An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.
I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.
So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.
Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.
Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.
1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.
This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.
All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.
It doesn't need to be proven with any math because it has been proven to be true time and time again.
If AM were not part of the problem, the combination of Castellan and AM would not be placing high by multiple players at multiple tournaments over a year, we would see Scouts+Castellan, or ad mech +Castellan, or sisters + Castellan.
However we don't, we always see the common power army is AM + Castellan.
Tyel wrote: Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.
1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.
This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.
All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.
I always see how people say that guardsmen are faster than super sonic vehicles after sacrificing a phase. Why don’t we make super sonic vehicles faster?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote: It doesn't need to be proven with any math because it has been proven to be true time and time again.
If AM were not part of the problem, the combination of Castellan and AM would not be placing high by multiple players at multiple tournaments over a year, we would see Scouts+Castellan, or ad mech +Castellan, or sisters + Castellan.
However we don't, we always see the common power army is AM + Castellan.
AM are part of the issue.
If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.
Just how quick to you propose making flyers on a 48" by 72" 4ft by 6ft table or a 60" by 96" 5ft by 8ft board?
At a certain point the board limits the scale that things can grow too.
If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.
1. That's a cop out to avoid the obvious that AM are part of the problem.
2. The point is not to over adjust so that no one plays that combination again, rather to slightly adjust so it is not the prevailent choice for competitive play based on points/effectiveness.
Ice_can wrote: Just how quick to you propose making flyers on a 48" by 72" 4ft by 6ft table or a 60" by 96" 5ft by 8ft board?
At a certain point the board limits the scale that things can grow too.
I believe Valkyries can go 60” in a turn as long as they pivot to turn. Maybe something like that?
If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.
1. That's a cop out to avoid the obvious that AM are part of the problem.
2. The point is not to over adjust so that no one plays that combination again, rather to slightly adjust so it is not the prevailent choice for competitive play based on points/effectiveness.
Guardsmen having the ability to move 24" in a turn is just ridiculous from any point of view, movemovemove should probably just let you advance 2d6 instead of 1d6. They would still be super fast potentially but the average is far less.
And yes, technically the ability would be for them to advance normally and the order lets them move an additional d6. So not doubling your advance move, adding another d6 instead.
Ice_can wrote: Just how quick to you propose making flyers on a 48" by 72" 4ft by 6ft table or a 60" by 96" 5ft by 8ft board?
At a certain point the board limits the scale that things can grow too.
I believe Valkyries can go 60” in a turn as long as they pivot to turn. Maybe something like that?
If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.
1. That's a cop out to avoid the obvious that AM are part of the problem.
2. The point is not to over adjust so that no one plays that combination again, rather to slightly adjust so it is not the prevailent choice for competitive play based on points/effectiveness.
You think GW can find a sweet spot?
No, I think they can find a slightly better spot. It is hard to find a sweet spot as there are too many rules in play between deployment options, moving, shooting, assaulting, and comparing different armies abilities. I don't think they can find a sweet spot where everything is balanced against each other, they can improve the game by finding a slightly better spot where one combination of at least two things (Castellan +AM) shows up as the majority faction at the top tables of most tournaments over a year.
If allies or even CP are dropped from the game, there will still be some min-maxed overpowered faction/list for people to rage about.
Competitive 40k is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I don't begrudge people who enjoy it, more power to them. I'm just glad GW makes the changes, and not players. Far from perfect, of course, but they seem to keep the intended spirit of the game in mind and I appreciate that. I realize many will disagree and have other preferences, fair enough. We get what we get, though.
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.
I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.
So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.
When has the presented math been wrong information?
I've seen some things say to limit soup to 2 factions, it should have limits but not by number of factions imo.
I mean... unless running Traitor Guard with Iron Warriors and some Daemons shouldn't be allowed. (And no, narrative play is not the answer here, if I want to run this as my army at basically any game at an FLGS I'll have to play it matched play.)
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.
I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.
So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.
When has the presented math been wrong information?
Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.
Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.
Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.
Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.
No, it really doesn't.
This is what you lot don't seem to understand: It really is soup that is the problem.
You keep focusing on Infantry Squads, Infantry Squads, and Infantry Squads--but quite a few Guard players flatout told people after the Index that any Conscript nerf revolving around JUST points was going to eliminate them as an option for Guard players but do nothing to address the issue of soup.
Until CP generation is addressed, this will continue to be an issue and you nerfing Guard will do nothing but hurt monofaction players. Until Infantry Squads have their composition altered to prevent some of the things that make them so appealing as soup? Continue to be an issue.
But yeah. Keep whining about Guard being the one and only problem.
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.
I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.
So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.
When has the presented math been wrong information?
Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.
It shouldn't take you long to find yourself.
I've seen the maths, as have others on here so obviously it exists and obviously it is very convincing.
Tyel wrote: Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.
Spoiler:
1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.
This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.
All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.
Couldn't agree more. Often its the same defenders of certain units who want to go through the semantics ad infinitum while refusing to accept the hard, real life evidence presented such as tournament results.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.
Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.
No, it really doesn't.
This is what you lot don't seem to understand:
It really is soup that is the problem.
You keep focusing on Infantry Squads, Infantry Squads, and Infantry Squads--but quite a few Guard players flatout told people after the Index that any Conscript nerf revolving around JUST points was going to eliminate them as an option for Guard players but do nothing to address the issue of soup.
