against every other army.
Not to mention that I think an army made from one or two boxes of the Dark Imperium starter should be a good benchmark to balance everything against, simply because it is literally the starter they sell.
The goal of game design should certainly to make all units viable choices on some level- units should have a purpose and a unique role in the game, and you want players to be able to make decisions about which ones to include and what sorts of armies they build. But the reality is that a lot of other factors unfortunately intrude on this- and GW’s design philosophy and the fluff of the setting are major limiters on things. How do you make all of the sixteen thousand varieties of “some Marines in power armor who can bring a couple of special weapons” units all equally viable? Realistically speaking, you probably can’t.
I would have to disagree with regards to Dark Imperium being some kind of “balance point” for the game. Just because the units are in the starter box doesn’t mean they necessarily should form the core of many/most armies- indeed, since they are intentionally chosen as units that are simpler than most, we should often expect them to be _less_ attractive than other choices for veteran players. (That said, though, the problem right now is that the design ethos for MEQ units is pretty bad, which is most of what makes the starter box so bad from a competitive standpoint.)
I’m hoping that GW will do… something to go back and revisit the “weak” armies in the game once all of the codices have dropped. Maybe Chapter Approved will help some with points adjustments? Or maybe we’ll see re-releases of some of the weaker books to try and fix them up? Honestly, I’m not really sure what the best solution is, because it’s pretty clear at this point that it isn’t simply an issue of “earlier books were weaker” (although that is the case to some degree), but really more of “power armor is just bad.” And, unfortunately, that comes from the current way of doing AP on weapons- something that lots of people denied was going to happen when 8E came out, but those of us who remember back to 2E saw it coming all along. When AP-3 and AP-4 cut your guys in half regardless of cover, power armor just isn’t worth the points.
What are your thoughts on factions that have no representation? I am the only person playing Slaanesh Chaos Daemons in 40k ITC (https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/bcpplayers?league=EDE6GOXNvc&faction=bCsj6AHmnz&embed=true/).
Grey Knights aren’t great but they are still better off than my faction has been this entire edition.
Hmm. That’s a pretty broad question in a lot of ways, so I’ll kind of just answer it piecemeal. I think Slaanesh definitely got the short end of the stick when it came to the Daemons codex- while Nurgle, Tzeentch, and Khorne have all seen varying amounts of play in various successful tournament armies, Slaanesh has not, because its gimmick is very weak. Slaanesh units are fast… but not fast enough to get those critical first-turn charges in most cases, especially not on longer deployments (Hammer/Anvil, etc.) Slaaneshi units have lots of attacks, but not really all that many more than their Khornate equivalents. Long story short, anything Slaanesh does someone else does better, and that’s in a book that is itself considered noticably sub-par in the first place.
(I do like your army, btw.)
Have we played before?
More on the lines now that players can say that “Grey Knights” or “Cult Mechanicus” or “Necrons”, are lower tier armies because they have a small win percentage. Or that they don’t score high amounts of VP to be contenders. Or that people who play this faction only use units X, Y, Z, but not A, B, C.
The hook of these discussions is that these codices need attention because they are underperforming. And it is excellent there is a way to quantify codices or factions, performance.
But there are also factions that are completely absent because of low viability which has no representation. Like “White Scars” SM or “Emperor’s Children” CSM or “Iyanden” Craftworld. Which to me imply there is something worst off for these factions that aren’t being played at all, but there is no data to represent this. Without data is this even on anyone’s radar be it the player base or GW?
Which I feel is the flaw of with how this data is being reported. It should list all the chapter tactics and codex/index armies out. Showing that a faction isn’t being played at all is also a useful metric on performance.
I don’t believe I’ve ever played you, though some of my friends have and I’ve seen your army at tournaments.
Subfactions (such as White Scars, Slaanesh Daemons, etc) actually are included in the data set as used- Peter included all the info on all of the subfactions listed for every detachment. I would have to check and see if it would let you filter win percentages by subfaction, but I know that info is in there. If anything, the reason it isn’t immediately presented/discussed is that it’s simply a level of granularity that becomes difficult to do any analysis on, especially on the less-popular choices- it’s hard to draw conclusions from a data set with only one point.
I think you are missing the point sean. If I may summarize, there is basically an entire class of factions and subfactions that are so bad they don’t even get put on the table.
So your classes would be more accurately posted as
First class:>60% win percentage
Second class: Roughly 45-55% win percentage
Third class: <40%
Hidden underclass of literally so bad they are not brought to tournaments even by fluff players.
I think it's a good point. Any faction or subfaction not even on the list should immediately be looked at for massive help.
