Ice_can wrote: Can you explain how you have 600-700 points left in your marines plus castellan list with 13 CP as thats 2 battalion plus a Castellan?
2 Smash Captains and 3 scout squads are 423 points, 2 Lieutenants and 3 Scouts are 293 points and a Castellan is 604. Which is a total of 1320 points and 13 starting CP. You can of course get this cheaper by using an Admech battalion, but I though I’d use the bad Marines as an example.
To all people saying that Infantry Squads are fine because they are a defensive unit and should be durable because thats IG quirck... do you now that Poxwalkers, the cheap chaff unit of the "Durable" God of Chaos, without armor (So ignore AP) and without any shooting attack... are less efficient agaisnt anti-infantry fire than Infantry Squads?
Even when you consider morale, something Poxwalkers ignore.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
Why ambush can be used only once? It's deployment so unless strategem says otherwise can be spammed.
Oh and jury rigging very strong...No movement, whopping 1 hull point. Whee.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
Why ambush can be used only once? It's deployment so unless strategem says otherwise can be spammed.
Oh and jury rigging very strong...No movement, whopping 1 hull point. Whee.
For some reason I had Ambush in my head as having a “1 use only” restriction. My bad, if it’s not the case.
That said, if you want to use Ambush multiple times in a game, sure, go ahead. With my suggestion of only being able to farm CP back via Grand Strategist, using Ambush multiple times on multiple Infantry squads and a couple of vehicles, it’s going to eat up the starting CP figure pretty quickly.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
I posted the values earlier but Grand Strategists and Kurov's turn that battalion from providing 5CP to 10CP in an avarage game.
So devide 180 points by 10 CP and its 18 points for each CP even without the regen they still pay on the lowest end.
Outflank Can be used on 1 LoW or on an entire squadron(another thing other factions don't generally have acess to)
Jurry rigging is out of phase so technically unlimited uses per turn.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
I posted the values earlier but Grand Strategists and Kurov's turn that battalion from providing 5CP to 10CP in an avarage game.
So devide 180 points by 10 CP and its 18 points for each CP even without the regen they still pay on the lowest end.
Outflank Can be used on 1 LoW or on an entire squadron(another thing other factions don't generally have acess to)
Jurry rigging is out of phase so technically unlimited uses per turn.
Isn’t the “start of the turn” the start of the movement phase? As such Jury Rigging would be in a phase? Just going off the battle primer turn breakdown.
Spoiler:
Warhammer 40,000 is played in a series of battle rounds. During each battle round, both players have a turn. The same player always takes the first turn in each battle round – the mission you are playing will tell you which player this is. Each turn consists of a series of phases, which must be resolved in order. The phases are as follows:
1.Movement phase Move any units that are capable of doing so.
2.Psychic phase Psykers can use powerful mental abilities.
3.Shooting phase Your units may shoot enemy units.
4.Charge phase Your units may move into close combat against enemy units.
5.Fight phase Both players’ units pile in and attack with melee weapons.
6.Morale phase Test the courage of depleted units.
Once a player’s turn has ended, their opponent then starts their turn. Once both players have completed a turn, the battle round has been completed and the next one begins, and so on, until the battle is concluded.
Once the game begins there isn’t a “step” between start of your turn and the start of the movement phase, so surely it’ll follow the standard restrictions?
How many times are you expecting to roll for Aquilla in a standard game? 9?
It also goes to show that the issue isn’t with the points cost of the Guard, rather their ability to farm CP.
When looking at a pure Guard army, is the amount of stratagems said army is able to use, seriously a problem?
For me, the problem lies with other codices being able to benefit from the CP regeneration of the Guard, not the fact that when looking at a basic minimum battalion the Guard have superior cost per CP after regeneration figures.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
I have to agree with this one. Smashcaptains and IKs would not work that well with LIMITED (as intended) number of CPs (which is guaranteed by the nerf of both Kurov's Aquila/Veritas Vitae and Grand Strategist WL).
We could then argue that Guard brings too many CPs to the table for their cost, but nevertheless they would still burn all their CPs in 2 turns if they were to play that list without the aid of the aforementioned Relics/WL.
Ice_can wrote: The Renegade are paying 37 points per CP to guards 18 points per CP.
You keep bringing up this 18 point value.
Firstly - I must be missing something. 180pts of guardsmen and captains gives you 5 CP and recycles 1.66 - so 27pts per CP,... ?
Secondly - for this number to be valid your entire army must consist of un-upgraded guardsmen and company commanders.
When looked at over 2000 points, then, yes, the figures don’t work. But, if we are looking at things from a battalion only point of view, then, they do.
As for the 18 figure, it appears to be taking into account expected CP regeneration. For example, Grand Strategist would expect to turn the 5 CP into 7CP. In addition to that, the Aquilla will provide the user with an additional 3CP over a battle (expected to roll for it 9 times over a battle). Overall, it’d give you an expected usage of 10 CP for the cost of 180 points. (One could argue when looking at battalion v battalion, you’d only expect to roll for Aquilla maybe 2.5 times on average, which would greatly change the figure)
As you say, it only works when looking at battalion vs battalion though, and also ignores the viability of said particular battalions.
Kdash wrote: When looked at over 2000 points, then, yes, the figures don’t work.
When looked at over any amount of points the figures don't work.
The one thing all the soup lists have in common are expensive, powerful units to use those command points - when you exclude those units from the cost it becomes rather meaningless IMO, especially as all of the 'comparative' rates are including the cost of the more powerful units those armies are fielding.
The aquilla is just number-fudging, and to some extent the warlord trait as well. They are powerful abilities but should not be presented baked into a value to exaggerate an already poor comparison.
I do love how there was such clamor to get the top 25, then when we have them, "That list is bad - it's so easy to do better" whenever something we disagree with pops up.
Something I just realized. If I field a Death Guard Tallyman, it can only bring back CP for DEATH GUARD stratagems I use. Why can grand strategist bring back CP for other armies' stratagems?
In general I see no issue with imperial guardsmen screening space marines or knights. The main issue seems to be the amount of CP you get on top of those efficient objective-holders - and it's not even about those 5 CP it's about 5CP plus one third of your enemy's CP plus multiplying all your CP with Grand Stategist.
Assuming Alex Ing faces the first placed list, just the minimal AM battalion yields 16-17 CP on average (5 + 3 stolen + 8-9 regenerated), for just about 200 points. There is no question to whether this needs to be nerfed and paying 300 points won't be a nerf to anyone but those trying to field an actual guard army.
Limiting Grand Strategist to Guard stratagems only is probably a good start.
Earth127 wrote: limit X to not work with soup in general is a good idea.
Man the most frustrating part of all this is AoS is doing it better atm.
This is interesting to me, since I think that 40k would work a lot better with that type of ally system in place. The problem is that they can't really implement it into the game at this point, since there's too much that would need to be changed. Hopefully factions that don't have the choice for allies don't end up being left in a bad state with the current system, as these results are indicating.
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply:
- Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction.
- Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total).
- Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one.
- If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems.
- If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems.
etc.
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply: - Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction. - Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total). - Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one. - If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems. - If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems. etc.
This could work, but I would allow the subfactions to still use the generated CPs to use the BRB stratagems
I am also adamant that Battalions should go back to only 3CPs and Battle Forged should give more by default. Something like 2-3CPs per 500pts. Every faction can be Battle Forged, so that is where the bulk of CPs should come from. Limiting Strats, relics and detachment generated CPs to the WL's faction works well after this.
Ice_can wrote: The Renegade are paying 37 points per CP to guards 18 points per CP.
You keep bringing up this 18 point value.
Firstly - I must be missing something. 180pts of guardsmen and captains gives you 5 CP and recycles 1.66 - so 27pts per CP,... ?
Secondly - for this number to be valid your entire army must consist of un-upgraded guardsmen and company commanders.
I posted with and without maximum faction reg figures earlier guard come out as lowest point per CP bar index rouges and heritcs so far, and the difference is 2 points per CP for no warlord, triats or strategums.
As to the 18
5cp for battalion, spend 3 get 1 back GS leaving 3 spend those get another back GS again. Steal 2 from the enemy via Kurov's you now have 3 to spend and get 1 back with GS for a grand total of 10CP assuming the enemy only allowed you to steel 2 CP. Which would likely be way higher.
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply:
- Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction.
- Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total).
- Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one.
- If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems.
- If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems.
etc.
Removes Allies from the game in one hit. And destroys SoS and Assasins who can not generate CP without allies.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
Then we have the -1 to hit haves and the -1 to hit have nots. The lists without -1 to hit can't get over the IG bar to ride the rollercoaster. IG needs more viable counters than to hit penalties.
All they really have to do is fix the crazy CP stuff to fix a lot of it.
Stratagem wombo combos will still be a thing, but I don't think there is any chance of them only allowing strategems from one faction, as much as that would probably help things
Maybe a more realistic change would be to allow mono faction armies to use their strategems twice per phase instead of once. It would be powerful, but only about as powerful as having the best strategems from 2-3 books? Just thinking out loud here.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
I think the issue is attaching CPs to the detachments that an army can fill. It really shouldn't have such a large disparity between factions in how many command points they could have, and it makes the allies system a bit more abusable.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
It's an easy trap to fall into, pieing each other. I brought up (obviously in my own mind) a very reasonable take on tackling the issue on the previous page and it went totally ignored.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Not "lets ban allies"
but there should be a downside. If there is no downside to allies then mono codex will always struggle and it will be almost impossible to balance xeno books without access to allies
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
Im a guard player and im 100% for getting rid of CP regeneration.... I think the entire game shouldn't have it but im willing to lead the way
Edit: but i do hope you realize that CP regeneration alone will not get rid of the need to soup and also will still leave soup the obvious choice 100% of the time. There needs to be some sort of a downside to souping or some sort of a bonus to playing mono
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
I don 't think Kurov's is the issue. TS have the same relic and it's not causing huge waves. Limiting Grand Strategist and similar abilities to <My Faction> stratagems only and it would half the impact of the CP battery for some armies.
I am also adamant that Battalions should go back to only 3CPs and Battle Forged should give more by default. Something like 2-3CPs per 500pts. Every faction can be Battle Forged, so that is where the bulk of CPs should come from.
Limiting Strats, relics and detachment generated CPs to the WL's faction works well after this.
Honestly, I think the whole CP system needs a complete redesign.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
As opposed to all the people desperate to hold onto their broken ally armies whilst insisting that mono-factions suffer the consequences?
Fractured Command If your army includes detachments from different subfactions (e.g. Imperial Guard and Space Marines), then you must declare one of those subfactions to be your Primary one. Once you do, the following restrictions apply:
- Your Warlord must be selected from your Primary subfaction.
- Detachments from other subfactions cannot generate Command Points (though any Auxiliary detachments will still reduce your Command Point total).
- Command Points may not be spent on Stratagems from other subfactions.
So, let's say a player wants to have an Imperial Knights detachment, a Blood Angels detachment and an Imperial Guard detachment. They have to choose one of those subfactions as their Primary one.
- If they choose Imperial Guard, then they have to select an Imperial Guard model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Blood Angel detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems.
- If they choose Blood Angels, then they have to select a Blood Angels model as their Warlord. In addition, their Imperial Knight and Imperial Guard detachments won't generate any CPs and nor will they be able to spend CPs on any Imperial Knight or Imperial Knight stratagems.
etc.
I think you mean Factions, not subfactions.
Factions are Space Marines, Guard, Necrons, etc
Subfactuins are <CHAPTER>, <REGIMENT>, <DYNASTY>
Would something along the lines of: You cannot exceed the Starting number of CPs be enough of a change?
Im not sure how were ever going to avoid players milking the CP farms. When I started 8th, my lists had maybe 5 CP. Midway through the year, I would have to bring 9 minimum. My last lists played a few months ago had 13 minimum. And thats just with CSM. CP farming is a big part of the list building.
If you limit CPs to the HQ detachment, or a Primary Faction keyword or something, maybe. But then we would just see tax Brigades anyway.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Not "lets ban allies"
but there should be a downside. If there is no downside to allies then mono codex will always struggle and it will be almost impossible to balance xeno books without access to allies
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
Im a guard player and im 100% for getting rid of CP regeneration.... I think the entire game shouldn't have it but im willing to lead the way
Edit: but i do hope you realize that CP regeneration alone will not get rid of the need to soup and also will still leave soup the obvious choice 100% of the time. There needs to be some sort of a downside to souping or some sort of a bonus to playing mono
I agree I think the first step would be battle forged CP is lost when you codex hop.
But Guard get cheap CP and to double dip in the regen pull while bring the most to the party.
Both of the above shouldn't touch mono armies but soup is stil viable.
Removing grand strategist and Kurov's and the battleforged CP takes a Guard CP battery from its current plus 10CP bonus to 2CP extra vrs potentially 5CP from your own faction battalion.
Give mono armies couple of CP more. It doesn't need to be anything more convoluted than that. You can include it in the battleforged CP bonus, mono armies get a bit more.
Honestly, I'd be fine with this: Battalions = 2CPs, Brigades = 5CPs no other detachment grants CPs. Aux stil -1
Battle Forged grants 3 CPs per 500pts of an army. So a 2000pts list starts with 12CPs and only gets additional CPs from Battalions/Brigades.
After that, if you want to make said Battalions/Brigades only generate CPs if they share 3 or more Faction keywords with the WL, that can work. But you should still allow allied factions to use their own Strats/Relic, etc to make them viable. What you've take away is using those subfactons as CP batteries, thus the major incentive for Soup, without removing allies entirely
Galef wrote: Honestly, I'd be fine with this:
Battalions = 2CPs, Brigades = 5CPs
no other detachment grants CPs. Aux stil -1
Battle Forged grants 3 CPs per 500pts of an army.
So a 2000pts list starts with 12CPs and only gets additional CPs from Battalions/Brigades.
After that, if you want to make said Battalions/Brigades only generate CPs if they share 3 or more Faction keywords with the WL, that can work.
But you should still allow allied factions to use their own Strats/Relic, etc to make them viable.
What you've take away is using those subfactons as CP batteries, thus the major incentive for Soup, without removing allies entirely
-
It's only incentive for one kind of soup (imperial). Eldar and chaos (and nids soon, I imagine) soup don't have CP regen crazy time but they are still way better than a mono codex simply because you get access to twice the strategems.
Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
I think those are workable solution for the CP issue. But soup will still be better than mono because you have more options and strats at little to no cost.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Same kinds of lists over and over again... once this kind of thing begins to happen in the world of MTG, Wizards begins to ban cards so that no one deck dominates the meta.
Well, Drukhari, Imperial Guard, and Imperium Soup are completely cominating the meta. Time for GW to get in there and make some changes to weapoins, points, etc... whatever is required so that we don't see the same lists at the top of every tournament every single time.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
I think those are workable solution for the CP issue. But soup will still be better than mono because you have more options and strats at little to no cost.
Its gonna have to be something very simple if its attached to a FAQ document or in a CA.
We are not going to get a whole new system of CP generation, with some complex way of adding and subracting. Don't we all recognise the type of bandaid fixes that usually come out? 8th has been about stripping out the complexities.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW sold some new expensive Knight kits, and they won a Tourny. That's good. And in the next few months were gonna see more Knight Killer type units (for Imperials and Eldar only) released, and a new Meta game will develop.
Whatever, I got lots of stuff to paint in the meantime.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
I think those are workable solution for the CP issue. But soup will still be better than mono because you have more options and strats at little to no cost.
Its gonna have to be something very simple if its attached to a FAQ document or in a CA.
We are not going to get a whole new system of CP generation, with some complex way of adding and subracting. Don't we all recognise the type of bandaid fixes that usually come out? 8th has been about stripping out the complexities.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW sold some new expensive Knight kits, and they won a Tourny. That's good. And in the next few months were gonna see more Knight Killer type units (for Imperials and Eldar only) released, and a new Meta game will develop.
Whatever, I got lots of stuff to paint in the meantime.
Agreed. I think the CP issue is the main problem, and once it's fixed GW can look at how soup is going then. I do think they should give something to mono factions to make them competitively viable, like maybe the ability to use their strategems twice per phase, but I don't think soup itself is ruining the game per se.
Im still a fan of inverting the CP system, and yes I know this wont happen as an update, its to big for that.
But every battleforged army starts with a reasonably big amount of CP's.
Every Detachment costs CP's instead of adds them. The bigger the Detachment the less CP's it costs.
Say everyone starts with 15 CP. Adding a Brigade costs you 2. A battalion 4 or a Patrol would cost you 8 (Numbers completely plucked out of the sky, they are not relevant for demonstration purposes).
This means that a Mono army is likely to be able to field a single big detachment and so has lots of CP's.
Adding is allies costs you CP"s and while you get more stratagems, you will have less CP to spend on them.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It is a sensible suggestion and addresses the actual problem but it doesn't result the soup becoming unplayable so many people are not satisfied.
LunarSol wrote: Should Brigades even be a thing? Are they really even a viable option for anyone other than Guard?
Craftworld Eldar can make relatively cheap Brigades, as strange as that sounds. And Tyranids, I believe. Maybe Orks. So basically they are there for the Horde armies.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It is a sensible suggestion and addresses the actual problem but it doesn't result the soup becoming unplayable so many people are not satisfied.
There's a difference between making soup fair and making it "unplayable". There are absolutely zero negatives, and only benefits to taking soup. As a player I can pick and choose the best units, I have access to all stratagems for the faction (no matter how few points I spend on these allies) and I have access to all their relics/psychic powers (if a psyker is taken). There is literally no downside.
In a world where some factions are unable to soup, this is completely unfair. I can't decide to sure up my Orks' weakness at range by taking a few Leman Russes or beef up my Stompas by replacing them with the cheaper (and better) IK. It makes no sense on a balance level that some armies have the ability to do this while others do not. This is both fundamentally and technically imbalanced.
In addition it is far, far harder to balance units in an individual codex when souping exists. GW cannot catch all the instances of interactions between codexes and sub factions so we get the situation we're in now where players effectively take exploits of rule interactions with other rule interactions for which they were never intended. Remind you of anything?
The problem isn't just CP generation or regeneration. The problem isn't that certain factions can add more CP for less to a global pool for an otherwise elite army. The problem isn't just the ability to take the most efficient units. The problem isn't that a particular unit costs x when it should cost y. The problemS are all of these things combined.
I understood that the idea of the flexibility for our current detachments and souping was to allow fluffy and narrative play. If a player wants to take an IG battalion with a Grey Knight force he should be able to. He shouldn't be punished for this. I agree with this entirely. However, for competitive play, that strives to be as balanced as possible, wouldn't it make sense that all armies at least started on the same podium? That they can either take allies or they can't? If you want to take a fluffy, narrative list, play a narrative game.
IMO, soup has very little, to no place in competitive 40k. It is a nightmare to balance, it is a nightmare to organise and it will always, by definition, be stronger than a non-soup list of the same faction.
If it must stay, then there should be 2 different tournament levels, one for mono armies and another for soup armies. The discrepancy is too large and difficult to overcome. It literally stops me attending tournaments.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
That's a lot of assumptions. To be sure, though, I never said I thought that soup was the only issue. But sure. Everyone else should suffer instead of making any changes to the current ally system.
Ordana wrote: Im still a fan of inverting the CP system, and yes I know this wont happen as an update, its to big for that.
But every battleforged army starts with a reasonably big amount of CP's.
Every Detachment costs CP's instead of adds them. The bigger the Detachment the less CP's it costs.
Say everyone starts with 15 CP. Adding a Brigade costs you 2. A battalion 4 or a Patrol would cost you 8 (Numbers completely plucked out of the sky, they are not relevant for demonstration purposes).
This means that a Mono army is likely to be able to field a single big detachment and so has lots of CP's.
Adding is allies costs you CP"s and while you get more stratagems, you will have less CP to spend on them.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
So instead everyone else should suffer just so the game can be played the way YOU want it to be played?
Getting rid of soup would make the game worse, not better.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
That's a lot of assumptions. To be sure, though, I never said I thought that soup was the only issue. But sure. Everyone else should suffer instead of making any changes to the current ally system.
So everyone who likes to use allies should suffer because you don't like soup? How's that fair? Removing the ally system would make the game worse, not better.[
LunarSol wrote: Should Brigades even be a thing? Are they really even a viable option for anyone other than Guard?
Craftworld Eldar can make relatively cheap Brigades, as strange as that sounds. And Tyranids, I believe. Maybe Orks. So basically they are there for the Horde armies.
Are they really needed though? This seems like its easily accomplished with just taking multiple detachments out of the remaining options anyway.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Not "lets ban allies"
but there should be a downside. If there is no downside to allies then mono codex will always struggle and it will be almost impossible to balance xeno books without access to allies
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
Im a guard player and im 100% for getting rid of CP regeneration.... I think the entire game shouldn't have it but im willing to lead the way
Edit: but i do hope you realize that CP regeneration alone will not get rid of the need to soup and also will still leave soup the obvious choice 100% of the time. There needs to be some sort of a downside to souping or some sort of a bonus to playing mono
I agree I think the first step would be battle forged CP is lost when you codex hop.
But Guard get cheap CP and to double dip in the regen pull while bring the most to the party.
Both of the above shouldn't touch mono armies but soup is stil viable.
Removing grand strategist and Kurov's and the battleforged CP takes a Guard CP battery from its current plus 10CP bonus to 2CP extra vrs potentially 5CP from your own faction battalion.
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Look, it's basically going to come down to a flowchart.
Are you okay with things such as they are now? Yes/No?
If No, are you okay with implementing and improving upon an imperfect solution? Yes/No?
For this discussion to even function people are going to have to answer No to the first question and Yes to the second question. Otherwise this conversation is never going to work and always revert back to whataboutism. For every solution listed there are going to be some factions hit harder than others, maybe especially the really niche ones like Inquisition. But there could (and should) be some exceptions to every rule but the conversation has to start somewhere. People seemingly enter a defensive shell very easily because any suggested change either nerfs their own army or completely ignores whatever concerns they have.