Until CP generation is addressed, this will continue to be an issue and you nerfing Guard will do nothing but hurt monofaction players. Until Infantry Squads have their composition altered to prevent some of the things that make them so appealing as soup? Continue to be an issue.
But yeah. Keep whining about Guard being the one and only problem.
Lol. How can you not see that if an army has to replace something with a less effective element it becomes weaker therefore if it was previously over performing it becomes more balanced?
This is obvious.
Also people are not just talking about Guardsmen. Read the thread.
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.
I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.
So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.
When has the presented math been wrong information?
Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.
It shouldn't take you long to find yourself.
I've seen the maths, as have others on here so obviously it exists and obviously it is very convincing.
You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.
Despite repeated requests, no-one has been able to point me to any actual raw data, calculations, assumptions, or anything else that can help me determine whether or not it's valid. The logical conclusion is that the maths either doesn't actually exist (i.e. it's effectively a rumour), that it doesn't say what people profess it to say, or that it relies on sufficiently restrictive assumptions and caveats that it's effectively meaningless.
Why else would the people relying on this evidence to argue their point refuse to offer it up for anyone else to see?
If you have an army that slightly over performs and another that slightly overperforms, and you can combine the best elements of those two to make a very effecient for it's points army then you could say soup is the problem, but it is really that you can soup two things that are over performing into slots specifically to extra over perform.
The problem is IK and AM overperforms for their points cost, and then if you soup them you get a very powerful combo.
That doesn't mean soup is the problem, certainly if you remove allies all together AM on its own and IK on their own in the world of soup lists are not as great, the issue is they will be the meta armies if soup is removed because they are already invisibly over performing relative to other mono codex lists.
FrozenDwarf wrote: i dont care how you twist it, soup IS the problem, forced mono codex in matched play is the only solution.
the "cheap and undercosted units" are just fine when you start playing mono codex, plus some proper balancing can then begin.
if you nerf a unit due to soup, you make it usless in a mono codex situation.
but as beeing said other places, by other humans so, many times, GW is not about selling a game, it is about selling models.
That's kind of an overkill, we would go back 6 editions. No good.
Limit CP by detachments, that's enough to add an hefty cost to souping and make people actually consider it as an option compared to a no brainer.
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
It's been proven mathematically?
Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?
If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?
Also this.
Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.
Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.
When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.
I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.
Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.
Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.
I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.
Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.
If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.
I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.
So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.
When has the presented math been wrong information?
Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.
It shouldn't take you long to find yourself.
I've seen the maths, as have others on here so obviously it exists and obviously it is very convincing.
You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.
Despite repeated requests, no-one has been able to point me to any actual raw data, calculations, assumptions, or anything else that can help me determine whether or not it's valid. The logical conclusion is that the maths either doesn't actually exist (i.e. it's effectively a rumour), that it doesn't say what people profess it to say, or that it relies on sufficiently restrictive assumptions and caveats that it's effectively meaningless.
Why else would the people relying on this evidence to argue their point refuse to offer it up for anyone else to see?
Because your taking the same tired old refusal to accept facts logic about well x and y and z when the question was is a before c in the alphabet logic that has denominated the numerous previous threads on the topic that has repeatedly caused people to become frustrated and nolonger willing to entertain guard apologists desire for arguments.
You obviously have the internet as your posting here, google search dakka and I'm sure you'll find the many many threads that have been derailed by the points cost of infantry squads.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.
Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.
No, it really doesn't.
This is what you lot don't seem to understand:
It really is soup that is the problem.
You keep focusing on Infantry Squads, Infantry Squads, and Infantry Squads--but quite a few Guard players flatout told people after the Index that any Conscript nerf revolving around JUST points was going to eliminate them as an option for Guard players but do nothing to address the issue of soup.
Until CP generation is addressed, this will continue to be an issue and you nerfing Guard will do nothing but hurt monofaction players. Until Infantry Squads have their composition altered to prevent some of the things that make them so appealing as soup? Continue to be an issue.
But yeah. Keep whining about Guard being the one and only problem.
In truth - fixing the way CP are generated should be the highest priority. Everyone should be starting with roughly the same CP for a battle forged army. Allies should cost you CP to include in your force. Plus some stratagems should be flat out nerfed. Shooting twice? GTFO. Remove them all from the game. Stratagems should do things like give you +1 save or +1 to hit or allow you to advance after you shoot. Small gimicks. Not additional turns. No more double moves. This game feels a lot more like Pokemon or magic than 40k right now. Also - GW needs to step it up on terrain rules and actually enforce them. The game is so drastically different in ITC with magic boxes...using ITC as a balance mechanic is exceptionally foolhardy.
My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.
And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.
I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.
Tyel wrote: Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.
Spoiler:
1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.
This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.
All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.
Couldn't agree more. Often its the same defenders of certain units who want to go through the semantics ad infinitum while refusing to accept the hard, real life evidence presented such as tournament results.
Agree.
But the smart move here is nerfing the orders, not the guards. Guards are slightly overperforming, but nothing that really requires intervention.
Orders instead create some truly silly situations.
Increase the cost of order giving models. This increases the cost of the loyal 32 without screwing mono AM, making guards in general less easy to soup in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But enough derailing, let's get back on topic.