I mean, I’m not gonna say that “underclass” of factions without play doesn’t exist, but it’s not as though we’re pretending they don’t exist- Assassins and Inquisition, for example, have zero results in the most recent data but are still listed in the data.
What Paul is talking about is a very specific sub-question; the data for which subfaction choices are being made is there, the author of the document simply didn’t go out of his way to extrapolate all of those numbers in addition to the others because it’s not necessarily a good use of his time. I don’t doubt there are people that find it interesting and informative, but for the wider audience at large they aren’t really concerned about the relative win percentages between Black Legion and Alpha Legion, for example; they want to know how Chaos Space Marines as a whole are doing.
I would also disagree that “underused” subfactions should be prioritized for immediate changes; I think that making entire factions that are struggling (such as Necrons, Daemons, or AdMech) should be a much higher priority than specific subfactions that don’t see as much play (like, say, White Scars.) It is fairly trivial for a player to change which subfaction they choose to use- even if some may not want to for personal reasons. But players cannot so easily change the armies they own, so making sure that every codex has at least one functional build should be higher on the list I feel.
I actually did break down win percentages by subfaction in that second sheet. I have more information I could add to that specific breakdown but did not feel it added much more value to the viewer. Representation was more what I was looking to convey.
As to the reason sub-factions without representation do not show up in the data? It is twofold. 1 because that just how I built the pivot tables and 2 because I felt that a lack of data would be enough data in and of itself.
I don’t believe anyone that would have a hand in balancing the game would simply ‘forget’ that factions like White Scars or Slaanesh exist and I would hope that they would be able to look at the chart and not be confused as to why those factions are not even there (though Slaanesh does have 1 entry, I believe).
I wholeheartedly believe that subfactions should be re-evaluated. Particularly in the older books. As AP says, though, I think a hard look at armies like Grey Knights and Necrons should be done first.
And I don’t think the Rock Paper Scissors analogy is good. Something like Go, Chess or maybe computer games like Starcraft would be better analogies. You can still do bad moves, if armies are balanced.
The downside to having unbalanced armies is, as much as people insist, that winning tournaments with “good lists” (i.e. a mathematical advantage) invalidates the skill element, which might be there and might not be there, but cannot be seen as the determining factor beyond reasonable doubt.
If 2 people have a car race and one car simply drives 10% faster, victory is ultimately irrelevant to determining “player skill” in any meaningful way.
But even in the context of car races, there are pre-game choices to be made. Most formats allow the racers to customize their car to some degree, and in that sense there are tradeoffs and choices to be made in terms of what aspects of the design the racer chooses. I would argue that is analogous to the process of list design, where the player has a limited pool of resources and has to make decisions about what factors are most important to an army.
(That said, though there definitely are some armies out there who are playing with the “10% faster car” right now, although it is at least not the same situation as 7E where the metaphorical cars were sometimes 100% faster or more.)
Bruh, chess is imbalanced. White has a consistently higher winrate. 40k has no hope lol
Also, the Queen is totally imba. Nerf nobles, buff pawns or I’m quitting this shitty game tia.
I think Go is the closest to a perfectly balanced two player alternating turn game, with the handicap system it has to balance out the first turn advantage. It’s still not perfect, tho.
Go’s handicap for the first player has consistently risen over the years though, hasn’t it? I’m not terribly knowedgeable about the game, but that is one of the tidbits I remember. Even in games that are very nearly symmetrical, the advantage (or disadvantage) of going first can be a significant influence.
Like I said, still not perfect. It’s just closer than any other example I can think of.
Unbalanced lists do not invalidate the skill element, unless they’re somehow literally unbeatable. They can reduce the impact of in-game skill, but they don’t remove it. And some of that reduction is isn’t actually lost, it’s just shifted to pre-game skill.
Also, because the game involves randomness, it will never be 100% determined by player skill. There will (rarely, but they will occur) be games that are essentially determined by the fact that one player failed too many important rolls and/or the other player succeeded at too many of them. There will be more that are determined because the random outcomes shifted things enough that one player’s skill wasn’t sufficient to overcome it, but they could theoretically have still won.
That’s never what anyone means when they say balance. Obviously it’s possible to just write a bad list and not expect to do well with it, because certain units are intended for certain purposes.
I know Pablo makes some silly observations at times, but it’s quickly becoming a Chapter Tactics tradition for Sean to just disagree with everything he says lol
I mean, it’s basically my raison d’etre!
Hey, AP was at his best this episode IMO. Like a voice of reason. Pablo was saying silly stuff, Val was memeing (which is great BTW).
Oh I agree. The addition of AP to the panel was a great move, because he balances Pablos odd observations with cold hard reason
Great job as always guys, I will get right on the odds-making.
Also, quick fact check, it should have been said that there were 350 cultists between 2 lists not 2 lists with 350 each. Much less impressive, I know.