I feel like the concern regarding the current CP system is almost unanimous however the greater rift seems to be which, if any, implementations should be placed to curb soup. I personally expect there to be some sort of, even if woefully inadequate, change to the way the CP system works in the next big faq. I'm doubtful that's actually going to be enough and would like to see some restrictions or drawbacks implemented with soup. Some people are suggesting simply buffing mono-builds but unless the CP system is overhauled then that's never going to be a functional solution simply due to the sheer number of CP a true IG battery can pump out.
I hope we can achieve a balance where taking soup is still legal and viable, but due to implemented restrictions, not purely the better alternative. Whether that means no stratagems for allies or their stratagems cost an additional CP etc I don't know. I like allies, I don't like how they're implemented in the game currently.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
So instead everyone else should suffer just so the game can be played the way YOU want it to be played?
Getting rid of soup would make the game worse, not better.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
That's a lot of assumptions. To be sure, though, I never said I thought that soup was the only issue. But sure. Everyone else should suffer instead of making any changes to the current ally system.
So everyone who likes to use allies should suffer because you don't like soup? How's that fair? Removing the ally system would make the game worse, not better.[
I never said remove it. Adjust how allies work, such as with CP bonuses for pure armies or a 50% requirement for the primary army would make more sense.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically. You're not going after the correct problem while destroying tons of other armies just because you can't accept Guard are broken. JUST like Eldar players the past two editions.
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model.
Which detachment does per game CP come from for extra relics?
Your forcing an overly complicated solution when simply making the 3CP battleforged is not available to armies sharing only the imperium, choas or Aldari keywords.
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's not for matched play.
2 simple fixes no messing about with 4 seperate CP pools etc.
The ideal use for Brigades is to take more Doods in fewer Detatchments. Unfortunately, there's no substantial benefit to running a 1-detatchment army, or one where most of the points are in 1 detatchment with a few smaller ones. So no need.
Ideal fix, as I see it, is the detatchments-cost-CP scheme BCB, Xeno, myself, and others keep suggesting (although the particulars vary). When taking a second Battalion costs CP instead of giving you CP, Allies suddenly have a cost. So if you wanted Eldrad, a bunch of Warlocks, a bunch of Guardians 3 Vypers for some reason, you would have an actual tradeoff to consider:
-1 large Uthwe detatchment with everything and more CP or
-1 Uthwe detatchment plus 1 Saim-Hann detatchment and fewer CP
Suddenly, mono*subfaction* is even worth considering. An actual counterpoint to Soup.
Further, it's a light counterpoint to soup. There is benefit to going mono faction/subfaction, but it's not so expensive to basically remove soup. You can still do IG + Smashfether - you just have fewer CP for doing 2 detatchments instead of more CP like in the current system.
There's no way that'd be in an FAQ or even CA. We're almost talking about a new edition at that point - or a very specific "suppliment".
For FAQ/CA, the best hope is a large nerf to IG's CP regen, and *maybe* points changes across most troops more in line with KT. I'm not expecting this much, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically."
That's not what "proved [claim] mathematically" means. You mean you've shown some mathhammer and it (to your impression) heavily supported the claim that Guard were a problem.
I might not be so pedantic about that, but using literally to mean figuratively is a cardinal sin to me. And people using literally when they are flat out wrong unless they meant figuratively are a large part of why literally is literally a synonym for it's own antonym 'figuratively'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model. "
Don't you have a couple use-anywhere CP from being battleforged?
More relevantly, this is part of why I'd think you'd want to group your CP by detatchment keyword instead of detatchment. Bringing an honor guard for Bobby G, even a small one, would then give you CP to help him out. But he shouldn't have as much tactical (CP) flexibility leading a non-Marine force. Should still be a viable option, but not as viable as when taken in a monofaction list (he's a bad example, because unlike other LOW, he's mostly taken for what he does to his own *subfaction* models).
I still think subdividing CP is an ineligant solution that'll cause more problems than we'd like, and that there are better options. But at least it's an attempt to balance soup vs mono instead of picking one as the winner.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically. You're not going after the correct problem while destroying tons of other armies just because you can't accept Guard are broken. JUST like Eldar players the past two editions.
You "proved" it mathematically.... too bad your "proof" doesn't actually hold up under in-game statistical outcomes. Once again come back when mono guard lists attending tournaments are constantly topping the lists
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
I think those are workable solution for the CP issue. But soup will still be better than mono because you have more options and strats at little to no cost.
Then we just add an opportunity cost:
"Trained commander: commander has easier time getting troops that he has been trained to command to actually follow complex command. If whole army share a keyword (a part from aeldari. Chaos or imperial) then stratagems cost 1 less cp (minimum of 1cp)."
Any other complaints against soup?
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model.
Which detachment does per game CP come from for extra relics?
Your forcing an overly complicated solution when simply making the 3CP battleforged is not available to armies sharing only the imperium, choas or Aldari keywords.
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's not for matched play.
2 simple fixes no messing about with 4 seperate CP pools etc.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model.
Which detachment does per game CP come from for extra relics?
Your forcing an overly complicated solution when simply making the 3CP battleforged is not available to armies sharing only the imperium, choas or Aldari keywords.
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's not for matched play.
2 simple fixes no messing about with 4 seperate CP pools etc.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically. You're not going after the correct problem while destroying tons of other armies just because you can't accept Guard are broken. JUST like Eldar players the past two editions.
You "proved" it mathematically.... too bad your "proof" doesn't actually hold up under in-game statistical outcomes. Once again come back when mono guard lists attending tournaments are constantly topping the lists
So you're saying the only possible indicator of guard being overpowered is them being so good that taking allies with them would be weakening them? Because that's the only way you'll see more than the occasional mono list from any ally-able faction. You don't even see mono DE, Eldar, or knights list. Everything that can soup, does.
There has to be some middle ground between "perfectly balanced" and "so good that pure guard is so OP that its better than guard+" since as we've talked about a ton in here the ally system gives the amazing advantages of getting more stratagems.
The fact that most imperium armies have some element of guard in them seems to point towards an issue, and nearly any kind of comparison between guardsmen and other infantry points towards them being too effecient.
No. He's saying that hypothetical limited models aren't proof. He's then further suggesting that certain hypothetical limited models aren't worth paying attention to when they differ so blatantly from reality.
In other words, he's refuting that it's been proved mathematically that Guard are OP - he's dismissing a specific model at least in part because reality doesn't align with it's predictions.
His claim, at least in the quoted part, does not necessarily mean that Guard are not OP. Or that Guard can't be considered OP until reality matches such predictions. The claim you quoted only dismisses a specific model due to conflicting evidence.
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model.
Which detachment does per game CP come from for extra relics?
Your forcing an overly complicated solution when simply making the 3CP battleforged is not available to armies sharing only the imperium, choas or Aldari keywords.
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's not for matched play.
2 simple fixes no messing about with 4 seperate CP pools etc.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
Agreed. While it might be a solution, it's perhaps the worst one I can think of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: No. He's saying that hypothetical limited models aren't proof. He's then further suggesting that certain hypothetical limited models aren't worth paying attention to when they differ so blatantly from reality.
I guess I just don't think "Your compiled evidence doesn't account for 100% of everything so you're wrong and I don't even have to try and prove why I'm right" is a very good argument.
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model.
Which detachment does per game CP come from for extra relics?
Your forcing an overly complicated solution when simply making the 3CP battleforged is not available to armies sharing only the imperium, choas or Aldari keywords.
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's not for matched play.
2 simple fixes no messing about with 4 seperate CP pools etc.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
JCD,
It's not "Your compiled evidence doesn't account for 100% of everything so you're wrong and I don't when have to prove why I'm right". It's "Your equations show no correlation to observed results, so until you can explain the observed results or they change, your equations are likely wrong."
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model.
Which detachment does per game CP come from for extra relics?
Your forcing an overly complicated solution when simply making the 3CP battleforged is not available to armies sharing only the imperium, choas or Aldari keywords.
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's not for matched play.
2 simple fixes no messing about with 4 seperate CP pools etc.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's just needlessly complicated, and very bandaidy as a solution. It seems like it'd be much better to just reduce guard's natural CP advantage in some way, such as increasing the CP gained from battle forge and reducing the CP gained from detachments.
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's another area for people to misplay unintentionally, it's additional book keeping, I don't see it's benifit over the proposal I gave you being worth it. Also it fundamentally goes against the 8th edition approach of simple, simpler simplest.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically. You're not going after the correct problem while destroying tons of other armies just because you can't accept Guard are broken. JUST like Eldar players the past two editions.
You "proved" it mathematically.... too bad your "proof" doesn't actually hold up under in-game statistical outcomes. Once again come back when mono guard lists attending tournaments are constantly topping the lists
So you're saying the only possible indicator of guard being overpowered is them being so good that taking allies with them would be weakening them? Because that's the only way you'll see more than the occasional mono list from any ally-able faction. You don't even see mono DE, Eldar, or knights list. Everything that can soup, does.
There has to be some middle ground between "perfectly balanced" and "so good that pure guard is so OP that its better than guard+" since as we've talked about a ton in here the ally system gives the amazing advantages of getting more stratagems.
The fact that most imperium armies have some element of guard in them seems to point towards an issue, and nearly any kind of comparison between guardsmen and other infantry points towards them being too effecient.
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Bharring wrote: JCD,
It's not "Your compiled evidence doesn't account for 100% of everything so you're wrong and I don't when have to prove why I'm right". It's "Your equations show no correlation to observed results, so until you can explain the observed results or they change, your equations are likely wrong."
Which is entirely valid.
I'd argee that it's valid if you can show how it has no correlation. Saying IG as a faction are fine because mono IG aren't winning tournements isn't doing that.
Some people are suggesting simply buffing mono-builds but unless the CP system is overhauled then that's never going to be a functional solution simply due to the sheer number of CP a true IG battery can pump out.
And that's why this is the first thing that needs to be addressed. Get rid of the CP regen. Then you can boost the monobuilds by giving them more CP than soup builds.
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's another area for people to misplay unintentionally, it's additional book keeping, I don't see it's benifit over the proposal I gave you being worth it. Also it fundamentally goes against the 8th edition approach of simple, simpler simplest.
If keeping track of 3/5/2 vs 10 is too much then tabletop gaming is probably wrong for people. Im not even saying this will end up being the best way to balance soup but i think the "too complicated" tag is a lame way of arguing against its merits
Some people are suggesting simply buffing mono-builds but unless the CP system is overhauled then that's never going to be a functional solution simply due to the sheer number of CP a true IG battery can pump out.
And that's why this is the first thing that needs to be addressed. Get rid of the CP regen. Then you can boost the monobuilds by giving them more CP than soup builds.
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Not to say that your wrong as really it's almost impossible to make hard facrs from data with so many variables, but how do you correct for the player skill imbalance in the results when compairing Imperial soup to Mono Guard?
I'm genuinely interested as given the top 10 or so players that I know the names of are all playing soup they will skew the results.
Well, there are a couple selection biases that are going to make that happen:
1. You know their name because they've placed well before
2. They've placed well before because they're good at the game
3. People who've placed well before are likely to be placing in the future
4. People who place are more likely to be fielding stronger armies/lists
Thus, the top 10 names you know all playing Soup would be less a skew and more likely representative of the true balance.
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Not to say that your wrong as really it's almost impossible to make hard facrs from data with so many variables, but how do you correct for the player skill imbalance in the results when compairing Imperial soup to Mono Guard?
I'm genuinely interested as given the top 10 or so players that I know the names of are all playing soup they will skew the results.
You wouldn't be able to because nobody has that data so we must draw data from what we have available.
When we do see mono guard lists they are outperformed by lists that are forced to build mono
this indicates to me that these codexes are relatively balanced when going head to head and what is pushing IG over the top is its ability to soup
If soup is nerfed and it turns out that mono IG was simply underperforming do to a brain drain of top players to soup then i am 100% for nerfing guard
What im not for is nerfing guard in an attempt to nerf soup, that will have a massive effect on mono guard but hardly hurt soup builds
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's another area for people to misplay unintentionally, it's additional book keeping, I don't see it's benifit over the proposal I gave you being worth it. Also it fundamentally goes against the 8th edition approach of simple, simpler simplest.
If keeping track of 3/5/2 vs 10 is too much then tabletop gaming is probably wrong for people. Im not even saying this will end up being the best way to balance soup but i think the "too complicated" tag is a lame way of arguing against its merits
Some people are suggesting simply buffing mono-builds but unless the CP system is overhauled then that's never going to be a functional solution simply due to the sheer number of CP a true IG battery can pump out.
And that's why this is the first thing that needs to be addressed. Get rid of the CP regen. Then you can boost the monobuilds by giving them more CP than soup builds.
^
exactly
I don't get why people are acting like keeping track of cp for different detachments is some Herculean task. If that's to complicated or difficult then making a list that adds up to the correct point cost or remembering what units do what are likely also to complicated.
I remain on my initial standpoint after all those pages of yikyak.
Guard are not the issue.
Custodes, Castellan and Blood Angels are not the issue.
Being able to cheaply build masses of CP to from the former to spend on the latter IS the issue.
Limiting CP spend to the detachment faction that earned them is not only a non-solution but is actively anti-fun. The vast majority of detachments earn 1cp. Even just ignoring all the smash captain stuff - having a detachment with 1cp to spend all game is boring as turnips.
The solution is...
CP regen relics and traits only work on stratagems from the same book
you only get detachment cp bonuses and the 3cp for battleforged if your detachment keywords match your warlord.
Lots of CP for mono faction
Soup is viable and still fun but CP starved
Try that for 6 months then see what else you whinging gits come up with.
It goes beyond just keeping track of your own but, as other threads have crudely said, you are have to keep track of your enemies pools as well...
It's just too much. Go with the additional detachments reduce your CP and call it a day. Kill the battery in the FAQ and go to the new detachment system in CA (although that's probably already printed yet.)
I just don't know how people come to the conclusions that undercosted units are okay? They are basically the source of all problems. Including unlimited CP.
I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
Limiting CP to the detachment that generated it just doesn't seem like a good idea, because it limits players in so many ways. Anything less than a battalion is useless because 1-3 CP isn't enough, so that detachment might as well not even use their stratagems.
Just give everyone fairly equal amounts of CP and then give mono-faction some bonuses.
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Not to say that your wrong as really it's almost impossible to make hard facrs from data with so many variables, but how do you correct for the player skill imbalance in the results when compairing Imperial soup to Mono Guard?
I'm genuinely interested as given the top 10 or so players that I know the names of are all playing soup they will skew the results.
You wouldn't be able to because nobody has that data so we must draw data from what we have available.
When we do see mono guard lists they are outperformed by lists that are forced to build mono
this indicates to me that these codexes are relatively balanced when going head to head and what is pushing IG over the top is its ability to soup
If soup is nerfed and it turns out that mono IG was simply underperforming do to a brain drain of top players to soup then i am 100% for nerfing guard
What im not for is nerfing guard in an attempt to nerf soup, that will have a massive effect on mono guard but hardly hurt soup builds
That fair. I do think addressing soup first and then looking at what factions are outperforming is a good order of operations.
Primortus wrote: I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
Limiting CP to the detachment that generated it just doesn't seem like a good idea, because it limits players in so many ways. Anything less than a battalion is useless because 1-3 CP isn't enough, so that detachment might as well not even use their stratagems.
Just give everyone fairly equal amounts of CP and then give mono-faction some bonuses.
All reasonable there would just have to be playtesting to see what the proper amount is. My fear is that you would still get something like a laughable 2-3CP for mono where its still such an obvious no-brainer to bring cheep CP battalions. I like limiting CP to detachments because it not only helps balance soup but also fits thematically. The more of army x you have allows you to pull of more of army x tactics. Not sure why having more guardsmen somehow unlocks you super BA tactics.
This said though anything that actually gives people a tactical reason to play mono is a step in the right direction IMO
Primortus wrote: I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
This! This is the way to fix the soup!
And in the future you can fine tune it by adjusting the exact amount of the mono bonus.
My only fear is that there isn't really an amount of CP that makes up for the advantages of having access to multiple faction's strategems, without limiting the ally armies CP to a point where they are barely viable.
As I mentioned earlier, being able to only take 1 knight and use all the super cool strategems on it is always going to be better than having to split them across 5 knights. Knight are the most extreme example of this, but it happens with other factions too.
I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
I imagine you mean other than the IG+BA unlimited CP combo?
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
you can tell they're a problem because 3 battalions/brigade + battalion Imperial Guard lists that won the...
oh wait. Usually it's a minimum brigade of IG, give or take less than a hundred points, fuelling a Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment and a BN of BA.
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
The issue is that soup can combine there CP farms across factions (like what we saw at nova) to create an almost infinite CP pool to funnel into 1 unit such as a knight. Even if you weaken this it still gives a huge and IMO unfair advantage over any codex that cannot soup. It also limits list diversity as you will always obviously take the CP regeneration
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
The issue is that soup can combine there CP farms across factions (like what we saw at nova) to create an almost infinite CP pool to funnel into 1 unit such as a knight. Even if you weaken this it still gives a huge and IMO unfair advantage over any codex that cannot soup. It also limits list diversity as you will always obviously take the CP regeneration
True. I think it would be the best if they just got rid of the CP regen altogether.
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
you can tell they're a problem because 3 battalions/brigade + battalion Imperial Guard lists that won the...
oh wait. Usually it's a minimum brigade of IG, give or take less than a hundred points, fuelling a Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment and a BN of BA.
The concept of a "min brigade" is kind of idiotic. It is at a minumum 18 units. Most my armies don't even have 18 drops. The fact that you can do a IG brigade for it's cost is where the joke is.
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
The issue is that soup can combine there CP farms across factions (like what we saw at nova) to create an almost infinite CP pool to funnel into 1 unit such as a knight. Even if you weaken this it still gives a huge and IMO unfair advantage over any codex that cannot soup. It also limits list diversity as you will always obviously take the CP regeneration
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
Well, it depends on how far the overhaul to the CP system goes. Imagine you're getting 3CP for being battleforged, 1CP for all the "specialist" detachments,2CP for batallions and 4CP for a brigade. Also if you're a mono army you get an additional 7CP (obviously those numbers would have to be balanced through playtesting) You'd still need to balance individual units but the cheap spammable detachments would no longer really be an issue.
Edit: And obviously remove those CP regen abilities
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
The issue is that soup can combine there CP farms across factions (like what we saw at nova) to create an almost infinite CP pool to funnel into 1 unit such as a knight. Even if you weaken this it still gives a huge and IMO unfair advantage over any codex that cannot soup. It also limits list diversity as you will always obviously take the CP regeneration
True. I think it would be the best if they just got rid of the CP regen altogether.
The issue with this, obviously, is that just straight removing relics or warlord traits from a codex with an FAQ really wouldn't sit well. Especially if it was something like a Chapter specific trait or relic. It's something that I don't see happening.
I guess the question I am asking is. Does anyone have a problem with CP regen (as an option for a warlord trait) if everyone starts with the same number of CP?
Primortus wrote: I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
Limiting CP to the detachment that generated it just doesn't seem like a good idea, because it limits players in so many ways. Anything less than a battalion is useless because 1-3 CP isn't enough, so that detachment might as well not even use their stratagems.
Just give everyone fairly equal amounts of CP and then give mono-faction some bonuses.
The only reason I don't think Option 1 is the best option is due to the way they "fixed" the IK with the ability to hit people on the second floor with Chainsword and gauntlets. If you pull CP/Stratagems from the game, you should fix that somehow.
The issue with this, obviously, is that just straight removing relics or warlord traits from a codex with an FAQ really wouldn't sit well. Especially if it was something like a Chapter specific trait or relic. It's something that I don't see happening.
They need to change them to do something completely different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I guess the question I am asking is. Does anyone have a problem with CP regen (as an option for a warlord trait) if everyone starts with the same number of CP?
Yes. Armies with regen will still get more, and soup pooling several regens insanely more.
Xenomancers wrote: I guess the question I am asking is. Does anyone have a problem with CP regen (as an option for a warlord trait) if everyone starts with the same number of CP?
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but yes. I still dislike the mechanic because it breaks up gameplay. At the beginning of 8th I liked it but it quickly turned into an annoyance for me, I have no idea how many people feel the same way on this one though
Xenomancers wrote: I guess the question I am asking is. Does anyone have a problem with CP regen (as an option for a warlord trait) if everyone starts with the same number of CP?
The CP regen issue that I think everyone hates is the combination of the IG 1 roll of a 5+ per CP spent strat, plus the 1 roll of a 5+ per strategem used BA relic, as it allows you to roll 1 more dice than you spent CP, and actually let's you gain CP throughout the game. If you do the math on how much CP you gain from this is it something like 10-20 a game, and it can really spike of you get lucky a few times in a row.
Xenomancers wrote: I guess the question I am asking is. Does anyone have a problem with CP regen (as an option for a warlord trait) if everyone starts with the same number of CP?
Yes because the only warlord trait you will see in every game for every army is the CP regen one...... If we all have the same pool why would we even need the random factor of regening them anyway..... id rather just increase the pool
Furthermore, considering that you can buy relics with CP it is crazy you can then generate CP with relics. It is a complete no-brainer choice. Want free CP? Yes please!
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
The issue is that soup can combine there CP farms across factions (like what we saw at nova) to create an almost infinite CP pool to funnel into 1 unit such as a knight. Even if you weaken this it still gives a huge and IMO unfair advantage over any codex that cannot soup. It also limits list diversity as you will always obviously take the CP regeneration
True. I think it would be the best if they just got rid of the CP regen altogether.
I think it might be interesting to have 5+ regen as a base rule for your Warlord being on the table.
Crimson wrote: Furthermore, considering that you can buy relics with CP it is crazy you can then generate CP with relics. It is a complete no-brainer choice. Want free CP? Yes please!
Yup, it makes it the obvious choice 100% of the time and thus makes lists less diverse and the game all around harder to balance. Take it out of the game and give underpowered codexes that need more CP...... more CP.
Okay. So what do we replace the traits with? You realize everyone who has a CP regen trait is going to want something nice to replace it with.
Also - personally - I like my ultra marine trait - it's the only thing that makes me happy to play ultra marines over the other chapters - who have much cooler army traits and better stratagems.
It makes guilliman feel worth it too. Because I am usually bringing him as an ally and as my warlord. Personally - I think it's okay to have a trait like that on a 400 point model. It's just not okay to have a trait like that on a 30 point model.