FrozenDwarf wrote: i dont care how you twist it, soup IS the problem, forced mono codex in matched play is the only solution.
the "cheap and undercosted units" are just fine when you start playing mono codex, plus some proper balancing can then begin.
if you nerf a unit due to soup, you make it usless in a mono codex situation.
but as beeing said other places, by other humans so, many times, GW is not about selling a game, it is about selling models.
That's kind of an overkill, we would go back 6 editions. No good.
Limit CP by detachments, that's enough to add an hefty cost to souping and make people actually consider it as an option compared to a no brainer.
5th edition didn't have allies.
Funny, must've missed those =][= codexes that were still legal in 5th...
Still doesn't make it comparable to what we have today, no sireebob.
Reemule wrote: My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.
And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.
I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.
Except when you start to compare it to any Dreadnought or Daemonengine there is.
The issue is if you just nerf Guard, then the next best thing will be used. And the next thing after that.
Fix the root cause. Fix CP being able to be stacked from other sources and used on something else where it benefits the most. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you couldn't power multiple Agents of Vect or Rotate Ion Shields or whatever with 2 cheap battalions to get an immediate 13 CP for minimal points investments.
If CP is meant to be a rare commodity and stratagems are meant to be powerful, sometimes game-changing things, then they need to be rare and limited.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.
Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
Are you serious? So knocking Infantry down to the same level of balance of other troops is bad how, exactly?
I'm not saying Conscripts don't need a fix, but don't pretend that 50 point Infantry squads are going to kill your army. Infantry are broken in their own army and with Knights. You're as bad as the Eldar defenders.
If CP were fixed to a certain formula it'd go a long way.
Say you get 3CP for being battleforged and you get 2CP for every 500 points of units you're allowed to bring. Meaning:
500 points- 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP
Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP.
It's simple and still gives you an incentive to not go overboard with soup, 1 soup detachment would be a common occurence but you'd also get fewer CP to power up all the super powerful strats with. It should also probabaly be specified that only your warlords detachment can regen CPs.
"The issue is if you just nerf Guard, then the next best thing will be used. And the next thing after that."
But each successive thing used is slightly less op. So isn't this a good thing?
"Fix the root cause."
Certainly. Fix that, too.
There is more than one problem. Don't decide not to fix one just because there is another.
Ice_can wrote: Because your taking the same tired old refusal to accept facts logic about well x and y and z when the question was is a before c in the alphabet logic that has denominated the numerous previous threads on the topic that has repeatedly caused people to become frustrated and nolonger willing to entertain guard apologists desire for arguments.
You obviously have the internet as your posting here, google search dakka and I'm sure you'll find the many many threads that have been derailed by the points cost of infantry squads.
I'm only "refusing" to accept anything on the basis that I'm apparently not allowed to see what I'm being asked to accept!
Many threads have been derailed by the cost of infantry, I accept that. I also have seen lots of people claim that Guard have been mathematically proven to be undercosted. What I've never seen, despite searching - and all I've asked for here - is the actual proof that they are too efficient.
I have not claimed that guardsmen are not undercosted, or that they don't have exceptional anti-infantry shooting for their cost, or that they aren't efficient bubblewrap, or that the loyal 32 is good for the game, or anything like it. I haven't personally made a claim about the efficiency or value of Guardsmen at all.
All I'm trying to do is to ensure that people aren't claiming something has been mathematically proven when it hasn't.
Pina,
That change would help out janky lists like the Flyer Spam that got #2 at the LVO. Sure, the soup tax will cost them, but not nearly as much as the lack of troops currently costs them.
Bharring wrote: Pina,
That change would help out janky lists like the Flyer Spam that got #2 at the LVO. Sure, the soup tax will cost them, but not nearly as much as the lack of troops currently costs them.
I mean yeah sure, but I'm not saying one fix is going to make the game universally better with no drawbacks. The flyer list is comprised of a bunch of units that are to an almost unanimous degree undercosted. We could easily throw in a limitation like the rule of three, where you can't have more than 3 of the flyer battlefield role in a matched play army.
Reemule wrote: My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.
And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.
I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.
If it could fall back and shoot it would be flat out broken. There are lots of really good units that still have a weakness that can be exploited. Units that don't have and exploitable weaknesses are a problem.
Castellans and shinning spears are huge examples of this.
It's far from the only problem in this game though. Some stratagems are too good. Some relics are too good. Some warlord traits are too good. Some are traits are too good. In other words - the game is very poorly balanced.
Another way of fixing CP rather than limiting its generation is to limit how many CP a turn or even a phase a player can spend. That way it moderates the extreme CP scores that certain armies can accumulate.
For instance (and I'm just making up numbers not proposing) if the limit were 4 points per turn and I had 12 CPs but my opponent had 20, I could spend max CPs for the first 3 rounds as could my opponent. If the game lasts past 3 rounds then he's still good to go. IMHO most games are decided in the first few rounds after that it's just mop up or minimum engagement of units due to lack of units.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Another way of fixing CP rather than limiting its generation is to limit how many CP a turn or even a phase a player can spend. That way it moderates the extreme CP scores that certain armies can accumulate.
For instance (and I'm just making up numbers not proposing) if the limit were 4 points per turn and I had 12 CPs but my opponent had 20, I could spend max CPs for the first 3 rounds as could my opponent. If the game lasts past 3 rounds then he's still good to go. IMHO most games are decided in the first few rounds after that it's just mop up or minimum engagement of units due to lack of units.