As a stubborn SW player I feel the need to defend Long Fangs (“LFs”) in your Castellan scenario. You brushed them off as having no chance of surviving
The new SW stratagems give us a safe and reliable LF strike unless we face an army with Agents of Vect
-Cunning of the wolf on your LFs during deployment. If you are off the board the Castellan can’t alpha strike you. 2 CP puts 2 LFs safely away
-Keen senses when you walk onto the board erases the -1 for walking with a heavy weapon
Turn 1 you should have range with lascannons to walk into your own DZ and fire LF#1 (1 CP)
-Wolf’s eye will let us reroll wounds using the lascannons (1 CP)
-Repeat turn 2 but now you can go outside your DZ if you desire
The stratagems to pull this off are moderately costly. It takes 6 CP total to pull this combo off with 2 dedicated LF units.
Your end result is guaranteed anti tank fire on the castellan hitting on 3’s rerolling 1s and wounding on 3’s rerolling all failed wounds.
You can pack 5 lascannons and even add in 2 cyclone missiles with a wolf guard pack leader if you want to go all in.
The hardest part is getting past the 3++ from Ion Bulwark and Rotate Ion shields…
You can certainly do all of this, and yeah, you can protect those Long Fangs on turn 1 by hiding them off the board… but that won’t save them for turn 2, because the Castellan will have shot them to death, and unless you are also dedicating a Rune Priest (and 3 more CP) to trying to keep them alive, then there is no reasonable way they can eat a turn of shooting from the Castellan and live.
And, as you note, even with all that going for you, those Lascannons simply don’t have much chance of breaking through the Castellan’s 3++; even assuming you are getting all the rerolls possible, you’re still looking at ~6 damage pushed through per turn, assuming the Castellan player doesn’t even bother to reroll any of their saves- which, naturally, they will.
Bit concerning when the dedicated anti-heavy unit can’t so muh as scratch the paint on the biggest juiciest target outside of FW, no? Loved the podcast, btw.
Yeah, that 3++ save is just too much, especially when you have multiple rerolls available per turn. It also doesn’t help that GW has some weird ideas in terms of how effective/valuable d6 damage weapons are, and has completely missed the point that the “expendable” bodies are actually the most important part of a Devastator squad, because they keep the big guns alive and shooting longer at a minimal cost.
I was about to write in the exact same thing as well. To ad a rebuttal to abusepuppy’s response, that there are other targets that a Castellan is going to consider as well. Even with the invul nerf, blizzard dreads can be scary to a castellan and not to mention the Thunder Wolves, Wulfen and other slam captain variants carrying thunder hammers. Castellan is going to have some target issues, not to mention us Wolves having a Castellan come along with us as well.
How and if a Castellan deals with those units are all a completely different matter. Remember, the army still has 1400pts of other units in it above and beyond the Castellan, and many of them are very dangerous.
Val and Sean do so much for the podcast. Bringing Pablo back to focus when he goes off on a tangent.
Pablo, it might flow a bit easier if you used a more detailed outline. That way you have your thoughts more collected. Also, you could throw a section to one of the co-hosts, to lead the discussion so you can provide color commentary without having to also direct the flow.
I love this data, but there’s a pretty important element missing that skews the results. By not including the opponent’s information for each round, you skew towards the middle on mirror matches. This is only really relevant on the largest faction / detachement counts, but it matters when you compare factions.
Example: IG+BA+Knights play each other X number of times. The winning percentage of that matchup is exactly 50%. The more you have that matchup, the more the winning % is not reflective of faction’s actual value.
That doesn’t mean the data is incorrect, but it does mean some of the results drawn from the data are incorrect. The various takeaways are all related to faction or chapter win percentage, but we are comparing one faction’s win percentage versus another’s.
Maybe I’m missing something in the data, but to me, it looks like the impact of the most popular codexes (IG,Knights,BA) skew their value downward as they currently have a win % above 50 and have large enough numbers of lists that they are virtually guaranteed to play each other multiple times in a tournament.
You are absolutely correct that primary win% data will be skewed closer to 50% due to the fact that a faction will play itself more frequently the greater its preponderance in the meta. It is something I have been thinking about as I collect the information. This normally would not be so much of a problem if there was a mostly even spread of faction representation, however that is obviously not the case. The numbers are not so great of yet where they are drastically dragging these lists closer to a 50% mean but it is something I have been monitoring and planning to tackle by adding an additional table with a full Faction Vs Faction breakdown highlighting Avg primary faction win rates vs other factions.
It was a feature I was considering anyway, but due to the massive amount of data coming out of Nova and the other updates I had applied to the sheet for this run I put it on the shelf until next weekend.