I wouldn't oppose regen going away though to fix this mess. In the end I want a balanced game - that is the most important thing for me.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay. So what do we replace the traits with? You realize everyone who has a CP regen trait is going to want something nice to replace it with.
Extra aura or command range, extra commands, something like that. Different things for different armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay. So what do we replace the traits with? You realize everyone who has a CP regen trait is going to want something nice to replace it with.
Also - personally - I like my ultra marine trait - it's the only thing that makes me happy to play ultra marines over the other chapters - who have much cooler army traits and better stratagems.
It makes guilliman feel worth it too. Because I am usually bringing him as an ally and as my warlord. Personally - I think it's okay to have a trait like that on a 400 point model. It's just not okay to have a trait like that on a 30 point model.
I wouldn't oppose regen going away though to fix this mess. In the end I want a balanced game - that is the most important thing for me.
Just use any other trait in the book..... I haven't studied every codex but if there is one with only like 2 traits just add some more with the removal
Primortus wrote: I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
Limiting CP to the detachment that generated it just doesn't seem like a good idea, because it limits players in so many ways. Anything less than a battalion is useless because 1-3 CP isn't enough, so that detachment might as well not even use their stratagems.
Just give everyone fairly equal amounts of CP and then give mono-faction some bonuses.
The only reason I don't think Option 1 is the best option is due to the way they "fixed" the IK with the ability to hit people on the second floor with Chainsword and gauntlets. If you pull CP/Stratagems from the game, you should fix that somehow.
What? I'm not suggesting they remove stratagems, I think they're a lot of fun. I'm suggesting they remove the ability to regenerate CP from the game entirely, like the thousand son Helm of the Third Eye, kurov's aquila or the grand strategist warlord trait. I think the imperial one is the real problem but in the interest of fairness I'd like to see them all disappear. Also I don't like feeling like no thought goes into the choice of my relics, Helm of the Third Eye is obviously so good you don;t even need to think about taking it. Same with Kurov's and Veritas Vitae
As for what these things should be replaced with, using Helm of the Third Eye as an example it could let you re-roll one die of your choice per phase/turn/battle whatever. It could also be something like Kairos' ability from 7th where you could make an opponent reroll a dice once per turn. That was fun lol.
Ultramarines would like to say thanks for throwing them under the bus.
The thing is no-one complaining about non IG super CP regen.
Seriously whats wrong with just removing grand strategist and Kurov's from IG as according to Guard players they "Have strategums not worth spending CP on" anyway?
Or just flat out replaced with +1CP or +D3CP at the start of the game. Not sure if 1 is too little or D3 too good but just replacing them across the board would be a simple task
Ice_can wrote: Ultramarines would like to say thanks for throwing them under the bus.
The thing is no-one complaining about non IG super CP regen.
Seriously whats wrong with just removing grand strategist and Kurov's from IG as according to Guard players they "Have strategums not worth spending CP on" anyway?
Well and the do start more with anyone else also...
PiñaColada wrote: Or just flat out replaced with +1CP or +D3CP at the start of the game. Not sure if 1 is too little or D3 too good but just replacing them across the board would be a simple task
oh yeah so different so not oh wait our 2 most charictors already do that and thanks for no having no warlord trait.
PiñaColada wrote: Or just flat out replaced with +1CP or +D3CP at the start of the game. Not sure if 1 is too little or D3 too good but just replacing them across the board would be a simple task
oh yeah so different so not oh wait our 2 most charictors already do that and thanks for no having no warlord trait.
I'm sorry, not trying to be rude but I literally don't understand what that's supposed to mean
Ice_can wrote: Ultramarines would like to say thanks for throwing them under the bus.
The thing is no-one complaining about non IG super CP regen.
Seriously whats wrong with just removing grand strategist and Kurov's from IG as according to Guard players they "Have strategums not worth spending CP on" anyway?
I mean if guard lost it I'm all for it.... I think in the long run it
1.removes list diversity
2.makes balance harder
3.Just a poor mechanic that doesn't add anything to the game.
So id like to see it removed altogether. But like I said im all down for guard not having it first or even being the only army that doesn't if need be.
Ice_can wrote: Ultramarines would like to say thanks for throwing them under the bus.
The thing is no-one complaining about non IG super CP regen.
Seriously whats wrong with just removing grand strategist and Kurov's from IG as according to Guard players they "Have strategums not worth spending CP on" anyway?
I mean if guard lost it I'm all for it.... I think in the long run it
1.removes list diversity
2.makes balance harder
3.Just a poor mechanic that doesn't add anything to the game.
So id like to see it removed altogether. But like I said im all down for guard not having it first or even being the only army that doesn't if need be.
Knight's already have no in codex regenerate method so you'd be the second faction or later to go without.
Having fixed warlord traits for named charictors tied to subfaction limits choice etc but GW already did that.
PiñaColada wrote: Or just flat out replaced with +1CP or +D3CP at the start of the game. Not sure if 1 is too little or D3 too good but just replacing them across the board would be a simple task
oh yeah so different so not oh wait our 2 most charictors already do that and thanks for no having no warlord trait.
I'm sorry, not trying to be rude but I literally don't understand what that's supposed to mean
Xenomancers wrote: I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
Well, it depends on how far the overhaul to the CP system goes. Imagine you're getting 3CP for being battleforged, 1CP for all the "specialist" detachments,2CP for batallions and 4CP for a brigade. Also if you're a mono army you get an additional 7CP (obviously those numbers would have to be balanced through playtesting) You'd still need to balance individual units but the cheap spammable detachments would no longer really be an issue.
Edit: And obviously remove those CP regen abilities
Ok, if I have a good army with good stratagems this is good. But what if my army has bad stratagems? It streamlines the meta in to who ever has the best basic army, which limits the number of lists even more. A BA player won't be happy to hear about the changes, considering they had their alfa strike nerfed.
For myself this does not fix anything. A GK army won't be able to get the "free" CP for specialists detachment, and a brigada or battalion of GK makes no sense at all, it costs too much.
I think the point I am trying to make is that CP Regen isn't that bad when you actually pay points for it. Like - make it a special trait for super leaders like guilliman/ calgar. Maybe add it as a trait for Tragan from custodes or creed.
It shouldn't be a base ability...I can agree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: I would be happy to go back to the original 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade.
Yeah honestly that was a really dumb change. When I heard about it - it really felt like they were just saying "well guard has unlimited CP - so lets give everyone unlimited CP"
For all those people claiming that only CP batteries and CP users are the issue - didn't a Nurgle list with a renegade Knight and massive squad of Death Guard terminators win a recent tournament with like 5 CP total and no way to regen? Doesn't that point to a greater problem? A problem of creamy and tomato-ey proportions? (Soup)
I really don't think these creative ideas to limit CP in soup are going to make a massive difference to the prevalence of soup over mono in the competitive scene, if that is the aim.
Bharring wrote: The majority of CWE special characters actually *do* get no Warlord trait. It doesn't mean CWE doesn't get taken (although those SCs don't get taken).
Eldar get their CP regen from a base autarch ability. They don't start with a million CP though. Plus what's cool is - they can actually take a warlord trait for their autarch.
An Actual Englishman wrote: For all those people claiming that only CP batteries and CP users are the issue - didn't a Nurgle list with a renegade Knight and massive squad of Death Guard terminators win a recent tournament with like 5 CP total and no way to regen? Doesn't that point to a greater problem? A problem of creamy and tomato-ey proportions? (Soup)
Xenomancers wrote: I think the point I am trying to make is that CP Regen isn't that bad when you actually pay points for it. Like - make it a special trait for super leaders like guilliman/ calgar. Maybe add it as a trait for Tragan from custodes or creed.
It shouldn't be a base ability...I can agree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: I would be happy to go back to the original 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade.
Yeah honestly that was a really dumb change. When I heard about it - it really felt like they were just saying "well guard has unlimited CP - so lets give everyone unlimited CP"
Except it made guard even better for soup lol. They would have been better off just giving some armies more CP
Also I'm fine with some character having CP regeneration as long as its pointed correctly, or they could just give some base bonus so that they can be more easily balanced
Xeno,
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that was a reference to the complaint that two SM characters might not actually have a (useable) warlord trait with a suggested change?
Although the Autarch trait is nice. A lot more limited than most of the regen traits, though. Even if you give them the Uthwe warlord trait.
Aside from CP farms, I would like to see HQs unable to be duplicated in the same army (at least detachment). I find it silly to have 3 Captains a tiny SM army, or 3 Shield Captains on bikes. They should get access to 1, period. Some lesser HQs should be OK to have a second, but most should be 0-1.
Yeah honestly that was a really dumb change. When I heard about it - it really felt like they were just saying "well guard has unlimited CP - so lets give everyone unlimited CP"
It was insane. It made cheap guard detachments even more desirable. They should have just bumped the base battleforged bonus.
I think "factions" and "subfactions" are more or less ill-defined constructs that are used because they communicate clearly what we're trying to say.
Most of the subfaction traits specify that all models in the detatchement have the relevant keyword. Unfortunately, I don't believe they require the detatchement to be built from that keyword. If they did, there'd be a clearer definition to latch onto there.
Bharring wrote: Xeno,
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that was a reference to the complaint that two SM characters might not actually have a (useable) warlord trait with a suggested change?
Although the Autarch trait is nice. A lot more limited than most of the regen traits, though. Even if you give them the Uthwe warlord trait.
Also - another thing. If you look at Nick Nanavatis list. He does not have CP regeneration and he placed in the top 11. With 0 CP regeneration. He took Yncarne! LOL.
Bharring wrote: To do that, most detatchments would need to only require 1 HQ.
Each DE subfaction only *has* 1 HQ. There are 3 total generics available to them, so they'd then need to dip into Special Characters.
T'au are similarly limited. Commander. Ethereal. Fireblade. That's it.
Harlequins, same story.
Corsiars? Well, we should skip them. They have 0. But that's another story.
It works just fine really. DE have a specific rule to encourage you to take patrols, you don't need battalions and brigades. A single detachment shouldn't have 2 archons, unless you're going to roll at start of game to see which one murdered the other and took over.
Harlies have 2 HQs, so are fine in each detachment. Could some of the armies do with more HQs, sure, but it would still work and cut down on the duplicate nonsense.
Bharring wrote: To do that, most detatchments would need to only require 1 HQ.
Each DE subfaction only *has* 1 HQ. There are 3 total generics available to them, so they'd then need to dip into Special Characters.
T'au are similarly limited. Commander. Ethereal. Fireblade. That's it.
Harlequins, same story.
Corsiars? Well, we should skip them. They have 0. But that's another story.
It works just fine really. DE have a specific rule to encourage you to take patrols, you don't need battalions and brigades. A single detachment shouldn't have 2 archons, unless you're going to roll at start of game to see which one murdered the other and took over.
Harlies have 2 HQs, so are fine in each detachment. Could some of the armies do with more HQs, sure, but it would still work and cut down on the duplicate nonsense.
Bharring wrote: An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.
That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.
What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.
I agree that DEs should only have 1 Archon, usually. Unfortunately, you're shoehorning all DE lists into Patrol detatchments. And, being limited to 3 detatchements and playing at 2k points, that's severely hampering their listbuilding. Plus, if they can't have more than 1 Archon or whatever, they're required to have one of each subfaction - whether they want it or not - most of the time.
Now, I'd much rather Battalions only required 1 HQ (because sometimes it really is a Captain leading half a Company - there may not be a Chaplain or Libby present). But then we get into much bigger changes...
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments"
Not lately.
Besides, Ynnari have typically been just a small detatchment in an otherwise (previously CWE, now DE) army. Ynnari just do something of nearly equal power to IGCP shenanigans. They're giving up far less CP regen than an Imperium list would be.
bullyboy wrote: Aside from CP farms, I would like to see HQs unable to be duplicated in the same army (at least detachment). I find it silly to have 3 Captains a tiny SM army, or 3 Shield Captains on bikes.
All of the custodes HQs choices are captains, while the marines can take six different captains without duplicating a unit.
Bharring wrote: I agree that DEs should only have 1 Archon, usually. Unfortunately, you're shoehorning all DE lists into Patrol detatchments. And, being limited to 3 detatchements and playing at 2k points, that's severely hampering their listbuilding. Plus, if they can't have more than 1 Archon or whatever, they're required to have one of each subfaction - whether they want it or not - most of the time.
Now, I'd much rather Battalions only required 1 HQ (because sometimes it really is a Captain leading half a Company - there may not be a Chaplain or Libby present). But then we get into much bigger changes...
No they shouldnt, Archons are abundant in Commorragh and fight for a better/higher standing.
If anything we should have more Archon's, some with WIngs, on Reaver, Skyboard, a beastmaser one, etc.. but we dont for a stupid reason (we dont have the models) Well look at FING Tyranids, they get lots of options without models, Spike Rifles and Nets on gants for an example.
I agree that there should be more Archon *entries*. But I also agree that having 2 in one detatchment should be rare.
I technically disagree with the Wings option (if it were made from the Swooping Hawk kit, thematically, it'd work - but not Scourge), but I'd love for Archons on Bikes and Boards. Beastmasters should be Wyches, if any Beastmaster became an HQ. And if there were a Scourge-winged option, it'd probably be Haemy, which shouldn't be fast...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree that there should be more Archon *entries*. But I also agree that having 2 in one detatchment should be rare.
I technically disagree with the Wings option (if it were made from the Swooping Hawk kit, thematically, it'd work - but not Scourge), but I'd love for Archons on Bikes and Boards. Beastmasters should be Wyches, if any Beastmaster became an HQ. And if there were a Scourge-winged option, it'd probably be Haemy, which shouldn't be fast...
Can you point to an example where an Archon had Scourge-style wings in the fluff? I believe you, but am curious.
We're mostly in agreement that they should expand the options available to Archons (although I'd expand that to Princes, Autarchs, and Troupe Masters, among others). Just a minor fluff quibble about one option.
But why would there be 2+ Archons in a single detatchment? Shouldn't it be showing a single Kabal? Wouldn't one have murdered the other already? Now, separate detatchments make sense - competing gangs. As for on the tabletop, I won't hold it against a DE player because it's the fluffiest DE can reasonably get right now.
Bharring wrote: Can you point to an example where an Archon had Scourge-style wings in the fluff? I believe you, but am curious.
We're mostly in agreement that they should expand the options available to Archons (although I'd expand that to Princes, Autarchs, and Troupe Masters, among others). Just a minor fluff quibble about one option.
But why would there be 2+ Archons in a single detatchment? Shouldn't it be showing a single Kabal? Wouldn't one have murdered the other already? Now, separate detatchments make sense - competing gangs. As for on the tabletop, I won't hold it against a DE player because it's the fluffiest DE can reasonably get right now.
I understand what you mean in a detachment, but BCGW didnt want to give DE any other HQ's worth a damn and the Patrol for DE is complete trash, its not viable to change it to limited 1.
I dont have page numbers or books for them, but there are many times they call to having using Wych tools for themselves, I know for a 100% fact that there are "Named Archons" with Reavers/Skyboards/Beasts the Scourge Wings i cant remember any Named Archons, just referring to Archons using them.
DE really needs a Generic HQ, and a Scourge HQ would be perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To add, the Archon that made the Tantalus was a Wych Reaver 1st and started the Red Grief (If i remember his name is Something like Sarchon Grief) if i remember correctly.
Archons can be from any background, but once they are Archons they are fully a Kabal (That i never understood)
Yes, GW did screw a lot of fluffy army builds with their upscaling of detatchments and hatred of any whiff of kitbashing. Fortunately the DE codex, of all things, slightly relaxed this - IIRC, their HQs can equip weapons found in the corresponding Troops boxes. Compare that to the Autarch and... yeah...
I hope GW relents on this anti-kitbashing crusade, but I really doubt it. At best, DE hopefully showed them what being less than a stickler about it can do.
Bharring wrote: An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.
That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.
What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.
Nick has talked about how Ynnari don't need CP in interviews when he won with only 8CP.
Something like "well, if you think about it should cost 3 CP everytime I fought again, and 2CP everytime I shot again, I actually used 30 CP that game."
The Ynnari ability is just so broken that CP hardly matter.
Bharring wrote: An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.
That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.
What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.
Nick has talked about how Ynnari don't need CP in interviews when he won with only 8CP.
Something like "well, if you think about it should cost 3 CP everytime I fought again, and 2CP everytime I shot again, I actually used 30 CP that game."
The Ynnari ability is just so broken that CP hardly matter.
That is a good way to think about it tho.
Ynnari just needs a Codex so they can put in datasheets they want and ones they dont, and then can point cost them to not ruin DE/CWE/Quins, this also means you cant share stratagems with those units, so you can also add in the stratagems from the 3 books they want.
Bharring wrote: An army with any Ynnari in it cannot have an Autarch Warlord - or any other CP regen.
That is true - I totally forgot about that - yncarne or yvraine has to be the warlord.
What's interesting - Ynnari have been pretty dominant in tournaments - they do just fine without CP regeneration and limmited CP from not having access to infantry. So all the complaints about CP regeneration seem a little out of place. The issue is really them units in the Castellan list. All of them and their associated stratagems.
Nick has talked about how Ynnari don't need CP in interviews when he won with only 8CP.
Something like "well, if you think about it should cost 3 CP everytime I fought again, and 2CP everytime I shot again, I actually used 30 CP that game."
The Ynnari ability is just so broken that CP hardly matter.
They trade out their army traits though...You know...-1's to hit that is like 20 CP a turn if you look at it that way. Ynnari is obviosuly strong but eldar as a whole are just strong and don't really need a lot of CP. They actaully win more than imperial soup too. Really - I'm suprised the army with 12 harlie bikes didn't win it all. You know how badly those units wreck a castelan? PLUS they don't care about smash feth.
They should really be charging it turn 1. With a double move and shooting it too. Then from there - they can keep the knight locked in CC.
Regarding Imperial Guard, what if, rather than raising the cost of Infantry, we instead brought back Platoons?
Now, suddenly, you can't just fill a troop slot with a single Infantry Squad. Instead, you'd need to have 2 Infantry squads and a Platoon Commander for each troop slot.
I suspect you could even get away with 3pt Conscripts in this instance - since they couldn't be used to fill troop slots themselves (you'd take them as an extra in a Platoon), and you'd need the aforementioned 2 Infantry Squads and a Platoon Commander just to unlock 1 unit of them.
Amishprn86 wrote: If anything we should have more Archon's, some with WIngs, on Reaver, Skyboard, a beastmaser one, etc..
Bharring wrote: "They actaully win more than imperial soup too."
7/11 IoM soup.
1/11 DE soup w/Ynnari
1/11 DE soup w/CWE 1/11 DE soup w/Harlies
More than twice as many IoM in the top 10 than Eldar, so what's your basis for 'win more than Imperial Soup'?
"You know how badly those units wreck a castelan?"
Not well enough at Nova, apparently.
"PLUS they don't care about smash feth."
Then why did they all lose to it?
This tournament is a small peice of the puzzle. Ynnari and aliotoc are still the lists to beat. IMO. Castellan and smash feth does really not do that great to against eldar.
It just surprises me, considering there was only one small Ynnari detatchment and one small Alaitoc detatchment in the top 10. I'd think DE would be above either of those right now. And most stats I've seen support that.
vipoid wrote: Regarding Imperial Guard, what if, rather than raising the cost of Infantry, we instead brought back Platoons?
Now, suddenly, you can't just fill a troop slot with a single Infantry Squad. Instead, you'd need to have 2 Infantry squads and a Platoon Commander for each troop slot.
I suspect you could even get away with 3pt Conscripts in this instance - since they couldn't be used to fill troop slots themselves (you'd take them as an extra in a Platoon), and you'd need the aforementioned 2 Infantry Squads and a Platoon Commander just to unlock 1 unit of them.
Infantry need to go up in price, they are simply too cost effective comparatively. It has been shown time and time again. 3pt Conscripts is a madness we have seen before and I'd rather not revisit.
I think the point is that if IG were forced to bring 60 boys instead of 30 for a Battalion, or 120 instead of 60 for a Brigade, that would water down the CP provided by IG, and leave less room for soup.
Amishprn86 wrote: They (Skyweavers) die to blobs not Smash Captain, they need to get within 24" to shoot, whats within 24" of the knight? 100 bodies.
Ehh - prophets are super resilent but are the wrong choice agaisnt this castellan list. Just standard Kabal + harlie shenanigans works best IMO. Lots of venoms / ravagers / night fighters + harlie bikes will murder this list.
Bharring wrote: It just surprises me, considering there was only one small Ynnari detatchment and one small Alaitoc detatchment in the top 10. I'd think DE would be above either of those right now. And most stats I've seen support that.
Lots of weird things about this tournament...like a scout spam army coming in 15th overall...Plus 6 of the top 11 running almost the exact same list.
Bharring wrote: I think the point is that if IG were forced to bring 60 boys instead of 30 for a Battalion, or 120 instead of 60 for a Brigade, that would water down the CP provided by IG, and leave less room for soup.
I'm sure it'd help. Not sure it'd help enough.
I'm sure a Guard player will be along shortly to tell you how that would kill mono guard and they are being victimised for soup etc etc.
Bharring wrote: "They actaully win more than imperial soup too."
7/11 IoM soup.
1/11 DE soup w/Ynnari
1/11 DE soup w/CWE 1/11 DE soup w/Harlies
More than twice as many IoM in the top 10 than Eldar, so what's your basis for 'win more than Imperial Soup'?
"You know how badly those units wreck a castelan?"
Not well enough at Nova, apparently.
"PLUS they don't care about smash feth."
Then why did they all lose to it?
This tournament is a small peice of the puzzle. Ynnari and aliotoc are still the lists to beat. IMO. Castellan and smash feth does really not do that great to against eldar.
I'd have too confirm it, but i imagine there were a lot more IG/IK/BA lists in Nova than Ynarri lists, which makes it likely that they would have a better showing. Additionally, my understanding is that the IK/BA/IG combo actually counters the Ynnari list pretty hard.