This way expensive models/units (like Castellans) would profit the most, right?
A big problem with soup is how many stratagems are accessible and how many units they can be used on. You can't use the good stratagems on 2 knights, so the first knight in your list is much better than any further knights.
Reemule wrote: My issue is... The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.
And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.
I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.
Except when you start to compare it to any Dreadnought or Daemonengine there is.
After the buff to dreadnaughts, the comparison isn't so bad anymore. If you take a Dakkanaut, it's quite similar to an Armiger, except that it has no 5++, 1 less damage on the cannons and 4 less wounds. At the same time though the armiger costs 46 points more, degrades, is bigger and requires a dedicated detachment.
PiñaColada wrote: If CP were fixed to a certain formula it'd go a long way.
Say you get 3CP for being battleforged and you get 2CP for every 500 points of units you're allowed to bring. Meaning:
500 points- 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP
Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP.
It's simple and still gives you an incentive to not go overboard with soup, 1 soup detachment would be a common occurence but you'd also get fewer CP to power up all the super powerful strats with. It should also probabaly be specified that only your warlords detachment can regen CPs.
Sure tell me what you can play as GSC with 11 CP...
Pro-tip : NOTHING, you spend like 7-8 CPs pregame and now you can't do anything.
I can't help seeing faction-specific stratagems as a mistake. Having CPs power a pool or rerolls you can use on anything would have kept things in check far better than have them unlock dozens of incredibly powerful abilities per army.
PiñaColada wrote: If CP were fixed to a certain formula it'd go a long way.
Say you get 3CP for being battleforged and you get 2CP for every 500 points of units you're allowed to bring. Meaning:
500 points- 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP
Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP.
It's simple and still gives you an incentive to not go overboard with soup, 1 soup detachment would be a common occurence but you'd also get fewer CP to power up all the super powerful strats with. It should also probabaly be specified that only your warlords detachment can regen CPs.
Sure tell me what you can play as GSC with 11 CP...
Pro-tip : NOTHING, you spend like 7-8 CPs pregame and now you can't do anything.
This sounds like decisions you have chosen to make...
The top factions - Ynnari, Imperial Guard - have the ability to act twice. Move, Shoot, Fight - without cost. Additionally they also scale very well with their characters, and have a robust toolkit to support their core.
Access to CP is obviously a factor that creates imbalance. In the same way that "free stuff" was a problem in 7th, if you value CP at some point value, which isn't super hard to do - although it does vary based on faction - some factions get more "free stuff" than others.
At the end of the day, I went 5-1 at LVO, losing in game 5. My opponent openly cheated but i missed it, because i was exhausted. I don't think I would have been able to beat those top lists anyway, though. They're just too good at what they do. The top 4 at one point were AM+Castellan, AM+Castellan, Ynnari, Ynnari. I just can't compete with their ability to field bonkers insane efficient stuff coupled with multiple activations in a game where everyone else is activating once per phase.
I won't show up in any analysis, but i had a solid tournament and had a great time, running what is considered to be a non-meta list. Just a reminder to folks that you can still compete even if you aren't copying the latest overpowered thing. And yes, Guard and Ynnari are overpowered. This is widely known at this point.
You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.
There is no burden of proof. We're on a forum discussing toy soldiers and I've seen it multiple times. Inform yourself. Either find the maths or do it yourself. Make your own conclusions from informed knowledge as I have.
E -
Bharring wrote: "The issue is if you just nerf Guard, then the next best thing will be used. And the next thing after that."
But each successive thing used is slightly less op. So isn't this a good thing?
"Fix the root cause."
Certainly. Fix that, too.
There is more than one problem. Don't decide not to fix one just because there is another.
Oh my God this. All day this. Thank you for explaining this in a reasoned and clear way.
I spoke with one of the top Ork players. He lost one game because of the chess clocks. People were wondering if this would happen, and i can count one time with absolute certainty where it did. He would have had 5 wins at least. Take this for what it's worth.
Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.
Marmatag wrote: I spoke with one of the top Ork players. He lost one game because of the chess clocks. People were wondering if this would happen, and i can count one time with absolute certainty where it did. He would have had 5 wins at least. Take this for what it's worth.
It only happened the one time, which is kinda odd. What caused it for that game compared to the other games?
Reemule wrote: My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.
And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.
I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.
Except when you start to compare it to any Dreadnought or Daemonengine there is.
After the buff to dreadnaughts, the comparison isn't so bad anymore. If you take a Dakkanaut, it's quite similar to an Armiger, except that it has no 5++, 1 less damage on the cannons and 4 less wounds. At the same time though the armiger costs 46 points more, degrades, is bigger and requires a dedicated detachment.
Most of the time you can argue the degradation is fine, because at the point the Armiger is at BS4+/5+, the Dread would be dead.
I agree with one of the previous posters who said that the game was irrevocably changed when Apoc rules were allowed, and Superheavies were put into game.
Strictly my opinion here, but the game as it stands no longer represents the majority of players. There is one guy at my local who brings three Knights. Literally no one else even has a superheavy or even a LOW. Orlk players aren't fielding Orkanauts, no one even owns baneblades, and the SM players don't bring LRs because, well, they aren't sold, or they aren't good? No one even plays "Counts as" with LOWs.