My plan is to have the sheet updated prior to Socal Open with this so long as the gods allow it. But they are fickle, it will require some extra brute-forcing, and my Deathwatch are not painting themselves.
It’s refreshing to hear AP calling out GW on some of their shit, especially rules related.
We need some objectivity from time to time, boys.
Also Pablo for the love of god please don’t eat on the podcast next time
But I didn’t eat anything? I was having coughing fits around the time my little stinkbomb showed up, and sneezed a few times. But I usually mute my mic when it happens.
Weird, like halfway through for about 5 minutes you sounded like a chewy boy. Oh well, must of been something else lol
Joe’s Custode army was gorgeous. There’s just no other way to describe it!
It seriously was. He was a very nice dude, too.
Just gonna say… BAO, the Castellan lists didn’t float to the top. #terminatorsaretheanswer!
I mean, it kinda did. There were several Castellan lists with 5-1 finishes, they just didn’t happen to be the army that won things.
I will definitely admit that the skill level/practice requirement to make the castellan list function is significantly lower than use of a list that utilizes blightlords as 1/4 of its army.
Yeah, we actually saw that multiple Knight lists defeated the Castellan lists consistently.
I mean, not at NOVA, surely? The Castellan lists pretty strongly triumphed over the multi-Knight lists at that event, from all of the standings I’ve seen.
I haven’t dug into it form NOVA yet but that was the case at BAO. Jack Harpster came over to BAO with “the list” and was defeated by Salty John with a multi-Knight list.
Not proof positive or anything but that is what we observed.
I think drawing a conclusion like that from a single event is pretty bad usage of data. Knight lists in general tend to fare poorly against hordes of infantry (which the Castellan list functions as in a lot of ways) and the Knight army can only protect one of its 3-4 guys with Rotate Ion Shields each turn, whereas the Castellan can protect its singular big dude much more easily. The Castellan list also can easily field 2-3 Smash Captains, which are each individually a match for a single Knight in combat.
I think it’s a winnable match for the Knight player, especially if they can get their Gallant(s) into combat with the Castellan or other stuff, but I definitely wouldn’t favor them overall.
In looking at the game by game data over multiple tournaments, the multi-knight vs single castellan lists tend to actually favor the single Castellan at least win/loss ratio. This is, of course, keeping in mind that not every multi-knight or single Castellan list is created equally.
The list that actually seems to have the most success right now from a purely numerical standpoint against the single knight is some combination of Drukhari, Harlequins and Aeldari/Ynnari.
Well, there you have it. My opinion was drawn from observational data, but if the numbers bear it out then not much arguing that.
How did Reecius go overall in the mains with his Marine list?
I got 15th overall.
do you have a link to your list? I have been trying to run a lev dread and devs for my ultramarines
I think giving mics to the players is not a good idea. Have a sideline correspondent there to ask questions or just listen in and then report back.
great cast and enjoy the nova review. as much as i just want gw to hit knights with a nerf bat i know it is not the answer. i agree with the statement of wait a couple more events. the only thing i am worried about is if someone does come up the counter to the “ultimate” list than it will be over powered and then they are the issue. the game is in constant ebb and flow and think that is what makes the competitive scene so amazing. it draws me further in to try harder and building list or learning how to win still. it creates the challenge instead of hitting the easy button on the ig/ba/ik list.
Anyone try out the 1 true counter to the castellan list? QUANTUM SHIELDING!
Cawl’s Wrath and the Twin Autocannons on the shoulders are all Dmg2. They chop up Quantum vehicles pretty easily.
My joke was obviously misunderstood, but it definitely slows calls wrath down and the siege breaker cannons are d3 dmg, if that is what you are thinking of.
Ultimately, I think Abusepuppy is putting the castellan on an unrealistic pedestal. It is good, great even. But making it out to be an immortal model that fights off armies on its own is a bit silly.
It is widely regarded as the single most powerful model in the game by a lot of players, including Nick Nanavati. And unlike the Smash Captain, it is extremely hard to get rid of regardless of circumstances, as most weapons just can’t do any real damage to it. It won’t usually fight a whole army on its own, but under some circumstances (e.g. a heavy mech list) it will, and that is saying something.
It might not be immortal, but it’s pretty near to for a lot of lists. Unless you have a good way to deal mortal wounds to it, deal significant damage in close combat, or strip away that 3++, you just aren’t going to be able to kill a Castellan before it gets rid of most of the units shooting at it.
Command points should only be usable by the detachment that generates them. Nice easy fix.
It sounds simple, but it’s actually very complicated because now you have to track three different sets of command points during the course of a game.
What do you think about only being able to roll to regain CP if a stratagem from the codex whose relic / trait is being used?