JCD,
Shouldn't you expect the armies taken to be biased towards the stronger armies? Most players do pick an army they like. But most tourny players - especially the top-table contenders - have or can assemble a number of different armies and lists. So you'd expect the perceived OPness to be overrepresented.
And, if you assume the more skilled players' perceptions are more likley in line with the truth than random chance, that suggests the actual OPness would be overrepresented.
Bharring wrote: "They actaully win more than imperial soup too."
7/11 IoM soup.
1/11 DE soup w/Ynnari
1/11 DE soup w/CWE 1/11 DE soup w/Harlies
More than twice as many IoM in the top 10 than Eldar, so what's your basis for 'win more than Imperial Soup'?
"You know how badly those units wreck a castelan?"
Not well enough at Nova, apparently.
"PLUS they don't care about smash feth."
Then why did they all lose to it?
This tournament is a small peice of the puzzle. Ynnari and aliotoc are still the lists to beat. IMO. Castellan and smash feth does really not do that great to against eldar.
I'd have too confirm it, but i imagine there were a lot more IG/IK/BA lists in Nova than Ynarri lists, which makes it likely that they would have a better showing. Additionally, my understanding is that the IK/BA/IG combo actually counters the Ynnari list pretty hard.
A huge part of it is that, the IK/IG/BA list is much easier to operate than the Ynnari lists, Ynnari can break you if you move just 3-4" in the wrong direction, when it works it works great, when it doesnt you lose a lot.
Bharring wrote: JCD,
Shouldn't you expect the armies taken to be biased towards the stronger armies? Most players do pick an army they like. But most tourny players - especially the top-table contenders - have or can assemble a number of different armies and lists. So you'd expect the perceived OPness to be overrepresented.
And, if you assume the more skilled players' perceptions are more likley in line with the truth than random chance, that suggests the actual OPness would be overrepresented.
I mean, i totally agree that the IK/BA/IG combo is more overpowered than Ynnari. The sum of it's parts makes it extremely hard to deal with. It is also fairly easy to play, and a bit of a noob stomper. The fact that it also hard counters Ynnari (Nick has said in interviews he auto loses if he goes second) doesn't hurt.
I do think other things go into what lists we see, such as model collections, price points, and so on. Even with borrowed models, the IK/BA/IG list is probably a lot easy to get together.
Someone please mathhammer the effectiveness of Shining Spears against a doomed, jinxed, but fully stratagem-buffed Castellan. I'm curious now. It doesn't seem very effective to me but I could be wrong.
barboggo wrote: Someone please mathhammer the effectiveness of Shining Spears against a doomed, jinxed, but fully stratagem-buffed Castellan. I'm curious now. It doesn't seem very effective to me but I could be wrong.
SS are more of a Anti-infanty unit, most of its guns are S4 4 shots, it has 1 6" range lance for each rider that only does 2D, if all 9 riders hits, wounds, and no saves (tho its a 4++, -1 means its 5++) to shoot its 18 damage max. You will have to Soul burst just to get in range so there is no way to double shoot. With the extra Shuriken shots you can do 4 damage with all re-rolls/jink.
barboggo wrote: Someone please mathhammer the effectiveness of Shining Spears against a doomed, jinxed, but fully stratagem-buffed Castellan. I'm curious now. It doesn't seem very effective to me but I could be wrong.
Yeah with guide, doom, and jinx it's only about 9-10 damage on average. Not really the ideal target for that unit, though it's probably worth noting that is similar damage to what 20 unbuffed BS3+ las cannons do to the same knight (without doom or jinx on it) so it's still not like it's terrible.
barboggo wrote: Someone please mathhammer the effectiveness of Shining Spears against a doomed, jinxed, but fully stratagem-buffed Castellan. I'm curious now. It doesn't seem very effective to me but I could be wrong.
Yeah with guide, doom, and jinx it's only about 9-10 damage on average. Not really the ideal target for that unit, though it's probably worth noting that is similar damage to what 20 unbuffed BS3+ las cannons do to the same knight (without doom or jinx on it) so it's still not like it's terrible.
That's awful. They'd get obliterated on the backswing. You could shoot another 20 Dark Reapers at it and still not kill it.
I saw your comment the first time. Why is there talk in this thread about Ynnari winning against Castellans? The usual list has no tools for it. If anything Haywire spam is the way to go.
barboggo wrote: I saw your comment the first time. Why is there talk in this thread about Ynnari winning against Castellans? The usual list has no tools for it. If anything Haywire spam is the way to go.
B.c why ask for math with anti-infantry elite unit to kill a knight? Why not instead ask how many HWC's does it take with Doom/Jinx to kill a knight?
barboggo wrote: Someone please mathhammer the effectiveness of Shining Spears against a doomed, jinxed, but fully stratagem-buffed Castellan. I'm curious now. It doesn't seem very effective to me but I could be wrong.
Yeah with guide, doom, and jinx it's only about 9-10 damage on average. Not really the ideal target for that unit, though it's probably worth noting that is similar damage to what 20 unbuffed BS3+ las cannons do to the same knight (without doom or jinx on it) so it's still not like it's terrible.
That is shooting....In CC they do a lot more damage.
They do about 9 wounds in CC for 18 damage - plus their shooting 3.5 damage from cats and about 4 from lances. It nearly 1 shots it.
12 harli bikes do about 20 mortal wounds to the sucker. Then if they all manage to charge it Then they do about 8 damage to it. 1 shotting it.
Both these units have double moves so reaching the Castellan is usually not going to be an issue. Both about average a kill on the castellan with the right support.
It is true the smash fether can mess up some spears in CC - but harlie bikers are a different story - they can go to 3++ and -1 to hit in CC for a stratagem and a psychic power. Lets say Smash fether charges these guys.
9 attacks hitting on 4's rerolling 1's. Will Average you between 4-5 hits. You will wound 4-5 times. They will save 3-4 times. So you kil 1-2 bikes. Not really that impressive. He fights again and kills 1-2 more. Yeah that hurts a bit but then he is just wrecked. If he only kills 2-3 bikes - he barely made his points back and you spent 5 CP. This can't happen till turn 2 though - unless they deploy him on the feild - in which case there is a good chance the castellan is already dead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Oh... i dont read what he says most the time lol, my bad for saying something to you about it then.
Can you not math dude?
Do you know Doom and shinning spears kills just about everything in the game in 1 round that isn't a mega titan? NOR can a castellan fall back through biker units ether. They could even not shoot at him and just use him as bunker. This is what smart eldar players do - use your titan against you. Heck - this is the kind of stuff that goes on at my local store - I'd really expect the top players in the game to know this.
Plus there is the option to just hide in the infantry squads by surrounding a unit you didn't charge and pile into them. Protected and fortuned spears don't give a flying flip about taking 90 or so str 4 attacks hitting them on 5's with -1 to hit strat and a 2+ save. That doesn't even average a kill on the spears. Plus so what if you lose 1.
You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
its not 60 tho, its 100+, sometimes more.
6x 10man, 3 heavy teams of 3 mortars, 2 Platoon commanders and priest, 3x5 scouts, thats 105 models minimum. And this is the winning list, some other lists had more in them, some had 120+ models.
So tell me again that 100 models is easy to kill turn 1 to get to the knight and be in combat with it while shooting it 1st to stand a chance of killing it with all max buffs and a Soulburst?
Edit: Again, if they know they have SS, they will protect a bit more, stay out of 7", stay bubble wrap in layers so not to fly over as easy, etc.. with 6 10man squads, 3 5mans, and some odds and ends guys, its not hard to stop a 9 man unit from moving to much before they can be in a good position.
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
Yeah my bad I should have mentioned that was only shooting. I find it sort of unlikely SS would even be able to get into charge range of a Castellan so I didn't think about their close combat.
barboggo wrote: I was genuinely curious about SS math because people here seem to think Ynnari does well against them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Specifically Xenomancer btw.
Haywire spam does about 20 wounds with 12 bikes. If you brought 18 you'd be able to reliable 1 shot a castellan. Those bikes kill 58 guardsmen a turn too if they are able to fight twice they will kill about 90 guardsmen. Assuming you use the +1 attack on the charge army trait. Also assuming you can reach that many. This is just their raw damage output.
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
its not 60 tho, its 100+, sometimes more.
6x 10man, 3 heavy teams of 3 mortars, 2 Platoon commanders and priest, 3x5 scouts, thats 105 models minimum. And this is the winning list, some other lists had more in them, some had 120+ models.
So tell me again that 100 models is easy to kill turn 1 to get to the knight and be in combat with it while shooting it 1st to stand a chance of killing it with all max buffs and a Soulburst?
Edit: Again, if they know they have SS, they will protect a bit more, stay out of 7", stay bubble wrap in layers so not to fly over as easy, etc.. with 6 10man squads, 3 5mans, and some odds and ends guys, its not hard to stop a 9 man unit from moving to much before they can be in a good position.
Some only have a batallion though - 5 out of 7 of them don't have the chaff to protect from spears or harlie bike bonzi charges. Plus - as you pointed out - spears and harlie bikes rek infantry. If they can't make it to the knight with a double move - they just shred the infantry and get locked into combat While the rest of your army moves up and clears infantry from around the castellan.
It's easy to tell who has the advantage in the matchup. Infantry and castellans suck vs -1 to hit shenaninigans and high invo saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote: Interesting. Makes me wonder if Ynnari/haywire has a chance at replacing the default reaper/SS list.
When they first came out it was my initial thought too. But that was before IK came out. With the prevalence of the castellan - We are going to see a lot of starweavers I think.
Just made a quick list that will PWN this imperial soup list.
Ynnari -
Farseer skyrunner
Warlock Skyrunner
rangers
rangers
rangers
Theres like 30 points left over - lots of things you can do too. Like trade out rangers for kabalites and take Yvraine and a foot warlock. Lots of things you can do.
Why am I arguing this? It's not command points - it's OP units.
barboggo wrote: I was genuinely curious about SS math because people here seem to think Ynnari does well against them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Specifically Xenomancer btw.
Haywire spam does about 20 wounds with 12 bikes. If you brought 18 you'd be able to reliable 1 shot a castellan. Those bikes kill 58 guardsmen a turn too if they are able to fight twice they will kill about 90 guardsmen. Assuming you use the +1 attack on the charge army trait. Also assuming you can reach that many. This is just their raw damage output.
Does that include the 5+++ against Mortal Wounds stratagem that will 100% be used?
barboggo wrote: I was genuinely curious about SS math because people here seem to think Ynnari does well against them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Specifically Xenomancer btw.
Haywire spam does about 20 wounds with 12 bikes. If you brought 18 you'd be able to reliable 1 shot a castellan. Those bikes kill 58 guardsmen a turn too if they are able to fight twice they will kill about 90 guardsmen. Assuming you use the +1 attack on the charge army trait. Also assuming you can reach that many. This is just their raw damage output.
Does that include the 5+++ against Mortal Wounds stratagem that will 100% be used?
I wasn't aware they even had that. LOL. Wow - that changed things a bit. I could have used that last game for sure. You could always vect that. If you include DE in your list. It would be worth it.
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
its not 60 tho, its 100+, sometimes more.
6x 10man, 3 heavy teams of 3 mortars, 2 Platoon commanders and priest, 3x5 scouts, thats 105 models minimum. And this is the winning list, some other lists had more in them, some had 120+ models.
So tell me again that 100 models is easy to kill turn 1 to get to the knight and be in combat with it while shooting it 1st to stand a chance of killing it with all max buffs and a Soulburst?
Edit: Again, if they know they have SS, they will protect a bit more, stay out of 7", stay bubble wrap in layers so not to fly over as easy, etc.. with 6 10man squads, 3 5mans, and some odds and ends guys, its not hard to stop a 9 man unit from moving to much before they can be in a good position.
Some only have a batallion though - 5 out of 7 of them don't have the chaff to protect from spears or harlie bike bonzi charges. Plus - as you pointed out - spears and harlie bikes rek infantry. If they can't make it to the knight with a double move - they just shred the infantry and get locked into combat While the rest of your army moves up and clears infantry from around the castellan.
It's easy to tell who has the advantage in the matchup. Infantry and castellans suck vs -1 to hit shenaninigans and high invo saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote: Interesting. Makes me wonder if Ynnari/haywire has a chance at replacing the default reaper/SS list.
When they first came out it was my initial thought too. But that was before IK came out. With the prevalence of the castellan - We are going to see a lot of starweavers I think.
Just made a quick list that will PWN this imperial soup list.
Ynnari -
Farseer skyrunner
Warlock Skyrunner
rangers
rangers
rangers
Theres like 30 points left over - lots of things you can do too. Like trade out rangers for kabalites and take Yvraine and a foot warlock. Lots of things you can do.
Why am I arguing this? It's not command points - it's OP units.
If that list doesn't go first, it still probably doesn't win. It also likely has a hard time going 8-0 against a wider variety of lists.
That being said, OP units are definitely a problem. The Castellan is too good at what is does, especially with the relic plasma, warlord 4++, rotate, and the raven strat. Blood angels captains can pretty much kill anything that hasn't been screened out against them with their stratagems. Guard are clearly the most efficient horde in the game and give tons of base CP.
However i think it is the combination of the three units is really what makes them "OP." The Castellan gets to use everything good from the knight book without having to share them with other knights, the blood angels captains get to do their full combo, and guard take up enough space to let them do it without getting effectively shot or charged in the process.
Then, the CP regen propels the list even more. The list has 3+12+5+0 CP from it's detachments, it spends 2+3+2 CP before the game on knight relic + knight warlord + blood angels relics + DVoS on the captains (these two are quasi-optional). So you start the game with 13. The Castellan needs 3 CP for rotate, 2 for Oathbreaker Missiles, 2 for Raven strat. This would normally put you down to 6 CP. This is significant IMO. The Blood angels captain combo costs 1 for redeploy, 2 for 3d6 charge, 1 for d3 attacks, and 2-3 to either die and fight again or just fight again for a total of 6-7CP. So with no CP regen you would be out of CPs in a single turn. While the IK/BA/IG combo would still be good, it would have much less of a bunch after that first turn.
With average re-gen rolls, you would still have 6-7 CP left at the end of that turn, which would be enough to do both BA and IK strat combos again with average rolls. You also get 3 or so more CP from the enemy strats (assuming they do 9 over the course of the game). In total, with average re-rolls you can do the BA and IK strat combos twice, and eight of the 1 CP dice rerolls in a game, which costs 34 CP when you started with 13. If that isn't out of control, i'm not sure what is. It is also fairly common for people to roll above average and either get free stratagems or get paid in stratagems, which starts to really propel the CP total even more.
Try rolling some dice for pretend stratagems and see how many CP you spend before you run out. Make sure to do some 1, 2 and 3 strats. The first time i did it i got to 50 something.
So it really seems to me like a combination of certain factions/units having the best strats (the 4++ warlord plus the rotate ion shields stratagem reduces the incoming damage from weapons that matter by a whopping 50%) on the best units with tons of CP all combined together.
It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
its not 60 tho, its 100+, sometimes more.
6x 10man, 3 heavy teams of 3 mortars, 2 Platoon commanders and priest, 3x5 scouts, thats 105 models minimum. And this is the winning list, some other lists had more in them, some had 120+ models.
So tell me again that 100 models is easy to kill turn 1 to get to the knight and be in combat with it while shooting it 1st to stand a chance of killing it with all max buffs and a Soulburst?
Edit: Again, if they know they have SS, they will protect a bit more, stay out of 7", stay bubble wrap in layers so not to fly over as easy, etc.. with 6 10man squads, 3 5mans, and some odds and ends guys, its not hard to stop a 9 man unit from moving to much before they can be in a good position.
Some only have a batallion though - 5 out of 7 of them don't have the chaff to protect from spears or harlie bike bonzi charges. Plus - as you pointed out - spears and harlie bikes rek infantry. If they can't make it to the knight with a double move - they just shred the infantry and get locked into combat While the rest of your army moves up and clears infantry from around the castellan.
It's easy to tell who has the advantage in the matchup. Infantry and castellans suck vs -1 to hit shenaninigans and high invo saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote: Interesting. Makes me wonder if Ynnari/haywire has a chance at replacing the default reaper/SS list.
When they first came out it was my initial thought too. But that was before IK came out. With the prevalence of the castellan - We are going to see a lot of starweavers I think.
Just made a quick list that will PWN this imperial soup list.
Ynnari -
Farseer skyrunner
Warlock Skyrunner
rangers
rangers
rangers
Theres like 30 points left over - lots of things you can do too. Like trade out rangers for kabalites and take Yvraine and a foot warlock. Lots of things you can do.
Why am I arguing this? It's not command points - it's OP units.
If that list doesn't go first, it still probably doesn't win. It also likely has a hard time going 8-0 against a wider variety of lists.
That being said, OP units are definitely a problem. The Castellan is too good at what is does, especially with the relic plasma, warlord 4++, rotate, and the raven strat. Blood angels captains can pretty much kill anything that hasn't been screened out against them with their stratagems. Guard are clearly the most efficient horde in the game and give tons of base CP.
However i think it is the combination of the three units is really what makes them "OP." The Castellan gets to use everything good from the knight book without having to share them with other knights, the blood angels captains get to do their full combo, and guard take up enough space to let them do it without getting effectively shot or charged in the process.
Then, the CP regen propels the list even more. The list has 3+12+5+0 CP from it's detachments, it spends 2+3+2 CP before the game on knight relic + knight warlord + blood angels relics + DVoS on the captains (these two are quasi-optional). So you start the game with 13. The Castellan needs 3 CP for rotate, 2 for Oathbreaker Missiles, 2 for Raven strat. This would normally put you down to 6 CP. This is significant IMO. The Blood angels captain combo costs 1 for redeploy, 2 for 3d6 charge, 1 for d3 attacks, and 2-3 to either die and fight again or just fight again for a total of 6-7CP. So with no CP regen you would be out of CPs in a single turn. While the IK/BA/IG combo would still be good, it would have much less of a bunch after that first turn.
With average re-gen rolls, you would still have 6-7 CP left at the end of that turn, which would be enough to do both BA and IK strat combos again with average rolls. You also get 3 or so more CP from the enemy strats (assuming they do 9 over the course of the game). In total, with average re-rolls you can do the BA and IK strat combos twice, and eight of the 1 CP dice rerolls in a game, which costs 34 CP when you started with 13. If that isn't out of control, i'm not sure what is. It is also fairly common for people to roll above average and either get free stratagems or get paid in stratagems, which starts to really propel the CP total even more.
Try rolling some dice for pretend stratagems and see how many CP you spend before you run out. Make sure to do some 1, 2 and 3 strats. The first time i did it i got to 50 something.
So it really seems to me like a combination of certain factions/units having the best strats (the 4++ warlord plus the rotate ion shields stratagem reduces the incoming damage from weapons that matter by a whopping 50%) on the best units with tons of CP all combined together.
It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
Don't really need to roll - if you have 20 - you will get something like 27 Cp - relic will get you 2- if they spend 6 stratagems. So 29 will be the average...obviously it's too much. Plus regenerated points can also regenerate - probably averages out to like 32- or so with no pregame strats. Because an IG brigade/batallion is to fething cheap. Plus smash captains fill HQ requirement but are the most powerful unit in the game for the points. You fix this by increasing the cost of infantry and CC by 1 and 10 respectively. This increases the cost of a brigade by aprox 80 points (if they take 2 CC). Then I would probably put a limit on the number of stratagems that can be played on a single unit in a phase. To say...1. Then I'd probably cost straken at about 110 points. His aura is nuts.
I'd also rework the way +1 save works. It should not affect invo saves UNLESS it specifically buffs invo saves and then - it wouldn't also buff your armor.
Lots of knight stratagems are too cheap too. To fight at full power at 1 wound should be 2-3 CP. I'd also rework the IK warlord trait for a 4++ save to state to a maxium of 4+. I'd probably increase the castellans point cost by about 100 points too.
True in your examples they start with less CP because of pregame strats. Do you think a limit on number of relics in an army should exist? Say a max of 3?
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
its not 60 tho, its 100+, sometimes more.
6x 10man, 3 heavy teams of 3 mortars, 2 Platoon commanders and priest, 3x5 scouts, thats 105 models minimum. And this is the winning list, some other lists had more in them, some had 120+ models.
So tell me again that 100 models is easy to kill turn 1 to get to the knight and be in combat with it while shooting it 1st to stand a chance of killing it with all max buffs and a Soulburst?
Edit: Again, if they know they have SS, they will protect a bit more, stay out of 7", stay bubble wrap in layers so not to fly over as easy, etc.. with 6 10man squads, 3 5mans, and some odds and ends guys, its not hard to stop a 9 man unit from moving to much before they can be in a good position.
Some only have a batallion though - 5 out of 7 of them don't have the chaff to protect from spears or harlie bike bonzi charges. Plus - as you pointed out - spears and harlie bikes rek infantry. If they can't make it to the knight with a double move - they just shred the infantry and get locked into combat While the rest of your army moves up and clears infantry from around the castellan.
It's easy to tell who has the advantage in the matchup. Infantry and castellans suck vs -1 to hit shenaninigans and high invo saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote: Interesting. Makes me wonder if Ynnari/haywire has a chance at replacing the default reaper/SS list.
When they first came out it was my initial thought too. But that was before IK came out. With the prevalence of the castellan - We are going to see a lot of starweavers I think.
Just made a quick list that will PWN this imperial soup list.
Ynnari -
Farseer skyrunner
Warlock Skyrunner
rangers
rangers
rangers
Theres like 30 points left over - lots of things you can do too. Like trade out rangers for kabalites and take Yvraine and a foot warlock. Lots of things you can do.
Why am I arguing this? It's not command points - it's OP units.
If that list doesn't go first, it still probably doesn't win. It also likely has a hard time going 8-0 against a wider variety of lists.
That being said, OP units are definitely a problem. The Castellan is too good at what is does, especially with the relic plasma, warlord 4++, rotate, and the raven strat. Blood angels captains can pretty much kill anything that hasn't been screened out against them with their stratagems. Guard are clearly the most efficient horde in the game and give tons of base CP.
However i think it is the combination of the three units is really what makes them "OP." The Castellan gets to use everything good from the knight book without having to share them with other knights, the blood angels captains get to do their full combo, and guard take up enough space to let them do it without getting effectively shot or charged in the process.