My question now is, is GW basing their rules off the Meta, and the championship play, alienating the vast majority of their players, or are they basing the rules off the casuals, thus upsetting the Meta Listers?
Marmatag wrote: I spoke with one of the top Ork players. He lost one game because of the chess clocks. People were wondering if this would happen, and i can count one time with absolute certainty where it did. He would have had 5 wins at least. Take this for what it's worth.
How?
Seems much more likely he lost due to not being ready to play his force the full amount of turns in the time allotted?
Losing to the chess clock is like saying I lost cause I couldn't shoot guys that were out of range, or I lost because I couldn't Deepstrike on turn 5. Schematically null.
Wibe wrote: Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.
Nah dude - you are flat out wrong. Point can fix any unit. There is really no point in debating this. Choas castellans can't take relic plasma or 4++ warlord trait. There is no point in taking a choas castellan over a mechanicus one. That is why you don't see it much. BUT YOU DO SEE IT. I saw it plenty at LVO. You are much mroe likely to see a 2x Gatling crusader for chaos and those are kind of off meta but get work done - also very much hard countered by Castellans.
The game essentially rotates around the Castellan right now. If you can't see it - you are blind. CPofc are an issue - but the Castellan is not the only unit that CP is too good on. In a game without endless CP - Castellans would still dominate.
Aelyn wrote: All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.
Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.
One must always assume that IS are under orders and since most are Catachan there isn't many other considerations to shooting until combat. This makes the real cost of a squad of IS 55 points - 40 for the troops and half of a commander for orders. But let's go deeper. Add a priest, Harker, Straken, and an Ogryn Bodyguard. All this to supoort a block of 60.
240 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 75 + 50 + 52 = 507
This makes the cost of a single IS Catachan model 8.5 points. Technically they cost 9.4 points, because the sarge is pretty useless half the time, but let's meet in the middle and call it 9.
Note that this fulfills the requirements for two battalions and so is capable of providing 10 CP.
Let's make a Pseudo profile for this unit:
A captain, lieutenant, and 30 marines is 524 points. That makes these marines 17.5 points each. Let's do their profile.
Provides 5 CP
What about shooting?
Two squads of IG shooting @ 24" w/ FRFSRF - 180 (fictional) points
36 * .583 * .333 * .333 = 2.3 // v MEQ x ~2 for 12"
36 * .583 * .5 * .666 = 7 // v GEQ x ~2 for 12"
And our marine buddies - one squad for 175 fictional points
10 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.5 // v MEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
10 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4 // v GEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
What about melee?
Two squads of IG
32 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 2.7 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
32 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 7.1 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice
1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover
Marines
1 * .333 * .333 * 17.5 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 17.5 = 1 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .5 * .333 * 17.5 = 2.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 17.5 = 1.5 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .666 * .5 * 17.5 = 5.8 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 17.5 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * .833 * 17.5 = 9.7 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 17.5 = 7.8 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover
Conclusion
Catachans certainly fight better than marines before even consider fight twice. They shoot better, unless the marine is standing still and if the IG are at long range only. Marines are certainly more durable but quickly lose any strong edge out of cover and against any AP3+ weapons and lost much of it when any AP was involved.
I would do fire warriors and such, but I'm out of time at the moment.
Aelyn wrote: All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.
Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.
One must always assume that IS are under orders and since most are Catachan there isn't many other considerations to shooting until combat. This makes the real cost of a squad of IS 55 points - 40 for the troops and half of a commander for orders. But let's go deeper. Add a priest, Harker, Straken, and an Ogryn Bodyguard. All this to supoort a block of 60.
240 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 75 + 50 + 52 = 507
This makes the cost of a single IS Catachan model 8.5 points. Technically they cost 9.4 points, because the sarge is pretty useless half the time, but let's meet in the middle and call it 9.
Note that this fulfills the requirements for two battalions and so is capable of providing 10 CP.
Let's make a Pseudo profile for this unit:
A captain, lieutenant, and 30 marines is 524 points. That makes these marines 17.5 points each. Let's do their profile.
Provides 5 CP
What about shooting?
Two squads of IG shooting @ 24" w/ FRFSRF - 180 (fictional) points
36 * .583 * .333 * .333 = 2.3 // v MEQ x ~2 for 12"
36 * .583 * .5 * .666 = 7 // v GEQ x ~2 for 12"
And our marine buddies - one squad for 175 fictional points
10 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.5 // v MEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
10 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4 // v GEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
What about melee?
Two squads of IG
32 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 2.7 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
32 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 7.1 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice
1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover
Marines
1 * .333 * .333 * 17.5 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 17.5 = 1 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .5 * .333 * 17.5 = 2.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 17.5 = 1.5 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .666 * .5 * 17.5 = 5.8 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 17.5 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * .833 * 17.5 = 9.7 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 17.5 = 7.8 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover
Conclusion
Catachans certainly fight better than marines before even consider fight twice. They shoot better, unless the marine is standing still and if the IG are at long range only. Marines are certainly more durable but quickly lose any strong edge out of cover and against any AP3+ weapons and lost much of it when any AP was involved.
I would do fire warriors and such, but I'm out of time at the moment.
And then you need to consider mortars.
Did you factor this at 24 inches, with the new Bolter rule?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.
Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
Are you serious? So knocking Infantry down to the same level of balance of other troops is bad how, exactly?
But that's not the thing.
You're NOT "knocking Infantry down to the same level of balance of other troops". You're knocking them based upon their interaction with soup and solely with soup, focused entirely upon the points costs while ignoring that there are plenty of other potential fixes that make them less attractive options for soup and retain the efficacy of the unit within the Guard.
And just so we can be 100% clear here: There's 3 Guard troop choices, with one of them(Scions) being unable to be receive the army's special rules(Orders) from the <Regiment> Heroes and the other(Conscripts) requiring a 4+ to do the same thing.
Is it any fricking shock that Infantry Squads are preferred over the other two?
I'm not saying Conscripts don't need a fix, but don't pretend that 50 point Infantry squads are going to kill your army. Infantry are broken in their own army and with Knights. You're as bad as the Eldar defenders.
Sure, right. That's why I've totally never ever suggested things like: A) Reworking Infantry Squads to make it so Heavy Weapon Teams can only Move or Fire(no "-1 to hit" nonsense--just flatout move or fire) B) Reworking the Heavy Weapon Team options for Infantry Squads to be more in line with other factions(this is unlikely to happen as Brood Brothers retained Mortars, etc--although I believe Mortars are more expensive there, which is great and I hope makes its way over to Guard) C) Reworking the Orders system entirely from the ground up.
Conscripts needed ONE damn thing to be fixed. Two if you wanted to really ensure they retained viable while not being too reliable: Ditch the <Regiment> and give them Auxilia as a keyword. No Orders, no Auras that aren't faction specific, no Regimental traits, etc. Raw Recruits could have been tied to making them only able to use a Commissar's "Summary Execution" to modify their Leadership.
Wibe wrote: Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.
Nah dude - you are flat out wrong. Point can fix any unit. There is really no point in debating this. Choas castellans can't take relic plasma or 4++ warlord trait. There is no point in taking a choas castellan over a mechanicus one. That is why you don't see it much. BUT YOU DO SEE IT. I saw it plenty at LVO. You are much mroe likely to see a 2x Gatling crusader for chaos and those are kind of off meta but get work done - also very much hard countered by Castellans.
The game essentially rotates around the Castellan right now. If you can't see it - you are blind. CPofc are an issue - but the Castellan is not the only unit that CP is too good on. In a game without endless CP - Castellans would still dominate.
I came to tell you your wrong... and you are, but I don't care.
When I play Mono knights the Castellan and Valiant never get to the table cause I don't have CP to rotate their shields. They are already useless in that view.
If you increase the cost, all your going to do is: See people trim something and keep abusing it, or, Level up and bring a Porphyrion (does real good with the Raven Strat),or downgrade and run a Crusader (also does good for the Raven Strat).
Either way, you will still be here, complaining, and wanting them nerfed, cause you didn't fix the core problem.
You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.
There is no burden of proof. We're on a forum discussing toy soldiers and I've seen it multiple times. Inform yourself. Either find the maths or do it yourself. Make your own conclusions from informed knowledge as I have.
I've done maths on it. It's shown that guardsmen are more efficient in some ways and less in others, when compared to other troops choices. I've also searched for the maths, and found lots of people claiming maths has proved this, yet strangely not been able to find the maths itself - at least, not maths that says what people say it does.
Since you are incapable of actually demonstrating your point and are resorting to attacking me for trying to have an informed debate, I'll have to assume that the maths does not exist and that you are either lying or misinformed.
Daedalus - This is exactly the reason I was asking. You've added so many additional units, assumptions, etc that you're no longer talking about the efficiency of 4ppm Guard - you're talking about the efficiency of two battalions with interlocking abilities and support, then comparing it to another arbitrary battalion of Marines (without chapter tactics, apparently) which most people would agree is pretty suboptimal anyway. It's indicative of the power of Guard as a whole - which, again, I am not disputing - but it's hardly evidence that 4ppm Guardsmen are mathematically the most efficient troops for their cost.
Did you factor this at 24 inches, with the new Bolter rule?
It is notated in the analysis, yes. Marines standing still and in cover are better at shooting and being hit, but that's not very ideal though. It works great for when my Rubrics get into position though.
My alternate take is that with a tournament as big as LVO they really should use the prizes and structure of the tournament to create more incentives for different stuff. As things stand you can soup up to win the overall while still be competing for a faction prize as well. It would be quite an uphill struggle for a pure AM player to compete with all those soup players who somehow qualify as AM by ITC rules.
Rather than mess with the rules too much, change the tournament format to give "pure" army players something valuable to play for. Right now unless you are playing Tau, Orks or Necrons there is exactly zero incentive to play anything resembling a single faction army. If the prize support for factions is made substantial and the faction rules changed so that a list has to be pure [1] to qualify then suddenly there is a really good reason to play that way - plus with faction lists no longer just being "soup with 10 more points in this than in the other ingredients" we would start seeing interesting meta-within-a-meta for those faction lists which would make it a more viable source of honour and glory too.
If the soup players are all just playing for "best soup player" which is how most people would then regard the "best general" with the chance that a single faction player might beat them all to it in which case they were playing for nothing then there is a balance of decisions to be made whether to soup up or not.
Meanwhile in less competitive situations one or two things are still just a bit too strong. Castellans and Soulburst do rather spring to mind That is definitely for GW to sort out.