Then, the CP regen propels the list even more. The list has 3+12+5+0 CP from it's detachments, it spends 2+3+2 CP before the game on knight relic + knight warlord + blood angels relics + DVoS on the captains (these two are quasi-optional). So you start the game with 13. The Castellan needs 3 CP for rotate, 2 for Oathbreaker Missiles, 2 for Raven strat. This would normally put you down to 6 CP. This is significant IMO. The Blood angels captain combo costs 1 for redeploy, 2 for 3d6 charge, 1 for d3 attacks, and 2-3 to either die and fight again or just fight again for a total of 6-7CP. So with no CP regen you would be out of CPs in a single turn. While the IK/BA/IG combo would still be good, it would have much less of a bunch after that first turn.
With average re-gen rolls, you would still have 6-7 CP left at the end of that turn, which would be enough to do both BA and IK strat combos again with average rolls. You also get 3 or so more CP from the enemy strats (assuming they do 9 over the course of the game). In total, with average re-rolls you can do the BA and IK strat combos twice, and eight of the 1 CP dice rerolls in a game, which costs 34 CP when you started with 13. If that isn't out of control, i'm not sure what is. It is also fairly common for people to roll above average and either get free stratagems or get paid in stratagems, which starts to really propel the CP total even more.
Try rolling some dice for pretend stratagems and see how many CP you spend before you run out. Make sure to do some 1, 2 and 3 strats. The first time i did it i got to 50 something.
So it really seems to me like a combination of certain factions/units having the best strats (the 4++ warlord plus the rotate ion shields stratagem reduces the incoming damage from weapons that matter by a whopping 50%) on the best units with tons of CP all combined together.
It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
Don't really need to roll - if you have 20 - you will get something like 27 Cp - relic will get you 2- if they spend 6 stratagems. So 29 will be the average...obviously it's too much. Plus regenerated points can also regenerate - probably averages out to like 32- or so with no pregame strats. Because an IG brigade/batallion is to fething cheap. Plus smash captains fill HQ requirement but are the most powerful unit in the game for the points. You fix this by increasing the cost of infantry and CC by 1 and 10 respectively. This increases the cost of a brigade by aprox 80 points (if they take 2 CC). Then I would probably put a limit on the number of stratagems that can be played on a single unit in a phase. To say...1. Then I'd probably cost straken at about 110 points. His aura is nuts.
I'd also rework the way +1 save works. It should not affect invo saves UNLESS it specifically buffs invo saves and then - it wouldn't also buff your armor.
Lots of knight stratagems are too cheap too. To fight at full power at 1 wound should be 2-3 CP. I'd also rework the IK warlord trait for a 4++ save to state to a maxium of 4+. I'd probably increase the castellans point cost by about 100 points too.
True in your examples they start with less CP because of pregame strats. Do you think a limit on number of relics in an army should exist? Say a max of 3?
You get a lot more so than that:
Assuming that you only use 1cp stratagem after deployement, for every 10 cp you have on turn 1, you will be able to spend 25 on average with the BA relic and grand strategist (each cp generate an expected 0.6666cp, than will then generate 0.36 cp...).
This is why we are talking about de-facto infinite cp with that combo.
I tend to prefer to lean towards more conservative changes when they have the potential to effect a wide spectrum of armies, but the following changes feel pretty safe to me for the FAQ.
1. Limit more powerful HQs to 0-1 per detachment. My short list would include captains, daemon princes, Hive tyrants, Tau commanders, company commanders, and Custodes shield captains. This would include any varieties of these units, but would exclude named characters. I might be missing some units but you get the idea. Dark eldar probably have to be the exception since they have very limited HQ units. As far as I know people don't spam too many eldar HQs, but some of those might need to be in this list too.
2. Cap rotate ion shields buff to a 4++.
3. Make it so you can only ever use one ability to regen CP at a time.
4. Reduce the battillion and brigade back to their original 3 and 9 CP. Increase the 3 battleforged CP to 6.
5. Cap the number of negatives to hit an enemy can effect you with to -1. Moving with a heavy weapon, for example, is something you cause for yourself so it would get you to -2 if the enemy was also -1, but nothing is ever harder to hit than that.
I think more needs to change, but these things would be my ideal changes to move into a new meta between now and CA, which would ideally do things like fix Marines and IG points costs.
Amishprn86 wrote: You will never get them to the knight, you must soulburst just to make it to the knight and kill the 2-3 units bubble wrapping him, there is no way to get to it vs anyone thats not a noob.
SS cant kill it, SS cant get to it. GG
Yeah it's unlikely that they will fit with 60 infantry in the way - they can fly over them though if there is a hole. I was just showing what they can do in 1 turn. Which is kill the knight completely.
its not 60 tho, its 100+, sometimes more.
6x 10man, 3 heavy teams of 3 mortars, 2 Platoon commanders and priest, 3x5 scouts, thats 105 models minimum. And this is the winning list, some other lists had more in them, some had 120+ models.
So tell me again that 100 models is easy to kill turn 1 to get to the knight and be in combat with it while shooting it 1st to stand a chance of killing it with all max buffs and a Soulburst?
Edit: Again, if they know they have SS, they will protect a bit more, stay out of 7", stay bubble wrap in layers so not to fly over as easy, etc.. with 6 10man squads, 3 5mans, and some odds and ends guys, its not hard to stop a 9 man unit from moving to much before they can be in a good position.
Some only have a batallion though - 5 out of 7 of them don't have the chaff to protect from spears or harlie bike bonzi charges. Plus - as you pointed out - spears and harlie bikes rek infantry. If they can't make it to the knight with a double move - they just shred the infantry and get locked into combat While the rest of your army moves up and clears infantry from around the castellan.
It's easy to tell who has the advantage in the matchup. Infantry and castellans suck vs -1 to hit shenaninigans and high invo saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
barboggo wrote: Interesting. Makes me wonder if Ynnari/haywire has a chance at replacing the default reaper/SS list.
When they first came out it was my initial thought too. But that was before IK came out. With the prevalence of the castellan - We are going to see a lot of starweavers I think.
Just made a quick list that will PWN this imperial soup list.
Ynnari -
Farseer skyrunner
Warlock Skyrunner
rangers
rangers
rangers
Theres like 30 points left over - lots of things you can do too. Like trade out rangers for kabalites and take Yvraine and a foot warlock. Lots of things you can do.
Why am I arguing this? It's not command points - it's OP units.
If that list doesn't go first, it still probably doesn't win. It also likely has a hard time going 8-0 against a wider variety of lists.
That being said, OP units are definitely a problem. The Castellan is too good at what is does, especially with the relic plasma, warlord 4++, rotate, and the raven strat. Blood angels captains can pretty much kill anything that hasn't been screened out against them with their stratagems. Guard are clearly the most efficient horde in the game and give tons of base CP.
However i think it is the combination of the three units is really what makes them "OP." The Castellan gets to use everything good from the knight book without having to share them with other knights, the blood angels captains get to do their full combo, and guard take up enough space to let them do it without getting effectively shot or charged in the process.
Then, the CP regen propels the list even more. The list has 3+12+5+0 CP from it's detachments, it spends 2+3+2 CP before the game on knight relic + knight warlord + blood angels relics + DVoS on the captains (these two are quasi-optional). So you start the game with 13. The Castellan needs 3 CP for rotate, 2 for Oathbreaker Missiles, 2 for Raven strat. This would normally put you down to 6 CP. This is significant IMO. The Blood angels captain combo costs 1 for redeploy, 2 for 3d6 charge, 1 for d3 attacks, and 2-3 to either die and fight again or just fight again for a total of 6-7CP. So with no CP regen you would be out of CPs in a single turn. While the IK/BA/IG combo would still be good, it would have much less of a bunch after that first turn.
With average re-gen rolls, you would still have 6-7 CP left at the end of that turn, which would be enough to do both BA and IK strat combos again with average rolls. You also get 3 or so more CP from the enemy strats (assuming they do 9 over the course of the game). In total, with average re-rolls you can do the BA and IK strat combos twice, and eight of the 1 CP dice rerolls in a game, which costs 34 CP when you started with 13. If that isn't out of control, i'm not sure what is. It is also fairly common for people to roll above average and either get free stratagems or get paid in stratagems, which starts to really propel the CP total even more.
Try rolling some dice for pretend stratagems and see how many CP you spend before you run out. Make sure to do some 1, 2 and 3 strats. The first time i did it i got to 50 something.
So it really seems to me like a combination of certain factions/units having the best strats (the 4++ warlord plus the rotate ion shields stratagem reduces the incoming damage from weapons that matter by a whopping 50%) on the best units with tons of CP all combined together.
It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
Don't really need to roll - if you have 20 - you will get something like 27 Cp - relic will get you 2- if they spend 6 stratagems. So 29 will be the average...obviously it's too much. Plus regenerated points can also regenerate - probably averages out to like 32- or so with no pregame strats. Because an IG brigade/batallion is to fething cheap. Plus smash captains fill HQ requirement but are the most powerful unit in the game for the points. You fix this by increasing the cost of infantry and CC by 1 and 10 respectively. This increases the cost of a brigade by aprox 80 points (if they take 2 CC). Then I would probably put a limit on the number of stratagems that can be played on a single unit in a phase. To say...1. Then I'd probably cost straken at about 110 points. His aura is nuts.
I'd also rework the way +1 save works. It should not affect invo saves UNLESS it specifically buffs invo saves and then - it wouldn't also buff your armor.
Lots of knight stratagems are too cheap too. To fight at full power at 1 wound should be 2-3 CP. I'd also rework the IK warlord trait for a 4++ save to state to a maxium of 4+. I'd probably increase the castellans point cost by about 100 points too.
True in your examples they start with less CP because of pregame strats. Do you think a limit on number of relics in an army should exist? Say a max of 3?
You get a lot more so than that:
Assuming that you only use 1cp stratagem after deployement, for every 10 cp you have on turn 1, you will be able to spend 25 on average with the BA relic and grand strategist (each cp generate an expected 0.6666cp, than will then generate 0.36 cp...).
This is why we are talking about de-facto infinite cp with that combo.
Didn't know about this BA relic ether. It really just goes to show you how stupid TO's are. The fact that a rule where you can only use 1 CP regerenator per stratagem hasn't been made - shows you they are out to lunch. I don't think many armies use that though - because they already have enough command points...Plus blood angels captains rarely live more than 1 turn anyways.
bullyboy wrote: Aside from CP farms, I would like to see HQs unable to be duplicated in the same army (at least detachment). I find it silly to have 3 Captains a tiny SM army, or 3 Shield Captains on bikes.
All of the custodes HQs choices are captains, while the marines can take six different captains without duplicating a unit.
So? Trouble is, people are duplicating the same build. Drop that and I'd be fine.
Bharring wrote: To do that, most detatchments would need to only require 1 HQ.
Each DE subfaction only *has* 1 HQ. There are 3 total generics available to them, so they'd then need to dip into Special Characters.
T'au are similarly limited. Commander. Ethereal. Fireblade. That's it.
Harlequins, same story.
Corsiars? Well, we should skip them. They have 0. But that's another story.
It works just fine really. DE have a specific rule to encourage you to take patrols, you don't need battalions and brigades. A single detachment shouldn't have 2 archons, unless you're going to roll at start of game to see which one murdered the other and took over.
Harlies have 2 HQs, so are fine in each detachment. Could some of the armies do with more HQs, sure, but it would still work and cut down on the duplicate nonsense.
There is no reason to take the Patrols in DE.
Not now, right. That pretty much was figured out the day the book was released. However, it should be that way. Patrols, Outriders, Spearheads etc. I wouldn't mind Battalions but GW thought it great to not give DE lesser ranked leaders, dumb really.
The point remains, however, that seeing 3 custodes bike captains or 3 BA smash dudes, or 3 DPs is just ridiculous.
jcd386 wrote: It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
We can see what units are OP now. They are the ones that feature most often in lists at top tables.
For me, 18 haywire bikers are just too expensive and will rely on going first and getting a soulburst on one of the units, to ensure they have the bodies and shots left to 1 shot a Castellan.
Shining spears are also very cheap for what they do. The fact that they're 31 points each when a space marine biker is 27 is ridiculous. They should probably be 40 points but people would riot. (Note Ork warbikes are also 27 points but I expect those to be either buffed significantly or get a price cut)
I still think a hemlock needs a price hike of 15 points as well considering how difficult it is to hit, basically never degrades and is a psyker.
But these are things I'm okay with getting adjusted in CA whereas I want to see some game mechanical changes in the FAQ. We still have no solid idea when that's dropping yet, right?
PiñaColada wrote: Shining spears are also very cheap for what they do. The fact that they're 31 points each when a space marine biker is 27 is ridiculous. They should probably be 40 points but people would riot. (Note Ork warbikes are also 27 points but I expect those to be either buffed significantly or get a price cut)
I still think a hemlock needs a price hike of 15 points as well considering how difficult it is to hit, basically never degrades and is a psyker.
But these are things I'm okay with getting adjusted in CA whereas I want to see some game mechanical changes in the FAQ. We still have no solid idea when that's dropping yet, right?
You're not wrong re Shining Spears and Hemlock, I'm sure there are other units I've missed but my list is specifically tied to the results of this tournament.
No news on FAQ, I'm not convinced we're definitely going to get another before the year end.
bullyboy wrote: Aside from CP farms, I would like to see HQs unable to be duplicated in the same army (at least detachment). I find it silly to have 3 Captains a tiny SM army, or 3 Shield Captains on bikes.
All of the custodes HQs choices are captains, while the marines can take six different captains without duplicating a unit.
So? Trouble is, people are duplicating the same build. Drop that and I'd be fine.
When you said 'silly' I had thought you meant from a fluff perspective.
But in terms of army build and game balance the trouble is that there are specific HQ choices that are clearly better than the other options, so players are only taking those.
The solution is to fix the underpowered units and reign in the overpowered units, not to force players to take poor choices.
PiñaColada wrote: Shining spears are also very cheap for what they do. The fact that they're 31 points each when a space marine biker is 27 is ridiculous. They should probably be 40 points but people would riot. (Note Ork warbikes are also 27 points but I expect those to be either buffed significantly or get a price cut)
I still think a hemlock needs a price hike of 15 points as well considering how difficult it is to hit, basically never degrades and is a psyker.
But these are things I'm okay with getting adjusted in CA whereas I want to see some game mechanical changes in the FAQ. We still have no solid idea when that's dropping yet, right?
You're not wrong re Shining Spears and Hemlock, I'm sure there are other units I've missed but my list is specifically tied to the results of this tournament.
No news on FAQ, I'm not convinced we're definitely going to get another before the year end.
I personally think some of the Nurgle stuff needs to be looked at as well as I find the fact that some of their stuff can get D5 attacks seems a bit crazy. I like the fact that the army strives and achieves a lot of synergy but I'm wondering if GW correctly assessed it all.
I'm pretty sure we're getting both a FAQ and CA this year but they might not cover as much as we would like. I'm not necessarily in a hurry for GW to solve every problem but I feel like I need to see something that shows us GW at the very least recognises the problems
Everyone's complaining about individual units being OP and some of the combos in these lists very much are but most of the imperial soup power vanishes or caps out turn 1 turn two played mono codex due to lack of CP.
Rather than complaining about strategums, relics and warlord traits that arn't game breaking mono codex.
Can some one please explain why the faction that can bring 22 starting CP to a 1500 point game is the only codex that gets to double up on CP Stealing and Regeneration?
The imperial soup is standing above other soup because of Guards busted CP mechanics.
Once that is fixed we would probably still be in a soup meta but atleast it would be a less one side soup meta.
I still think soup armies should loose the 3CP for being battle forged, as to most armies (bar IG) loosing 3 CP is a fairly steep price to pay for your allies over staying in codex.
Ice_can wrote: I still think soup armies should loose the 3CP for being battle forged, as to most armies (bar IG) loosing 3 CP is a fairly steep price to pay for your allies over staying in codex.
Yea, this is part of the fix but not the fix entirely.
IG Infantry will still be the most points efficient objective holders in the game at 4ppm ---> they still get taken.
Slamguinius and to a lesser extent Shieldbike Captain will still be some of the greatest counter charge cqc beatsticks in the game ---> they still get taken.
Castellans will still put out an absurd amount of firepower and will still be incredibly tanky for their cost ----> they still get taken.
Without changes to these units specifically a paltry 3 CP loss will make no difference. Particularly when (as you've said) these soup armies can get a ton of CP incredibly cheap. All the 3 CP loss would do is shift all those Battalions to Brigades. They will still take exactly the same units and that is a stagnant meta.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
No. No no no. Wrong. Incorrect. Nada. Non correctamundo. We can see what units are currently powerful not what units are "OP".
You need to get this stupid idea out of your head that anything people choose to use a lot is automatically "OP"
Just because a unit is good doesn't mean it needs to be smashed with the nerfhammer. How depressing would this game be if every time one model was a wrinkle better than another model it was nerfed into oblivion. Hey why don't we make every single unit in the game have the marine statline and they all cost 10 points each. PERFECT BALANCE!
Ice_can wrote: I still think soup armies should loose the 3CP for being battle forged, as to most armies (bar IG) loosing 3 CP is a fairly steep price to pay for your allies over staying in codex.
Yea, this is part of the fix but not the fix entirely.
IG Infantry will still be the most points efficient objective holders in the game at 4ppm ---> they still get taken.
Slamguinius and to a lesser extent Shieldbike Captain will still be some of the greatest counter charge cqc beatsticks in the game ---> they still get taken.
Castellans will still put out an absurd amount of firepower and will still be incredibly tanky for their cost ----> they still get taken.
Without changes to these units specifically a paltry 3 CP loss will make no difference. Particularly when (as you've said) these soup armies can get a ton of CP incredibly cheap. All the 3 CP loss would do is shift all those Battalions to Brigades. They will still take exactly the same units and that is a stagnant meta.
Sorry maybe it wasn't clear enough, I don't think guard should have grand strategist and Kurov's ever, like the should be removed from the guard codex and never mentioned again.
So those top lists would go from thier current 20+ CP per game down to 14 CP. Given the Castellan is burning 7CP per turn and slamguinius the same its alpha and done. Still brutal but not head and shoulders above any other combo.
The Castellan can be fixed simply by requiring a knight lance to unlock strategums.
Slamguinius is a problem I can't see a fix for but most marine codex's need a V2 anyway. So maybe GW can fix him then qith maybe a temporary nerf untill then.
Well, I think the Castellan is basically fixed by capping knights invuln to a 4++, I play knights and have a Castellan but I find a 3++ on a 28 wound model pretty obnoxious. Furthermore I wouldn't cap stratagems in general to a knight lance but I'd cap the house stratagems to a lance. Meaning you can have a Castellan in a SHAD and still pay CP to get Cawls Wrath and Rotate Ion Shields but you'd no longer have access to Order of Companions (the raven strat)
Just with those two changes I think knights would essentially be fixed and any further balancing in regards to points could come at a later date.
PiñaColada wrote: Well, I think the Castellan is basically fixed by capping knights invuln to a 4++, I play knights and have a Castellan but I find a 3++ on a 28 wound model pretty obnoxious. Furthermore I wouldn't cap stratagems in general to a knight lance but I'd cap the house stratagems to a lance. Meaning you can have a Castellan in a SHAD and still pay CP to get Cawls Wrath and Rotate Ion Shields but you'd no longer have access to Order of Companions (the raven strat)
Just with those two changes I think knights would essentially be fixed and any further balancing in regards to points could come at a later date.
I'd ok with that, though tye reason I'm hesitant to allow rotate to cap out at 4++ is with things like jinx being a flat -1 to all saves and knights having no acess to - to hit eldar can get really obnoxious against mono knights.
Well, I mean for it to be phrased in a way where if someone jinxes it it could still be improved to a 4++. Basically you can still have ion bulwark that grants you a 4++ but rotating ion shields then does nothing (since you're already at max), it would however bump you back into a 4++ if you're jinxed.
Hopefully that mess of a sentence makes sense to you.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
No. No no no. Wrong. Incorrect. Nada. Non correctamundo. We can see what units are currently powerful not what units are "OP".
You need to get this stupid idea out of your head that anything people choose to use a lot is automatically "OP"
Just because a unit is good doesn't mean it needs to be smashed with the nerfhammer. How depressing would this game be if every time one model was a wrinkle better than another model it was nerfed into oblivion. Hey why don't we make every single unit in the game have the marine statline and they all cost 10 points each. PERFECT BALANCE!
What units are currently the most powerful in a soup list are by definition OP. They are stronger than all other contenders for the same spot in an Imperium list. An Imperium list can draw units from over half the books in the game.
There is no "stupid idea" in my head that anything people choose to use a lot is automatically "OP". My premise is pretty simple and thus; units that are taken, repeatedly, in the majority of top lists at highly competitive tournaments over and over and over and over again are OP. This isn't an outlier tournament. We are always seeing the same units in lists at the top tables. Since BA codex dropped Smash Captains have been an auto-include for Imperium soup. Since IK codex was released Castellans have featured prominently in Imperium soup.
Ironically your sarcastic comment about 'PERFECT BALANCE!' is correct. If each and every unit was equal, they would, by definition be perfectly balanced. No-one is suggesting this happens though so I'm struggling to understand why you have brought it up.
When a model outperforms every other model that is similarly costed in theory and in reality, is taken in almost every successful Imperium list and features on the top tables at every event it's pretty obvious that a nerf needs to happen.
Not a "nerfing into the ground" as you seem to exaggerate and imply. But a fix to a unit that is too strong.
This is called balancing and it is good for the game.
PiñaColada wrote: Well, I mean for it to be phrased in a way where if someone jinxes it it could still be improved to a 4++. Basically you can still have ion bulwark that grants you a 4++ but rotating ion shields then does nothing (since you're already at max), it would however bump you back into a 4++ if you're jinxed.
Hopefully that mess of a sentence makes sense to you.
I get the idea a that would be ok I guess but man would that be a complicated qualifier for a strategum.