[1] I would allow Auxiliary detachments not to break the overall faction. After all its just one unit and it comes with its own restrictions so it is really just a way to add that one oddball like an assassin model that you really want.
[1] I would allow Auxiliary detachments not to break the overall faction. After all its just one unit and it comes with its own restrictions so it is really just a way to add that one oddball like an assassin model that you really want.
This is something that you would think people would be more amenable to--but anytime you point out that Auxiliary Detachments allowing for one or two units exist...they flip out on you, acting like you're ruining their whole theme.
Simple fact is people don't seem to actually want balance. They just want to whine. I've suggested in the past that Auxiliary Detachments, Patrols, and the "Specialist"(read: Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider) be the only allowed ones as "Allied" Detachments and people came out of the woodwork to complain I was trying to ruin their <insert weird concept that 100% could be replicated under that auspices, just with less CPs> army.
Aelyn wrote: All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.
Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.
One must always assume that IS are under orders and since most are Catachan there isn't many other considerations to shooting until combat. This makes the real cost of a squad of IS 55 points - 40 for the troops and half of a commander for orders. But let's go deeper. Add a priest, Harker, Straken, and an Ogryn Bodyguard. All this to supoort a block of 60.
240 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 75 + 50 + 52 = 507
This makes the cost of a single IS Catachan model 8.5 points. Technically they cost 9.4 points, because the sarge is pretty useless half the time, but let's meet in the middle and call it 9.
Note that this fulfills the requirements for two battalions and so is capable of providing 10 CP.
Let's make a Pseudo profile for this unit:
A captain, lieutenant, and 30 marines is 524 points. That makes these marines 17.5 points each. Let's do their profile.
Provides 5 CP
What about shooting?
Two squads of IG shooting @ 24" w/ FRFSRF - 180 (fictional) points
36 * .583 * .333 * .333 = 2.3 // v MEQ x ~2 for 12"
36 * .583 * .5 * .666 = 7 // v GEQ x ~2 for 12"
And our marine buddies - one squad for 175 fictional points
10 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.5 // v MEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
10 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4 // v GEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
What about melee?
Two squads of IG
32 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 2.7 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
32 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 7.1 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice
1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover
Marines
1 * .333 * .333 * 17.5 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 17.5 = 1 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .5 * .333 * 17.5 = 2.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 17.5 = 1.5 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .666 * .5 * 17.5 = 5.8 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 17.5 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * .833 * 17.5 = 9.7 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 17.5 = 7.8 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover
Conclusion
Catachans certainly fight better than marines before even consider fight twice. They shoot better, unless the marine is standing still and if the IG are at long range only. Marines are certainly more durable but quickly lose any strong edge out of cover and against any AP3+ weapons and lost much of it when any AP was involved.
I would do fire warriors and such, but I'm out of time at the moment.
And then you need to consider mortars.
If you want it to be useful, do Guard (no trait, no orders) vs Marines (no trait, no orders but new beta rule).
Otherwise, all you are proving is that a specific build of guard is better than a specific build of space marines, if played exactly like described.
Arguably, "Did you include $X" can be asked indefinitely - as there are more than enough permutations on the matchup to keep him busy long past the end of 8E.
but the counter argument to that is a like number of points cost guard will slaughter a like points cost of marines. 150ps of marines vs 150 points of guard. etc.
But a more interesting argument is what can those marines do better than the guard?
Take both units, face them off against a vehicle, or units in cover, or anything else. Two units standing and basically dueling isn't a clear representation of what they are used for. Guardsmen are obj holders. Marines are fluff wise, assault troops. If those marines were in melee, totally different outcome.
All the suggestions in the world don't really amount to much. Seems silly to get bent out of shape over them. Arguably they matter when e-mailed to GW, but on a forum such as this they're just fodder for conversation. Of course, ITC-based changes would matter. Seems like those are even more likely to happen.
But maybe not, given their increasingly close relationship with GW.
You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.
There is no burden of proof. We're on a forum discussing toy soldiers and I've seen it multiple times. Inform yourself. Either find the maths or do it yourself. Make your own conclusions from informed knowledge as I have.
I've done maths on it. It's shown that guardsmen are more efficient in some ways and less in others, when compared to other troops choices. I've also searched for the maths, and found lots of people claiming maths has proved this, yet strangely not been able to find the maths itself - at least, not maths that says what people say it does.
Since you are incapable of actually demonstrating your point and are resorting to attacking me for trying to have an informed debate, I'll have to assume that the maths does not exist and that you are either lying or misinformed.
Daedalus - This is exactly the reason I was asking. You've added so many additional units, assumptions, etc that you're no longer talking about the efficiency of 4ppm Guard - you're talking about the efficiency of two battalions with interlocking abilities and support, then comparing it to another arbitrary battalion of Marines (without chapter tactics, apparently) which most people would agree is pretty suboptimal anyway. It's indicative of the power of Guard as a whole - which, again, I am not disputing - but it's hardly evidence that 4ppm Guardsmen are mathematically the most efficient troops for their cost.
If you had done the maths I’m struggling to understand how you came to such an incorrect conclusion. Your maths must have been wrong. Please provide it here for reference.
E - in fact, if you have done the maths on this and you believe it shows that Guardsmen aren’t the best troop in the game why haven’t you provided it to illustrate your point and to disprove mine?