PiñaColada wrote: Well, I mean for it to be phrased in a way where if someone jinxes it it could still be improved to a 4++. Basically you can still have ion bulwark that grants you a 4++ but rotating ion shields then does nothing (since you're already at max), it would however bump you back into a 4++ if you're jinxed.
Hopefully that mess of a sentence makes sense to you.
I get the idea a that would be ok I guess but man would that be a complicated qualifier for a strategum.
Is it really? It's just 2 modifiers negating each other..
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
No. No no no. Wrong. Incorrect. Nada. Non correctamundo. We can see what units are currently powerful not what units are "OP".
You need to get this stupid idea out of your head that anything people choose to use a lot is automatically "OP"
Just because a unit is good doesn't mean it needs to be smashed with the nerfhammer. How depressing would this game be if every time one model was a wrinkle better than another model it was nerfed into oblivion. Hey why don't we make every single unit in the game have the marine statline and they all cost 10 points each. PERFECT BALANCE!
What units are currently the most powerful in a soup list are by definition OP. They are stronger than all other contenders for the same spot in an Imperium list. An Imperium list can draw units from over half the books in the game.
There is no "stupid idea" in my head that anything people choose to use a lot is automatically "OP". My premise is pretty simple and thus; units that are taken, repeatedly, in the majority of top lists at highly competitive tournaments over and over and over and over again are OP. This isn't an outlier tournament. We are always seeing the same units in lists at the top tables. Since BA codex dropped Smash Captains have been an auto-include for Imperium soup. Since IK codex was released Castellans have featured prominently in Imperium soup.
Ironically your sarcastic comment about 'PERFECT BALANCE!' is correct. If each and every unit was equal, they would, by definition be perfectly balanced. No-one is suggesting this happens though so I'm struggling to understand why you have brought it up.
When a model outperforms every other model that is similarly costed in theory and in reality, is taken in almost every successful Imperium list and features on the top tables at every event it's pretty obvious that a nerf needs to happen.
Not a "nerfing into the ground" as you seem to exaggerate and imply. But a fix to a unit that is too strong.
This is called balancing and it is good for the game.
By your logic we might aswell nerf Ork boys since they literally make all ork lists? Especially all Ork competitive lists? /Sarcasm btw.
IG infantry would be fine if it were not for the frankly inherently unbalanced and unbalanceable CP mechanic.
Let me give you another exemple, if marine lists or CSM lists could get away with min 3 spacemarines per troop choice to fill and they'd drop 1ppm a piece all of them would switch off of Guardsmen or cultists since they get to fill their troop tax cheaper, and don't need another HQ tax since they could fill their taxes in their own detachments. Basically we are atm, thanks to GW's poor implementation, in a race to the bottom.
So long troop heavy detachments for all factions give the most CP and so long certain Stratagems are just frankly a must (cough smashcaptains?) so long the cheapest possible way to fill those will be taken, in order to maximize on those units that actually can use the good stratagems in an offensive boardwipe styles esqua manner.
Basically Soup atm stops us from balancing individual units in comparison to each other or even armies, since the "whole" faction behind it can use basically their generated CP for other stuff.
So long soup is a thing, so long we can't see the propper effectiveness of a unit, (except crons and tau since they don't have any soup possibility) . So long we have no idea how those units perform without CP batteries/ allied in stuff, so long we will not be able to balance the game.
2 things now should happen:
A) Either we buff all monofactions, via certain boni, for exemple all detachment of marines gains x ammount of CP, specific fluffy mono detachments gain x ammount of cp.
B) Force either that Cp can only be used by the generator of said CP (limit cp to the detachment) or double the price of CP if you use Cp from another faction detachment in your army.
Not Online!!! wrote: By your logic we might aswell nerf Ork boys since they literally make all ork lists? Especially all Ork competitive lists? /Sarcasm btw.
No, by my logic you would nerf Ork boyz if they were prevalent at the top tables of competitive tournaments.
Not Online!!! wrote: IG infantry would be fine if it were not for the frankly inherently unbalanced and unbalanceable CP mechanic.
Wrong, they aren't even fine in their own codex. They invalidate Conscripts who are priced correctly.
As I said to Jidmah above, compare them mathematically to other 4ppm units. They are better. There was a massive topic about this in which I believe you were involved. It was proven in theory. Now it's proven in reality because, would you look at that, all the top soup lists take them.
Not Online!!! wrote: Let me give you another exemple, if marine lists or CSM lists could get away with min 3 spacemarines per troop choice to fill and they'd drop 1ppm a piece all of them would switch off of Guardsmen or cultists since they get to fill their troop tax cheaper, and don't need another HQ tax since they could fill their taxes in their own detachments. Basically we are atm, thanks to GW's poor implementation, in a race to the bottom.
So long troop heavy detachments for all factions give the most CP and so long certain Stratagems are just frankly a must (cough smashcaptains?) so long the cheapest possible way to fill those will be taken, in order to maximize on those units that actually can use the good stratagems in an offensive boardwipe styles esqua manner.
Basically Soup atm stops us from balancing individual units in comparison to each other or even armies, since the "whole" faction behind it can use basically their generated CP for other stuff.
So long soup is a thing, so long we can't see the propper effectiveness of a unit, (except crons and tau since they don't have any soup possibility) . So long we have no idea how those units perform without CP batteries/ allied in stuff, so long we will not be able to balance the game.
2 things now should happen:
A) Either we buff all monofactions, via certain boni, for exemple all detachment of marines gains x ammount of CP, specific fluffy mono detachments gain x ammount of cp.
B) Force either that Cp can only be used by the generator of said CP (limit cp to the detachment) or double the price of CP if you use Cp from another faction detachment in your army.
And C) Units should be priced against their relative power to similarly costed units.
Whist I agree that guardsmen definitely should be five points, that is way smaller issue than the CP regen. Both still should be fixed of course. When is the next Chapter Approved or big FAQ anyway?
Crimson wrote: Whist I agree that guardsmen definitely should be five points, that is way smaller issue than the CP regen. Both still should be fixed of course. When is the next Chapter Approved or big FAQ anyway?
There should be an FAQ coming by the end of this month, though I wouldn't expect any large changes in that. FAQs are intended to clarify rules, not to change the rules. Expect any larger changes to be in Chapter Approved in December, with hopefully some major balance changes for under-represented factions to start showing up too.
Wrong, they aren't even fine in their own codex. They invalidate Conscripts who are priced correctly.
As I said to Jidmah above, compare them mathematically to other 4ppm units. They are better. There was a massive topic about this in which I believe you were involved. It was proven in theory. Now it's proven in reality because, would you look at that, all the top soup lists take them.
Again, my point still stands, if there would be something cheaper it would be taken instead.
Simply put so long guardsmen are the cheapest possible way for Imperial armies to generate CP so long they will be taken.
You can therefore not judge the effectiveness of a guardsmen, ergo your fix is as pointless as shooting in the dark without tracer bullets and no idea what is in front of you.
First fix soup, then we can talk about effectiveness and the price tag for units.
Secondly: Conscripts are not worth 4 pts, since they got tripple nerfed and are therefore certainly not priced correctly. Thank the race to the bottom that was early 8th and index time for that and you know it.
Thirdly: All non marines got either a great rule (Orkz) or got cheaper overall in the troops department pts wise. If you really want to fix these outliers then you will also need to go back up in pts for: Kabalites, firewarriors, etc. else they will now overperform as you said, and can see by your own method of focusing on comparable units in a vacuum without any back up of other factions to be allied in / respectively the rest of the options of the codex. Newsflash, that would be neither in the interest of GW trying to sell you as much diffrent stuff and the books for that diffrent stuff aswell as also seriously injuring Codices that are fine by your own mono focus logic. (i can't imagine Tau player beeing happy about a price hike in their firewarrior department.)
Conclusion: So long CP is relevant for the power, since certain stratagems are just a plain must in competitve, and so long certain armies don't get a codex option for cheap generation for CP so long guard will be abused for that and show up in any "imperial" army there is in order to get the CP for the stratagems, in order to play said armies. Additionally a point increase of 1 for guardsmen would still not solve the CP issue and you would still see Guardsmen left right and center so long the real questionable stuff (Smashcaptain and consorts) neither get looked at in regards to their stratagems or their price in pts.
So your "fix"wont solve jack.
PiñaColada wrote: Well, I mean for it to be phrased in a way where if someone jinxes it it could still be improved to a 4++. Basically you can still have ion bulwark that grants you a 4++ but rotating ion shields then does nothing (since you're already at max), it would however bump you back into a 4++ if you're jinxed.
Hopefully that mess of a sentence makes sense to you.
I get the idea a that would be ok I guess but man would that be a complicated qualifier for a strategum.
Is it really? It's just 2 modifiers negating each other..
Sorry I ment to explain on the littlw strategum cards as it's already a fairly wordy strategum anyway with it's questorus and dominus class rule.
Wrong, they aren't even fine in their own codex. They invalidate Conscripts who are priced correctly.
As I said to Jidmah above, compare them mathematically to other 4ppm units. They are better. There was a massive topic about this in which I believe you were involved. It was proven in theory. Now it's proven in reality because, would you look at that, all the top soup lists take them.
Again, my point still stands, if there would be something cheaper it would be taken instead.
Simply put so long guardsmen are the cheapest possible way for Imperial armies to generate CP so long they will be taken.
You can therefore not judge the effectiveness of a guardsmen, ergo your fix is as pointless as shooting in the dark without tracer bullets and no idea what is in front of you.
First fix soup, then we can talk about effectiveness and the price tag for units.
Secondly: Conscripts are not worth 4 pts, since they got tripple nerfed and are therefore certainly not priced correctly. Thank the race to the bottom that was early 8th and index time for that and you know it.
Thirdly: All non marines got either a great rule (Orkz) or got cheaper overall in the troops department pts wise. If you really want to fix these outliers then you will also need to go back up in pts for: Kabalites, firewarriors, etc. else they will now overperform as you said, and can see by your own method of focusing on comparable units in a vacuum without any back up of other factions to be allied in / respectively the rest of the options of the codex. Newsflash, that would be neither in the interest of GW trying to sell you as much diffrent stuff and the books for that diffrent stuff aswell as also seriously injuring Codices that are fine by your own mono focus logic. (i can't imagine Tau player beeing happy about a price hike in their firewarrior department.)
Conclusion: So long CP is relevant for the power, since certain stratagems are just a plain must in competitve, and so long certain armies don't get a codex option for cheap generation for CP so long guard will be abused for that and show up in any "imperial" army there is in order to get the CP for the stratagems, in order to play said armies. Additionally a point increase of 1 for guardsmen would still not solve the CP issue and you would still see Guardsmen left right and center so long the real questionable stuff (Smashcaptain and consorts) neither get looked at in regards to their stratagems or their price in pts.
So your "fix"wont solve jack.
Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.
Jidmah wrote: I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.
Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.
That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.
I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.
I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.
Jidmah wrote: I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.
Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.
That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.
I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.
I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.
They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.
Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.
In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.
Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.
Depends how deep the CP change will go. If it is just the regeneration, IG are still going to be played, they are just too good to not use, when you want to fuel a slamy or a ravellan.
But if something like a no CP sharing rules becomes real, then the whole Imperium as a faction may collapse at worse, and at best we are going to see very different armies. I mean without the CP to fuel the cpts, no one is going to play BAs. Maybe some like plasma DA with a ton of speeder HQs and flyers will become the go to list for humans. Who knows?
Jidmah wrote: I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.
Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.
That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.
I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.
I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.
Sorry, while you make a good point otherwise, you've basically shot yourself in the foot with that one.
DakkaDakkaDakka does zilch for ork boyz and gretchin. It didin't even close the gap between shoota boyz and slugga boyz.
I meant the morale shenanigans that allows for fearless ork blobs. If DAKKAx3 solves anything for ork shooting we will see, i am of the opinion that -1 bs is still extremly strong against orkz since half their shooting phase output gets literally taken out of the equation.
Jidmah wrote: I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.
Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.
That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.
I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.
I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.
Sorry, while you make a good point otherwise, you've basically shot yourself in the foot with that one.
DakkaDakkaDakka does zilch for ork boyz and gretchin. It didin't even close the gap between shoota boyz and slugga boyz.
Compare them to Neophyte Hybrids then who see MASS amount of play in Tyranid lists...they are Guardsmen with +1 LD and an added Laspistol for 5 points and the price is just PERFECT for what they offer.
Guardsmen are not a 4 points model, quit apologizing
Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.
In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.
Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.
Why should the only faction that can take 22 CP to a 1500 point game get any regenerate or bonus CP abilities. They have the cheapest CP in the game already. Other factions having CP regen is oh wait not exactly breaking the game mono faction.
3 outflanking shadowswords is brokenness especially when they obly pay CP for 2 of them.
Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.
In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.
Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.
Nope the cheapest possible (albeit non regainable CP) that is fieldable is basically a R&H detachment.
50 pts max in HQ and 120 in troops for a battalion. 10 pts cheaper then IG, however Chaos has cultists and their HQ are more relevant for them (daemonprinces cough cough) so they generally don't bother with them.
Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.
In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.
Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.
Why should the only faction that can take 22 CP to a 1500 point game get any regenerate or bonus CP abilities. They have the cheapest CP in the game already. Other factions having CP regen is oh wait not exactly breaking the game mono faction.
3 outflanking shadowswords is brokenness especially when they obly pay CP for 2 of them.
A) do you see shadowswords? in these lists? no? i do neither.
B) the cheapest are still R&H so start complaining, o wait nvm since the malefic chaos cheese got removed that was probably the last time you heard from them.
Jidmah wrote: I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.
Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.
That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.
I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.
I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.
They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.
What's the issue with a unit being good? I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
Jidmah wrote: I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.
Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.
That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.
I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.
I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.
They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.
What's the issue with a unit being good? I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They are point for point one of the most durable units in the game.
Jidmah wrote: I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.
Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.
That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.
I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.
I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.
They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.
What's the issue with a unit being good? I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They are point for point one of the most durable units in the game.
Morale factored in? Because i sincerly doubt that.
Jidmah wrote: I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.
An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.
Not Online!!! wrote: I meant the morale shenanigans that allows for fearless ork blobs.
Orks aren't fearless at all. A mob of 30 will start taking moral casualties once you have killed 13 or more boyz. From experience, a decent gunline army can kill 2-3 mobs of 30 per turn if they focus on that, with a good deal of casualties coming from moral.
Mob rule just counter-balances orks being so easy to kill (easier than guardsmen, by the way).
The only thing that even remotely resembles fearless would be the warboss aura, and it still kills 1-3 models.
Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.
In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.
Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.
Nope the cheapest possible (albeit non regainable CP) that is fieldable is basically a R&H detachment.
50 pts max in HQ and 120 in troops for a battalion. 10 pts cheaper then IG, however Chaos has cultists and their HQ are more relevant for them (daemonprinces cough cough) so they generally don't bother with them.
Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.
In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.
Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.
Why should the only faction that can take 22 CP to a 1500 point game get any regenerate or bonus CP abilities. They have the cheapest CP in the game already. Other factions having CP regen is oh wait not exactly breaking the game mono faction.
3 outflanking shadowswords is brokenness especially when they obly pay CP for 2 of them.
A) do you see shadowswords? in these lists? no? i do neither.
B) the cheapest are still R&H so start complaining, o wait nvm since the malefic chaos cheese got removed that was probably the last time you heard from them.
Way to miss the point in your guard arnt the problem Fake news mentality.
The issue wasn't shadowswords its paying 6 CP to do so instead of the paper CP cost of 9CP
You still wont adress why guard should play the least amount per CP and get regenerate CP abilities?
Jidmah wrote: I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.
An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.
( When was the last time in the 7th edition where you saw a competitve army with a flamer?)
But it is true, general anti horde weaponry got basically teethless with the removal of templates. Now it's all about voluem of "cheap enough" fire, hence why certain elite armies struggle.
So, outflanking 3 Shadowswords requires 9 CP, and will cost 1392 (inc battalion) for minimum on everything. Beyond that, you then need to find 78 power levels worth of units to start on the table (inc battalion) with the remaining 608 points – in order words you need to make 608 points = 65 power level. Good luck doing that with any army, when you only have 1 detachment left.
If the crazy possibility exists where it is possible to do the above, the Guard player would still only be starting on 5+3rd detachment CP.
3 basic Shadowswords doesn’t really worry me too much, especially if I don’t have any/many big targets for them.
Kdash wrote: So, outflanking 3 Shadowswords requires 9 CP, and will cost 1392 (inc battalion) for minimum on everything. Beyond that, you then need to find 78 power levels worth of units to start on the table (inc battalion) with the remaining 608 points – in order words you need to make 608 points = 65 power level. Good luck doing that with any army, when you only have 1 detachment left.
If the crazy possibility exists where it is possible to do the above, the Guard player would still only be starting on 5+3rd detachment CP.
3 basic Shadowswords doesn’t really worry me too much, especially if I don’t have any/many big targets for them.
I was using the strategum as an example of why should the codex that pays the least points per CP have acess to an ability that reduces the cost of strategums by 1/3?
Way to miss the point in your guard arnt the problem Fake news mentality.
The issue wasn't shadowswords its paying 6 CP to do so instead of the paper CP cost of 9CP
You still wont adress why guard should play the least amount per CP and get regenerate CP abilities?
I gave you my answer and opinion on it, i said i'd rather see kurovs removed and grand strategist reworked but since you are more concerned with touting your own horn and passiv aggressiv insulting me via attempting to bring my mentality in question.
But here for you specially since you seem to confused by what i am saiyng:
IG guardsmen: not to 5 pts since we don't see them perform without soup, ergo we can't propperly see their effectiveness, especially since all mathematical equations are done in a vacume.
CP: Guard is cheap, that they thanks to GW's questionable CP design will get more CP then other factions is the logical conclusion and is based on the bad CP and detachment balance, favoring the cheapest possible way of generating CP for stratagems.
Kurovs need to either be nerfed or go.
Grand strategist needs a rework in regards to it's CP capability.
Soup needs to be penalized by either: A) only detachments with the same faction (astra militarum to astra militarum) that have generated the CP can spend the CP. B) CP lending from a IG detachment torwards a Space marine detachment for a slamguinius should automatically double the CP cost for stratagems.
Kdash wrote: So, outflanking 3 Shadowswords requires 9 CP, and will cost 1392 (inc battalion) for minimum on everything. Beyond that, you then need to find 78 power levels worth of units to start on the table (inc battalion) with the remaining 608 points – in order words you need to make 608 points = 65 power level. Good luck doing that with any army, when you only have 1 detachment left.
If the crazy possibility exists where it is possible to do the above, the Guard player would still only be starting on 5+3rd detachment CP.
3 basic Shadowswords doesn’t really worry me too much, especially if I don’t have any/many big targets for them.
I was using the strategum as an example of why should the codex that pays the least points per CP have acess to an ability that reduces the cost of strategums by 1/3?
I accept that, but, I think both sides of this argument need to start being a bit more realistic with their examples. There is (as usual) far to much hyperbole and “but this extreme example shows us” going on, and it isn’t going to help anyone convince the other side who is right or wrong.
For example, we know within reason that on a 1 to 1 basis, Guardsmen are mathematically the most durable unit in the game (or at least in terms of troops etc I doubt anyone has done the maths on -every- unit.) But, how does that stand up to a 2v2, or 3v3 WITHOUT additional buffing points added in?
I think one of the things that might help mitigate the CP shenanigans is what someone mentioned before- limit units to being targeted by one friendly stratagem per phase. This would stop some of the slamguinis stunts as well as just ridiculous levels of stacking on other models. A player would have to make choices about which stratagem to use. Considering if he puts a stratagem on a unit then he can't use a CP for a reroll for that unit that phase.
This doesn't directly address the CP regeneration problem but it does limit the spending side a bit.
Jidmah wrote: I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.
An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.
3x 10 models are not a horde. Period.
Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything. They are also really bad examples to bring from 7th because all of their rules have changed between editions. They get less hits, don't ignore cover, don't ignore armor. The guardmen hit by the flamer are the only thing in the equation that hasn't changed.
A dakkajet, one of the most OP planes out there ( ) kills five to six guardsmen in cover plus moral casualties in one round of shooting. I'm confident every army has something more efficient than a dakkajet from the ork index.
There are many things right now that require a fix, but Grand strategist being better than similar traits is not one of these.
The answer to the question "Why guards have the best CP generating stuff when they already are the best at generating CPs?" is "Guards have the best CP generating stuff BECAUSE they are already the best at generating CPs". It's called good game design, proof that GW sometimes thinks about this stuff.
If my faction already swims in CPs and doesn't really have many useful ways to spend it, why would i take a trait that gimes me even MORE CPs? Grand Strategist doubles up on a resource that guards do not need, is a niche trait that is intended for low CP lists. If anything Kurov's aquila is underpowered because of that.
It's like the DA trait that makes everyone fearless in 12", while the identical SM trait only makes them fearless in 6". Is that power creep? No! Because DA are already almost fearless on their own! That same DA trait would be bonkers if given to guards, context is everything!
Grand Strategist and Kurov's aquila are not really that good in a typical mono guard list brigade+battalion, you already have 20 CPs to use. Sure, it doesn't help that most of guards relics are useless...
Problems come when you can CP share. Grand Strategist becomes more powerful the more uses you have for your CPs, if you only had guards stratagems, things would be fine.
CP sharing is the root of evil here, not grand strategist. GS is only resonating with it.
Anyone else find it funny that for all of Xeno's bravado about being a better list writer and knowing the rules such that he'd never do something illegal, his "Super awesome list" was illegal? I thought that was priceless.
Further:
"They do about 9 wounds in CC for 18 damage - plus their shooting 3.5 damage from cats and about 4 from lances. It nearly 1 shots it. "
Spears vs Knights? Not so sure. Assuming Guide/Doom/RIS, and of course Spears charging:
AWs: 9x2x(2/3)(5/9)(1/2) = 10/3, or 6.67 damage
Exarch: 3x(2/3)(3/4)(1/2) = 3/4, or 1.5 damage
That's 8 wounds in CC with 2 HQs, getting the charge without losing any bodies.
You'd need two squads to one-round a Knight. And there are many reasons why you typically don't see 2 Shining Spear units in a CWE army.
Jidmah wrote: I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.
An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.
3x 10 models are not a horde. Period.
Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything. They are also really bad examples to bring from 7th because all of their rules have changed between editions. They get less hits, don't ignore cover, don't ignore armor. The guardmen hit by the flamer are the only thing in the equation that hasn't changed.
A dakkajet, one of the most OP planes out there ( ) kills five to six guardsmen in cover plus moral casualties in one round of shooting. I'm confident every army has something more efficient than a dakkajet from the ork index.
When all the rules changed in 7th, durability took a massive hit. Armor is not worth nearly as much with the new AP system, and a cheap durable wound is one of the most valuable defensive stats.
Using your dakkajet example, it kills an average of 5 guardsmen in cover, which is 20 points worth. It would also kill 2 Marines, which is 26 points. Or 6.25 cultists which is 25 points.
If guard were 5ppm, that would be 25 points worth. It almost seems like that's a good points point for them lol.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Which is where Flamers and Heavy Bolters actually being effective weapons vs IG would mean tons: sure, the IG are outshooting you at the start, but you don't lose the flamer/HB until they wipe the squad. And it takes a lot of IG to wipe a Tac squad in one round.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
As for CP. Mono Guard having a ton of CP and CP regeneration isn’t a problem. Let’s face it, if I was running mono Guard and had 20 CP to start with, I’d personally take a more useful WL trait than Grand Strategist. I might still take the Aquilla, but it also might not be the number 1 choice.
If my suggestion of limiting regen abilities to only work on stratagems from the same codex is put in place, then, I seriously believe there won’t be a big of a CP problem in regards to soup lists as there is now. If your army can survive well until turn 3, then, you’ll likely be at a CP advantage, due to the soup player having burnt through their CP using a couple of combos to kill off 2 or 3 units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Which is where Flamers and Heavy Bolters actually being effective weapons vs IG would mean tons: sure, the IG are outshooting you at the start, but you don't lose the flamer/HB until they wipe the squad. And it takes a lot of IG to wipe a Tac squad in one round.
My figures show me, in cover, it takes roughly 136 lasgun shots to kill a 5 man tac squad. That equates to 34 Guardsmen, or, just under 4 full squads (when taking into account the sergeants only have laspistols… for some dumb ass reason).
In regards to heavy bolters, they would make a difference, but it isn’t a big enough difference to change the outcome in my scenario. For the price of 3 heavy bolters (netting you an extra 6 shots turn 1, then 4 shots after – admittedly at -1ap) the Guard side would gain an extra squad. At best I think the Marines would reliably make it to turn 5 in my scenario, but, turn 6 would be a push without “playing the game properly”.
Jidmah wrote: Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything.
Yes - that's the whole point.
They _should_ be good at killing light infantry in bulk, but they aren't. Anti-infantry weapons in general dropped off in effectiveness against soft targets and the flamer is just an example of that.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
It becomes more of a thing the more guard squads there are, sure. But there also are ways to mitigate it. Again it's a factor but I don't think you can really use morale as a justification for how durable the basic guardsmen statline is.
jcd386 wrote: It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
We can see what units are OP now. They are the ones that feature most often in lists at top tables.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
Nope, sorry you lose credibility when you say things like Scouts are OP. Unless by OP you mean better than tactical marines. They get taken because they are troops, CP are important and people want Smash Captains, and BACP recycling. IG infantry see a similar result, they are troops, CP are important, people want guard CP recycling. As was pointed out you cannot really apply "appears in a bunch of top lists" as a metric of OP for troop choices. Those choices are literally forced by GW making stratgems the power in the game and then making cheap troops the way you unlock them. When Aeldari were on top I don't recall people going "Rangers are OP look at how many top lists have Rangers." or During Flyrant Spam "Rippers are OP." That isn't to say troops cannot be OP, simply that their presence in a bunch of top lists is just as likely to be due to wanting other OP things than actually the troops themselves being OP. No one was taking more marine detachments to get more scouts to win games.
Crimson wrote: Thing is that is an example using small arms without AP. Those are worst possible wapons for killing marines and still the marines lose handily...
From a mathhammer point of view, yes, they lose pretty handily, however, as soon as the physical game is played I expect the marines to do slightly better. But, the result isn’t down to the weapon being 0 ap or anything, it is more down to the fact that there are just so many dice being thrown.
In the same scenario but with the added 3 bolters and 1 guard squad, I’d expect the marines to survive longer, because they could deny both sides rapid fire for a 2nd turn, whilst maintaining their -1 to hit – without scarficing too much firepower on their end (a total of 12 dropped shots, vs the Guard missing out on about 50ish.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
It becomes more of a thing the more guard squads there are, sure. But there also are ways to mitigate it. Again it's a factor but I don't think you can really use morale as a justification for how durable the basic guardsmen statline is.
The moment you add in things to mitigate morale losses on the Guard side, you then have to account for on the opposite side.
Using my example, if you add 30 points for an astropath, that equates to 3 free heavy bolters OR 2 extra bodies, which is essentially another 12 shots over the course of the “game”. It also allows the Marine player to ignore the squad you make immune to morale and just shoot something else.
Likewise, if you add a Commissar in (you’d likely need 2 to ensure full coverage with all squads whilst getting full rapid fire), you’d be looking at another 1-3 marine bodies to keep the points level. At that point, you might ensure you don’t lose 1 model in turn 2 from morale, but, you’d just be losing additional models from the additional shots anyway.
Mathhammer durability and buffs only work if you account for the points cost on BOTH sides of the equation. Far to often people say “but this unit can have x, y, z” but then fail to take into account that it costs an additional 300 points in buffing characters (take Shining Spears with doom, guide, fortune, quicken, protect as an example).
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
jcd386 wrote: It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
We can see what units are OP now. They are the ones that feature most often in lists at top tables.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
Nope, sorry you lose credibility when you say things like Scouts are OP. Unless by OP you mean better than tactical marines. They get taken because they are troops, CP are important and people want Smash Captains, and BACP recycling. IG infantry see a similar result, they are troops, CP are important, people want guard CP recycling. As was pointed out you cannot really apply "appears in a bunch of top lists" as a metric of OP for troop choices. Those choices are literally forced by GW making stratgems the power in the game and then making cheap troops the way you unlock them. When Aeldari were on top I don't recall people going "Rangers are OP look at how many top lists have Rangers." or During Flyrant Spam "Rippers are OP." That isn't to say troops cannot be OP, simply that their presence in a bunch of top lists is just as likely to be due to wanting other OP things than actually the troops themselves being OP. No one was taking more marine detachments to get more scouts to win games.
I agree. Scouts aren’t used because they are a “broken” or “overpowered” unit. They as used because they are the cheapest troop choice, in a detachment that wants to put all their spare points into more Smash Captains.
Scouts also aren’t used because “they make their points back in 1 turn” or anything like that, they are used because in things like ITC missions, having a unit sat on an objective turn 1 scores you points. They have an ability that makes it easier to accomplish, but, they still die quickly if focused.
Castellans on their own aren’t overpowered or broken imo. Give them 2 CP at the start of the game then 5-8 CP every turn, then they can become an issue. But again, that is a problem with having access to 25-40 CP a game, rather than the unit itself.
Custodes Shield Captains on Bikes are pretty nice. But, in my game vs Mike Porter, 1 Crusader Knight happily killed off all 3 of his over the course of 4 turns. It would have been quicker, if he didn’t have access to 6CP for 3 lots of VotBGs and another 3 CP for 2 3++ relics, and the odd CP re-roll here and there.
Etc etc.
The current state of CP and the game is what is pushing units into the “over powered” and “over used” categories, not the units abilities and stats.
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
People have done exactly what you said (Wich is much more usefull than putting Unit X vs Unit Y), and surprise surprise, Imperial Guard Infantry are the most resistent infantry unit in the game. Against anti infantry fire, even compared with undercosted units like Kabalite Warriors and Tau Firewarriors, or units like Poxwalkers that their only quirck is being very durable and that have literally no armor, so the AP of those infantry guns is wasted unlike with Infantry Squads.
That could be good, if the offensive outpoot of Infantry Squads was non-existant, but it isn't, Infantry Squads have the best anti-infantry firepower of the game per points.
Surprisingly, when you up Infantry Squads to 5ppm, they become balanced with most of the rest of the infantry units of the game (Like Ork Boyz, Skitarii and FW at 8ppm as before, but even agaisnt 7ppm FW and Skitarii they become balanced, not worse) barring some that are very bad like Tactical Marines.
When presented with this, the usual response is "But Imperial Guard is all about infantry, their Infantry should be very powerfull and OP!". No. Theres a difference between being good and usable from a tactical point of view, and being mathematically unbalanced. As I said, you can't justify for Imperial Guardsmen to be more durable per points than Poxwalkers.
Crimson wrote: Thing is that is an example using small arms without AP. Those are worst possible wapons for killing marines and still the marines lose handily...
From a mathhammer point of view, yes, they lose pretty handily, however, as soon as the physical game is played I expect the marines to do slightly better. But, the result isn’t down to the weapon being 0 ap or anything, it is more down to the fact that there are just so many dice being thrown.
In the same scenario but with the added 3 bolters and 1 guard squad, I’d expect the marines to survive longer, because they could deny both sides rapid fire for a 2nd turn, whilst maintaining their -1 to hit – without scarficing too much firepower on their end (a total of 12 dropped shots, vs the Guard missing out on about 50ish.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
It becomes more of a thing the more guard squads there are, sure. But there also are ways to mitigate it. Again it's a factor but I don't think you can really use morale as a justification for how durable the basic guardsmen statline is.
The moment you add in things to mitigate morale losses on the Guard side, you then have to account for on the opposite side.
Using my example, if you add 30 points for an astropath, that equates to 3 free heavy bolters OR 2 extra bodies, which is essentially another 12 shots over the course of the “game”. It also allows the Marine player to ignore the squad you make immune to morale and just shoot something else.
Likewise, if you add a Commissar in (you’d likely need 2 to ensure full coverage with all squads whilst getting full rapid fire), you’d be looking at another 1-3 marine bodies to keep the points level. At that point, you might ensure you don’t lose 1 model in turn 2 from morale, but, you’d just be losing additional models from the additional shots anyway.
Mathhammer durability and buffs only work if you account for the points cost on BOTH sides of the equation. Far to often people say “but this unit can have x, y, z” but then fail to take into account that it costs an additional 300 points in buffing characters (take Shining Spears with doom, guide, fortune, quicken, protect as an example).
I agree that morale is something that should be considered when you compare units. However, I think it's a much harder thing to quantify than durability. It also doesn't always come into play, because a lot of the time you actually need to kill a while squad. Killing a few guys from each squad of guardsmen won't always be the tactically best choice if you have to do things like clear them off objectives. A lot of the time if you don't wipe out the important squad, it will auto pass. Other times the difference between the other guy losing 4 guys and losing 5 guys to morale be the difference between winning and losing the game. I feel like this is especially true in ITC missions, where hold more and kill more are things you want to be able to know you're getting, not hoping you do in their morale phase.
I'd much rather have the points be based more on durability first, as that always comes into play, and then buff guard morale issues if that really becomes a problem for them (like buff the commissars back to auto pass or something) Hopefully that makes sense.
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
People have done exactly what you said (Wich is much more usefull than putting Unit X vs Unit Y), and surprise surprise, Imperial Guard Infantry are the most resistent infantry unit in the game. Against anti infantry fire, even compared with undercosted units like Kabalite Warriors and Tau Firewarriors, or units like Poxwalkers that their only quirck is being very durable and that have literally no armor, so the AP of those infantry guns is wasted unlike with Infantry Squads.
That could be good, if the offensive outpoot of Infantry Squads was non-existant, but it isn't, Infantry Squads have the best anti-infantry firepower of the game per points.
Surprisingly, when you up Infantry Squads to 5ppm, they become balanced with most of the rest of the infantry units of the game (Like Ork Boyz, Skitarii and FW at 8ppm as before, but even agaisnt 7ppm FW and Skitarii they become balanced, not worse) barring some that are very bad like Tactical Marines.
When presented with this, the usual response is "But Imperial Guard is all about infantry, their Infantry should be very powerfull and OP!". No. Theres a difference between being good and usable from a tactical point of view, and being mathematically unbalanced. As I said, you can't justify for Imperial Guardsmen to be more durable per points than Poxwalkers.
I know, Jcd386. But this is a general discussion, so I'm not only talking to you, but to other people engagin in the thread.
Or most imporrantly, to 3rd readers that are reading the thread but not engaging and writting on it.
Spoletta wrote: There are many things right now that require a fix, but Grand strategist being better than similar traits is not one of these.
The answer to the question "Why guards have the best CP generating stuff when they already are the best at generating CPs?" is "Guards have the best CP generating stuff BECAUSE they are already the best at generating CPs". It's called good game design, proof that GW sometimes thinks about this stuff.
If my faction already swims in CPs and doesn't really have many useful ways to spend it, why would i take a trait that gimes me even MORE CPs? Grand Strategist doubles up on a resource that guards do not need, is a niche trait that is intended for low CP lists.
If anything Kurov's aquila is underpowered because of that.
It's like the DA trait that makes everyone fearless in 12", while the identical SM trait only makes them fearless in 6". Is that power creep? No! Because DA are already almost fearless on their own! That same DA trait would be bonkers if given to guards, context is everything!
Grand Strategist and Kurov's aquila are not really that good in a typical mono guard list brigade+battalion, you already have 20 CPs to use. Sure, it doesn't help that most of guards relics are useless...
Problems come when you can CP share. Grand Strategist becomes more powerful the more uses you have for your CPs, if you only had guards stratagems, things would be fine.
CP sharing is the root of evil here, not grand strategist. GS is only resonating with it.
I would argue your first point is totally flawed when GW stated at the launch of 8th edition allies were a core part of the design for the detachment system.
If it's not worth taking in mono guard why put it in the codex (It is bad game design) and why are Guard players so opposed to it be removed?
Also that you think Kurov's is worse because its a Guard relic its the same as other factions steeling CP relic.
I haven't heard a clear reason why removing both of these from The Guard Codex is a problem, stop trying to blame everything but the guard CP spam.
Imperial soup power advantage is based solely on the guard game breaking CP.
Soup vrs mono codex can be rebalanced via CP for Choas and Eldar and the non imperium factions. But aslong as Guards tripple dip CP farming exsist the game will still be imbalanced.
Common Strategums cost the same CP but what that CO is worth isn't the same so the cost isn't the same across codex's.
Untill Guard and the excessive CP habit is removed from the game nothing short of totally removing allies from the game would change Soup being better than any other option.
CP's is the obvious and least game breaking way to fix allies.
The +3CP for battle forged armies is not awarded for armies using the Imperium, Choas, Aledari keyword. If thats not enough it coul be doubled to +6CP.
However Guard with Grand Strategists and Kurov's lauch at the above as they provide more CP and wouldn't car about loosing any either.
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
While I agree from a mathhammer point of view, from an actual game play point of view it is very different.
You are not going to be playing against the perfect counter or worst counter every game across the board. Sometimes, your opponent might have the perfect counter weapon for a given squad, but is unable to use it against the perfect target etc.
By using a simulated “game” scenario you get the understanding of “what happens if”, rather than, “in a perfect situation this happens”. If I spend 1000 points of my shooting to remove 200 points of Guardsmen it might suck from a math point of view, but, it might make all the difference from a game play point of view.
People always get hung up on how many points each unit or weapon kills, and whether or not it then makes it a good or bad unit/weapon in a codex. I might spend 2000 points of shooting killing Magnus turn 1, only making back 450 points, but, overall, that then saves me from taking up to 2700 points worth of psychic and combat damage over the course of a game. If I use everything to kill 5 squads of Guardsmen on turn 1, then, I’ve just saved myself from having to deal with their damage output and objective securing for the rest of the game. It might suck mathematically on turn 1, but, I’ve then just saved x amount of my points being killed in return from those 50 models and opened up options for my own obsec to move more freely.
If I have 15 units on the table, a Castallan will possibly kill 2 of them a turn, or 12 in total over the course of the game. So, all I need to do is make sure 3 units survive to the end of turn 6. It If it is the only thing seriously threatening my units I know that I have the time and ability to just ignore it. If I am spending 2000 points turn 1, to put myself in a position to make that possible, then all “durability” would do is provide me with a bit of target priority decisions and help.
Reece didn’t get 15th at Nova with Ultramarines because his units where the most durable, or point efficient etc, he got 15th because he had the ability to put himself in positions that gave him an advantage over the course of the game. He was using sniper Scouts, Scout bikes, heavy bolter Devestators and Sternguard – by all accounts here, some of the worst possible options ever in the marine codex. But, he still managed to win games well, which from a mathhammer point of view, is technically impossible.
Just because mathhammer says something is worse than something else, doesn’t mean it is the case in game.
I could put together my Thousand Sons list and expect to do reasonable well vs the winning Nova lists (and that is without Cultist or Tzaangor spam). By all accounts, it’d be classed as an un-optimised list, but, when it clears the 3 units of scouts and half the screening units turn 1 I’m not going to be too bothered when I lose a screening unit or 2 and maybe a Daemon Prince in return. Because, the following turn the rest of the screen dies and I likely kill the Smash Captains due to forcing them to have to react, and maybe a blow up a hellhound or 2.
Spoletta wrote: CP sharing is the root of evil here, not grand strategist. GS is only resonating with it.
Grand Strategist is sharing 8-9 CP though. If you limit it to guard stratagems only (like the DG Tallyman can't refund daemon or CSM stratagems). Fix that and CP is sharing a lot less.
Bharring wrote: Anyone else find it funny that for all of Xeno's bravado about being a better list writer and knowing the rules such that he'd never do something illegal, his "Super awesome list" was illegal? I thought that was priceless.
Further:
"They do about 9 wounds in CC for 18 damage - plus their shooting 3.5 damage from cats and about 4 from lances. It nearly 1 shots it. "
Spears vs Knights? Not so sure. Assuming Guide/Doom/RIS, and of course Spears charging:
AWs: 9x2x(2/3)(5/9)(1/2) = 10/3, or 6.67 damage
Exarch: 3x(2/3)(3/4)(1/2) = 3/4, or 1.5 damage
That's 8 wounds in CC with 2 HQs, getting the charge without losing any bodies.
You'd need two squads to one-round a Knight. And there are many reasons why you typically don't see 2 Shining Spear units in a CWE army.
We were talking about actual game play. Spears 1 shot castellans in game with the right buffs if they can get to them.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Your math is wrong. Knight gets 0 save in CC vs spears. They are AP -4 and knights don't have a CC invo. Thats how you get 16 wounds.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
Anyone who tells you that Commissars are critical is a liar. Commissars are trash. They're an absolute dumpsterfire compared to Mental Fortitude or bringing in a Custodes with the banner.
Bharring wrote: Anyone else find it funny that for all of Xeno's bravado about being a better list writer and knowing the rules such that he'd never do something illegal, his "Super awesome list" was illegal? I thought that was priceless.
Further:
"They do about 9 wounds in CC for 18 damage - plus their shooting 3.5 damage from cats and about 4 from lances. It nearly 1 shots it. "
Spears vs Knights? Not so sure. Assuming Guide/Doom/RIS, and of course Spears charging:
AWs: 9x2x(2/3)(5/9)(1/2) = 10/3, or 6.67 damage
Exarch: 3x(2/3)(3/4)(1/2) = 3/4, or 1.5 damage
That's 8 wounds in CC with 2 HQs, getting the charge without losing any bodies.
You'd need two squads to one-round a Knight. And there are many reasons why you typically don't see 2 Shining Spear units in a CWE army.
We were talking about actual game play. Spears 1 shot castellans in game with the right buffs if they can get to them.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Your list missed of Yvraine (though you mentioned her in the write up).
Spears can do a lot of damage if they are buffed up with everything, but that comes at a massive cost in support points and they still need to be able to get within 6” of the Knight to get close to maximising everything.
As it stands, Spears hitting on 2’s re-rolling hits and wounds will still only do 10ish wounds to a Castellan in combat. You need the soulburst or a 2nd unit to 1 shot a Castellan.
Jidmah wrote: I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.
An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.
3x 10 models are not a horde. Period.
Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything. They are also really bad examples to bring from 7th because all of their rules have changed between editions. They get less hits, don't ignore cover, don't ignore armor. The guardmen hit by the flamer are the only thing in the equation that hasn't changed.
A dakkajet, one of the most OP planes out there ( ) kills five to six guardsmen in cover plus moral casualties in one round of shooting. I'm confident every army has something more efficient than a dakkajet from the ork index.
When all the rules changed in 7th, durability took a massive hit. Armor is not worth nearly as much with the new AP system, and a cheap durable wound is one of the most valuable defensive stats.
Using your dakkajet example, it kills an average of 5 guardsmen in cover, which is 20 points worth. It would also kill 2 Marines, which is 26 points. Or 6.25 cultists which is 25 points.
If guard were 5ppm, that would be 25 points worth. It almost seems like that's a good points point for them lol.
Nice thesis. A thesis can be proven wrong by a single counter-example:
The dakkajet kills 6 ork boyz in cover, so 36 points. Obviously ork boyz are not survivable enough and space marines are way too efficient for their points. Guardsmen should be 7 PPM.
Not.
You can't compare units across factions. You never could.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
But you don't need to wipe those units because they don't do jack besides sitting on their asses and shooting their mortars. Spending 2CP or a psychic power on 4 guardsmen is a net win for me. Of course, if I need to kill them, there is no issue gunning down the other four with random guns nearby.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Let's be super frigging clear here, because you're painting this as a "small error" rather than a massive statement as to the fact that these tournament twerps don't read their own damn Codices. They just Battlescribe it.
The list that won Warzone Atlanta was not the first nor the last time we saw that garbage happening. People were giving Primaris Psykers the Relic of Lost Cadia, which requires you to have the <Regiment> being replaced by Cadia.
Primaris Psykers do not have <Regiment>. They're instead fixed with Astra Telepathica and Scholastica Psykana. Battlescribe, being the shoddy program that it is, allowed for that combination. So rather than actually doing the hard work of list building and reading the damn book they just threw the list together there. And given that they likely only practiced with others who take them at face value NOBODY caught it.
Math'ing aside (honestly I skipped 10 pages and seemed to have missed nothing), if you could only spend your guard CP on guard stratagems and your guard warlord only generated guard CPs -
would you still take them because the infantry is game breakingly brilliant? Or would you get a cheap battalion from your own codex?
Jidmah wrote: Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything.
Yes - that's the whole point.
They _should_ be good at killing light infantry in bulk, but they aren't. Anti-infantry weapons in general dropped off in effectiveness against soft targets and the flamer is just an example of that.
Maybe just take something that wasn't an S4 AP5 template in 7th? Heavy flamers of all variants kill guardsmen just fine. As do hurricane bolters, assault cannons, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, avenger gatling cannons... and pretty much everything else that's has a decent amount of shots and at least AP-1. C'mon orks can do 9 hits S6 AP-1 for ~150 points, I bet any army that's not collecting skulls and blood for a living can do better.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Let's be super frigging clear here, because you're painting this as a "small error" rather than a massive statement as to the fact that these tournament twerps don't read their own damn Codices. They just Battlescribe it.
The list that won Warzone Atlanta was not the first nor the last time we saw that garbage happening. People were giving Primaris Psykers the Relic of Lost Cadia, which requires you to have the <Regiment> being replaced by Cadia.
Primaris Psykers do not have <Regiment>. They're instead fixed with Astra Telepathica and Scholastica Psykana. Battlescribe, being the shoddy program that it is, allowed for that combination. So rather than actually doing the hard work of list building and reading the damn book they just threw the list together there. And given that they likely only practiced with others who take them at face value NOBODY caught it.
It's an extremely small error. An honest mistake. It could have been fixed by making the list better. Just drop a grenade launcher (which is worse than a lasgun) take a CC and a Master of ordnance and give him the relic. Army is better now and more legal.
Yeah - it's obviously illegal to take relics on characters that can't take them. It did not affect the armies performance at all.
It absolutely did affect it. It allowed for him to have a Psyker when he wouldn't have had one otherwise and it allowed for his Spearhead Detachment to have the Relic of Lost Cadia, arguably one of the best Relics for Cadian Manticores(which is what the Primaris was with).
So you're thinking people will build 120 Guardsmen when it's the top list, no problem. But not 27 Spears?
Most of the Shining Spears I've seen have been kitbashes. Not because the official upgrade kit is out of stock - because it's darn easy to do, and looks a ton better.
You don't see 27 Spears often, because it's bad. You can only Soulburst one unit. You can only Warptime one unit. You can only Doom one target. And soforth. They arent' bad, unbuffed, for the right target. But 27 Spears is half your list right there. You need other threats, too. And board presence. And the psykers.
When you're presenting yourself as an expert on Ynnari, not knowing the basics about how they build their army isn't a 'minor mistake'. Anyone not claiming to be such an expert, sure, it's an honest mistake that shows a lack of understanding.
Xenomancers wrote: The main reason you don't see armies of 27 SS is because people don't have the models. They have been out of stock most of the edition.
They are still the most OP unit in the game.
I know, anecdotal evidence, but...
I have had two games against 27 shining spears (all of them legit plastic models) in the last few month and both times I tabled him turn 3.
They really can't take the heat from something like a PBC or a blight drone, and once they get close you usually can get some plasma within 12" and just fry half a unit. And they really don't like daemon princes charging them.
At least against my casual DG list, 27 shining spears didn't stand a chance. I was not impressed at all.
They might be a powerful tool in the right army, but nowhere in the ballpark of smash captains, castellan knights or ravagers. More like Magnus or a Knight Galant - powerful, but not game breaking.
How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
Jidmah wrote: Maybe just take something that wasn't an S4 AP5 template in 7th?
Heavy flamers of all variants kill guardsmen just fine. As do hurricane bolters, assault cannons, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, avenger gatling cannons... and pretty much everything else that's has a decent amount of shots and at least AP-1.
S4 AP5 was the standard light infantry killing line in 7th, wounding on 3 and ignoring armour - it makes sense to be the starting point of the comparison between editions.
Most of your suggestions were heavier AP4 weapons used against medium infantry in 7th, and even light anti-tank weapons in the case of the S6 stuff.
And they aren't even all that good at killing guard in 8th - a heavy flamer kills a whole extra half guy in the same scenario and costs twice as much while the heavy bolter fired at BS3+ doesn't even do as much damage as the flamer.
Well, most people didn't even care when their weapons were AP4 in 6th/7th. There was AP anything, AP Marines, APGEQ, and AP nothing.
AP5 turning into AP-1 would have made Marines terribad. Imagine if almost every single basic gun (they were almost all AP5) gave Marines a 4+... They're bad now, but that would be so much worse.
Maybe just take something that wasn't an S4 AP5 template in 7th? Heavy flamers of all variants kill guardsmen just fine. As do hurricane bolters, assault cannons, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, avenger gatling cannons... and pretty much everything else that's has a decent amount of shots and at least AP-1. C'mon orks can do 9 hits S6 AP-1 for ~150 points, I bet any army that's not collecting skulls and blood for a living can do better.
All of these things are way better at killing the marines than they're killing the guard.
Amishprn86 wrote: Shiny SPears are not full plastic, they are Windriders with a finecast upgrade spur.
And Shiny Spears are almost priced well, its the Ynnari thats the problem.
You are nuts - they are arguably the most undercosted unit in the game..
Yes b.c their 4++ and -1 to hit is only good at shooting, they are a close range uit once i combat has almost no saves. They are just a Windrider unit with a shooting powerlance and a shooting toughness buff for 8pts more, the weapon could be consider 7pts giving them a pt more for the invul, sure they can go up 2-3pts at max, but its not going to stop players from taking them, if Ynnari isnt there no one will play them in comp, there are better options, Ynnari is why they are good.
Its the same reason why Custode bikes are not taken, they are just as tough and just as much damage for same points, but they dont have double turn or powers to back them up.
Amishprn86 wrote: Shiny SPears are not full plastic, they are Windriders with a finecast upgrade spur.
And Shiny Spears are almost priced well, its the Ynnari thats the problem.
Now, we can complain about bikes in general not being all that great, that's valid. But even if normal SM & Ork bikes were slashed in points they're still so far away in versatility and damage output (and arguably defence
as well because of the invuln) that it's not even funny. A shining spear should be 40 points, they'd still be good then. They're great targets for buffs, easy to hide out of distance and LoS and hit hard. They're an interesting unit that shouldn't be nerfed into the ground, that doesn't mean they're fine as is.
Jidmah wrote: I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.
They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.
An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.
3x 10 models are not a horde. Period.
Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything. They are also really bad examples to bring from 7th because all of their rules have changed between editions. They get less hits, don't ignore cover, don't ignore armor. The guardmen hit by the flamer are the only thing in the equation that hasn't changed.
A dakkajet, one of the most OP planes out there ( ) kills five to six guardsmen in cover plus moral casualties in one round of shooting. I'm confident every army has something more efficient than a dakkajet from the ork index.
When all the rules changed in 7th, durability took a massive hit. Armor is not worth nearly as much with the new AP system, and a cheap durable wound is one of the most valuable defensive stats.
Using your dakkajet example, it kills an average of 5 guardsmen in cover, which is 20 points worth. It would also kill 2 Marines, which is 26 points. Or 6.25 cultists which is 25 points.
If guard were 5ppm, that would be 25 points worth. It almost seems like that's a good points point for them lol.
Nice thesis. A thesis can be proven wrong by a single counter-example:
The dakkajet kills 6 ork boyz in cover, so 36 points. Obviously ork boyz are not survivable enough and space marines are way too efficient for their points. Guardsmen should be 7 PPM.
Not.
You can't compare units across factions. You never could.
Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.
But you don't need to wipe those units because they don't do jack besides sitting on their asses and shooting their mortars. Spending 2CP or a psychic power on 4 guardsmen is a net win for me. Of course, if I need to kill them, there is no issue gunning down the other four with random guns nearby.
Sure you can compare them. Especially when they can ally with each other so they are directly competing with each other.
Id also say the ork comparison is more difficult because they are a much different unit than guardsmen or space Marines, because they are a melee unit that is typically advancing and charging at you, and that more of their points value goes into damage ability and mobility / morale special rules than it does defense. So it's much less of an apples to apples comparison.
Yeah, the argument that we don't see 27 shining spears because people don't own them is trash. Top players would find a way (conversion, kit bash, beg/borrow/steal) to get it on the table it it was great. People were playing Pox walker spam with hundreds of models when that was the thing to do. If you listen to Nick Nanivatii you would know he did not own all those models he borrowed them from people. SO if 27 shinning spears was over the top good (or even top tier) you would see it on top tables, lack of models would not stop people.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.
The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.
Amishprn86 wrote: Shiny SPears are not full plastic, they are Windriders with a finecast upgrade spur.
And Shiny Spears are almost priced well, its the Ynnari thats the problem.
Now, we can complain about bikes in general not being all that great, that's valid. But even if normal SM & Ork bikes were slashed in points they're still so far away in versatility and damage output (and arguably defence as well because of the invuln) that it's not even funny. A shining spear should be 40 points, they'd still be good then. They're great targets for buffs, easy to hide out of distance and LoS and hit hard. They're an interesting unit that shouldn't be nerfed into the ground, that doesn't mean they're fine as is.
If you read though my history you will see i've been proposing that all bikers gets the ability to fallback and shoot at full BS, SW/UM should be able to fall back, shoot, and charge along with some other armies bikes. All normal Bikers are trash right now and needs a buff or a price decrease.
And again if you fix Ynnari or take SS out of Ynnari no one would say how good they are, b.c no one would think they are.
Bharring wrote: Shining Spears only have -1 to hit when Alaitoc and not Ynnari - thus no SfD. They do *not* have it natively.
A 10-man Spears unit is going to be buffed, of course. Because it's Knight-level points to field 10 Spears.
The main reason you don't see armies of 27 SS is because people don't have the models. They have been out of stock most of the edition.
Not really. I live in Iceland and travel to the UK on a regular basis and have found it relatively easy to order them regardless where from. Annoying to work with thanks to the resin though. They are even easier to convert if you are into that and I've seen some players doing just that.
Also, before the original super FAQ hit, people were using Dark Reapers more and it is now that they've been bumped in price that we see Shining Spears becoming more popular. However, not so popular as to people wanting to field endless amount of them. There is what one army in the top list that has a single unit of 9?
Don't get me wrong. They are a good unit and one of the best in the Craftworld codex, but if people's ideas of a thing being OP is only when everything falls into place(psychic powers, auras, stratagems) then the unit isn't necessarily OP, but that the synergy of all things should be looked at and re-evaluated and changed if need be(I'd love for the -1 Alaitoc thing to be removed entirely). That is something that in my opinion needs to be re-evaluated for every army now that people have experimented more with these armies.
Again, if they were the auto-win unit that some people claim them to be we would probably see more of them. They haven't exactly been hard to order and there are quite a few old metal ones lying around being sold(I had 3 before 8th hit).
It will at least be interesting to see how CA turns out. I'll be looking forward to it regardless of what happens.
Edit: I would also like to echo Amishprn86's sentiment regarding Ynnari. Shining Spears Ynnari should be costed differently than Shining Spears Craftworld as Ynnari have a completely different - and powerful - synergy with them.
Well people dont understand that players are using 300 points of HQ's to make a 280pt unit effective, and it has many variables to stop that from working.
Its almost like its worth 600pts..... But nooooo when a 400pt Tantalus does the same thing, then its ok.
I just cant wait for Ynnari codex so Ynnari is priced correctly and all this Ynnari business is behind us.
From a gameplay perspective to work, they need a lot of buffs, strats, etc.., you can only really pile them on one unit at any given time. So most lists have just one unit and some lists with super-redundancy might have two units, basically one being a back-up after you suicide the first.
For another, Spears are decent in a Ynnari list with the aforementioned buffs and the ability to essentially act twice each turn. Great. That essentially means they are pretty gak as a units without 10 characters buffing them and only activating once. If a unit is good by essentially playing 1 1/2 to 2 turns each turn, it's probably underpowered just playing like any other unit. If Grey Knight Terminators or whatever could move twice, shoot twice, fight twice CP-free on demand, every Imperial List would probably have them.
Amishprn86 wrote: If you read though my history you will see i've been proposing that all bikers gets the ability to fallback and shoot at full BS, SW/UM should be able to fall back, shoot, and charge along with some other armies bikes. All normal Bikers are trash right now and needs a buff or a price decrease.
And again if you fix Ynnari or take SS out of Ynnari no one would say how good they are, b.c no one would think they are.
I'll take your word for it regarding bikes. I do however disagree over the fact that no-one would think they're too points efficient if they weren't Ynnari. They are still fantastic as Alaitoc due to the possibility of stacking negative modfiers in conjuction with their fly ability, which means against some armies they simply have to die otherwise they'll tie up your gunline. They're probably even better as Saim-Hann due to that stratagem meaning they can effectively travese the entire board. I don't think it's probably worth it to ever have more than one unit of them, but a single mid-sized unit is still dirt cheap for what they do. I'd argue a point increase of 9ppm is not a lot considering what they bring to the table.
Seems to me that the best order of operations would be to balance the Ynnari ability first, then balance the Spears from there. So much of their power comes from spells that spamming them isn't super viable. It's difficult to say how much is the unit, and how much is Ynnari, doom, and so on.
Amishprn86 wrote: I just cant wait for Ynnari codex so Ynnari is priced correctly and all this Ynnari business is behind us.
Won't make a bit of difference. As far as GW is concerned if it costs X points in codex 1 then it will be the same cost in codex 2. It doesn't matter about efficiency or the ability to be buffed. If it's the same data sheet then it's the same cost.
For example: When GW bumped up the cost of assault cannons mounted on vehicles and then increased the cost of the base vehicles as well due to Rowboat's buffing aura they also increased the same models cost in the GK codex even though GK can't do didley to buff those units. Not to mention the cost went up for all of the other chapters (but they're in the same codex so...).
They aren't that much better as Ynnari. As Aliotoc or siamhan - they are still amazing. -2 to hit shooting? GTFO. Reroll charges and advance and shoot with no penalty - also gravy for a unit with 2 assault weapons. You guys think so 1 dimensional - like you can't consider other options if they aren't being played in tournaments.
Do CWE spears have advantages over Ynnari spears? Yes they do.
#1 can have reroll charges or -1 to hit.
#2 units in their detachment also gain these advantages instead of giving them up. SFD likely does nothing for these units.
It's not like in the case of DR where ynnari DR are just flat out better - 1 can shoot twice and stay out of sight with Fire and fade - the other can't shoot twice.
Ynnari spears can shoot twice - yeah - but you are likely giving up a buff life guide for it (causes you are probably taking yvraine instead of a second farseer or eldrad) and you are shooting at bs4+ instead of 3+ or you are out of range because you didn't advance. Spears only have 6" and 12" shooting range - at lot of times the ability to shoot twice is wasted on them - because there is nothing else in rage. Fighting twice in CC is also exceptionally rare and easy to avoid.
Both have advantages. In my experience Siamhan spears are probably the best. The ability to advance and charge gives them almost automatic charging turn 1 (even if quicken fails) plus the can still shoot at 3+ to hit because they have battle focus. Their autarch is also a freaking god with the Nova lance.
Aliotoc spears can deploy on the front lines not giving to F's about you shooting them turn 1. Cause -2 to hit with 4++ saves. You are practically begging your opponent to shoot at them.
It is not a Ynnari problem. The unit is under costed AF.
Bharring wrote: AP5 turning into AP-1 would have made Marines terribad.
True. What they should have done is have AP5 weapons as -0 (as they are now) but changed the statlines on other units to fit the edition - with guard and orks (etc) losing saves entirely and then a gradient through with elite-chaff like guardians at 6+, carapace at 5+, medium-heavy units like the tougher aspect warriors at 4+, power armour 3+, etc - perhaps all the way to 1+ for terminators.
And doing a better job with anti-infantry weapons while they were at it, more shots on the templates but hits limited to target unit size while the lighter guns could do with an extra dice or two much like the stormbolter.
GW stuck too much to the status quo, not wanting to deviate from their established numbers even with the entire ruleset changing around them.
jcd386 wrote: Seems to me that the best order of operations would be to balance the Ynnari ability first, then balance the Spears from there. So much of their power comes from spells that spamming them isn't super viable. It's difficult to say how much is the unit, and how much is Ynnari, doom, and so on.
Doom could probably go to 8 to cast. It is a super power after all. The unit is just flat under costed though - without condering anything else - which is why spears have been dominating 8th edition since the start. 31 points for 4 rending shots 3 total str 6 ap-4 flat 2 damage attacks with a 4++ and 2 wounds and 16" move...that units actaul value is closer to 45 than 31. If you compare them to windriders - they basically get their melee weapons and invo saves FOR FREE.
jcd386 wrote: It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
We can see what units are OP now. They are the ones that feature most often in lists at top tables.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
Nope, sorry you lose credibility when you say things like Scouts are OP. Unless by OP you mean better than tactical marines. They get taken because they are troops, CP are important and people want Smash Captains, and BACP recycling. IG infantry see a similar result, they are troops, CP are important, people want guard CP recycling. As was pointed out you cannot really apply "appears in a bunch of top lists" as a metric of OP for troop choices. Those choices are literally forced by GW making stratgems the power in the game and then making cheap troops the way you unlock them. When Aeldari were on top I don't recall people going "Rangers are OP look at how many top lists have Rangers." or During Flyrant Spam "Rippers are OP." That isn't to say troops cannot be OP, simply that their presence in a bunch of top lists is just as likely to be due to wanting other OP things than actually the troops themselves being OP. No one was taking more marine detachments to get more scouts to win games.
I agree. Scouts aren’t used because they are a “broken” or “overpowered” unit. They as used because they are the cheapest troop choice, in a detachment that wants to put all their spare points into more Smash Captains.
Scouts also aren’t used because “they make their points back in 1 turn” or anything like that, they are used because in things like ITC missions, having a unit sat on an objective turn 1 scores you points. They have an ability that makes it easier to accomplish, but, they still die quickly if focused.
Castellans on their own aren’t overpowered or broken imo. Give them 2 CP at the start of the game then 5-8 CP every turn, then they can become an issue. But again, that is a problem with having access to 25-40 CP a game, rather than the unit itself.
Custodes Shield Captains on Bikes are pretty nice. But, in my game vs Mike Porter, 1 Crusader Knight happily killed off all 3 of his over the course of 4 turns. It would have been quicker, if he didn’t have access to 6CP for 3 lots of VotBGs and another 3 CP for 2 3++ relics, and the odd CP re-roll here and there.
Etc etc.
The current state of CP and the game is what is pushing units into the “over powered” and “over used” categories, not the units abilities and stats.
Infantry are point for point one of if not the most durable unit in the game. They are incredible in theory and this is supported by most top lists also having them.
Don't you think it's a mess that no one takes Tac marines because Scouts are a flat better choice? Does it sound normal?
How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.
Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post: How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?
jcd386 wrote: It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
We can see what units are OP now. They are the ones that feature most often in lists at top tables.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
Nope, sorry you lose credibility when you say things like Scouts are OP. Unless by OP you mean better than tactical marines. They get taken because they are troops, CP are important and people want Smash Captains, and BACP recycling. IG infantry see a similar result, they are troops, CP are important, people want guard CP recycling. As was pointed out you cannot really apply "appears in a bunch of top lists" as a metric of OP for troop choices. Those choices are literally forced by GW making stratgems the power in the game and then making cheap troops the way you unlock them. When Aeldari were on top I don't recall people going "Rangers are OP look at how many top lists have Rangers." or During Flyrant Spam "Rippers are OP." That isn't to say troops cannot be OP, simply that their presence in a bunch of top lists is just as likely to be due to wanting other OP things than actually the troops themselves being OP. No one was taking more marine detachments to get more scouts to win games.
I agree. Scouts aren’t used because they are a “broken” or “overpowered” unit. They as used because they are the cheapest troop choice, in a detachment that wants to put all their spare points into more Smash Captains.
Scouts also aren’t used because “they make their points back in 1 turn” or anything like that, they are used because in things like ITC missions, having a unit sat on an objective turn 1 scores you points. They have an ability that makes it easier to accomplish, but, they still die quickly if focused.
Castellans on their own aren’t overpowered or broken imo. Give them 2 CP at the start of the game then 5-8 CP every turn, then they can become an issue. But again, that is a problem with having access to 25-40 CP a game, rather than the unit itself.
Custodes Shield Captains on Bikes are pretty nice. But, in my game vs Mike Porter, 1 Crusader Knight happily killed off all 3 of his over the course of 4 turns. It would have been quicker, if he didn’t have access to 6CP for 3 lots of VotBGs and another 3 CP for 2 3++ relics, and the odd CP re-roll here and there.
Etc etc.
The current state of CP and the game is what is pushing units into the “over powered” and “over used” categories, not the units abilities and stats.
Infantry are point for point one of if not the most durable unit in the game. They are incredible in theory and this is supported by most top lists also having them.
Don't you think it's a mess that no one takes Tac marines because Scouts are a flat better choice? Does it sound normal?
Driving now will message properly later.
again neither seems to be spammed to win games but rather taken because CP are good, and they are the best way in their respective books to unlock said CP. Let me put it this way, do you think if people could get 5 CP (or even say 3-4 CP) taking a supreme command of smash captains you would be seeing tons of scouts? Personally I don't think you would, you would see 3 Smash Captains. People want the OP units in a book, but they also want CP, so troops get taken.
Infantry might be slightly undercosted, but they are in a tough place due to how low end points work (raising them to 5 points is a 25% increase in cost).
As to tac marines, sure it is a mess, but that is because they suck, not because scouts are OMG amazing OP units. So again unless by OP you mean "better than a tactical marine" then no scouts are not OP. No list is spamming scouts to win games, they are taking them because they must take troops, and scouts are better than tacticals. Being the best choice in a slot in a particular codex does not make a unit OP, it just speaks to poor internal balance. Maybe all the other choices are just bad.
You argument is akin to say if sisters became a top book because Seraphim and Celestine were OP, but people took battle sisters to fill out battalions, and you saying See Battle Sisters are OP...
strategums not worth spending 