Martel732 wrote: Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?
It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:
Several troops are better per point at shooting at medium-toughness units - Tau in particular are generally more efficient at shooting at almost any target.
Several troops are also tougher per point against anti-infantry weapons, such as Intercessors and Plaguebearers.
Guard are also generally medium at melee - though I admit that I was looking at generic Guardsmen rather than specifically Catachans, and was not looking at aura buffs.
Things like bubblewrap ability are highly contextual and hard to quantify, so I haven't assessed that.
I generally run the maths by looking at strict expected values against dummy profiles - e.g. I look at shooting v. GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Orks, light vehicles, medium vehicles and heavy vehicles, and look at defensiveness v. lasguns, bolters, heavy bolters, assault cannons, plasma, and lascannons. However, I weight the results towards assuming "good" targetting i.e. I assume high-volume, low-strength shots go against infantry where possible, and that infantry are more likely to be shot with bolters than lascannons. I admit it's not perfect, but it gives a good benchmark.
Wibe wrote: Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.
Nah dude - you are flat out wrong. Point can fix any unit. There is really no point in debating this. Choas castellans can't take relic plasma or 4++ warlord trait. There is no point in taking a choas castellan over a mechanicus one. That is why you don't see it much. BUT YOU DO SEE IT. I saw it plenty at LVO. You are much mroe likely to see a 2x Gatling crusader for chaos and those are kind of off meta but get work done - also very much hard countered by Castellans.
The game essentially rotates around the Castellan right now. If you can't see it - you are blind. CPofc are an issue - but the Castellan is not the only unit that CP is too good on. In a game without endless CP - Castellans would still dominate.
I came to tell you your wrong... and you are, but I don't care.
When I play Mono knights the Castellan and Valiant never get to the table cause I don't have CP to rotate their shields. They are already useless in that view.
If you increase the cost, all your going to do is: See people trim something and keep abusing it, or, Level up and bring a Porphyrion (does real good with the Raven Strat),or downgrade and run a Crusader (also does good for the Raven Strat).
Either way, you will still be here, complaining, and wanting them nerfed, cause you didn't fix the core problem.
A warlord 4++ Castellan is still the best unit for a full knights list. You can't win that arguement. Because the Castellan is that much better than every other option. What you fail to understand is that if the nerf is only so much as a light trim. Something like 40-60 points doesn't matter. It needs to pay what it's worth - which is roughly 700-750 compared to literally other comparable super heavy.
"Several troops are also tougher per point, such as Marines and Plaguebearers."
Marines lose out per point in most cases. In the open, vs AP 0, they die exactly half as fast, but cost much more than twice as much. In cover, they die 1/3 as fast, but cost more than 3 times as much.
"Guard are also generally medium at melee"
One on one, sure. But 13 Guardsmen vs 4 Marines (equal points) sees Marines get destroyed in CC. In fact, Guardsmen win this fight vs most Troops. Because they're dirt cheap, and merely have no +s in CC, instead of having any drawback.
you're no longer talking about the efficiency of 4ppm Guard
That's a false narrative since guard will always have commanders, which provides a tremendous amount of the buffs for IG anyway. This block presented is buffed to be better in melee. Taking those things away still makes it quite solid at shooting.
then comparing it to another arbitrary battalion of Marines (without chapter tactics, apparently)
I could make them Raven Guard and they'd be harder to kill, but still worse at melee and shooting. I haven't seen a lot of those making the rounds more than UM or BA. One should not be forced to a chapter to be reasonably competitive, either. IG can go to Cadians and still be effective with fewer points. The others have some pretty stellar buffs available even if they're more rarely used.
which most people would agree is pretty suboptimal anyway
And there is the crux of the issue. IG can take 60 wounds plus support for 507 points. Marines try to do the same thing for the unit slots they NEED to fill to still get CP and it's sub-optimal.
But let's adjust the frame a little. Instead of bare marines it's squads of 5 marines with 1 PG. Captain + Lt + 5 of those squads = 514 points. 20.5 points per marine.
One squad is 82 points. Our fictional IG 10 man is 90 points and we can just cut the numbers above in half.
v GEQ 4 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 1.6 // x 2 for standing still or 12"
1 * .777 * .998 = 0.8 // x 2 for 12"
-- 2.4 v IG @ 3.5 // x 2 for 12"
v MEQ 4 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 0.6 // x 2 for standing still or 12"
1 * .777 * .998 * .833 = 0.6 // x 2 for 12"
-- 1.2 v IG @ 1.2 // x 2 for 12"
So you got a lot closer, but melee is still worse by a mile and you've reduced their overall durability by 17% - more damage, but fewer models.
I think marines are "ok", but having to stand still and in cover to make them "good" is a bit of a bum deal.
There is MORE to the whole picture like other like other units in bubble range, but often your whole army is not within 6" of the captain and lt. Marine bikes are now pretty stellar. IG mortars more so.
Do I think they should be 5 points? I'm not sure, but the unparalleled flexibility offered to these units is considerably strong. It's not just FRFSRF. It's MMM getting them to an objective. It's moving into double tap range, charging, and punching twice for no CP.
Martel732 wrote: Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?
It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:
Lol wait. You can’t priovide your own maths?! When you have continued to berate me for not providing you mine?!
Hypocrite much?
I wasn't the one who brought the idea of maths into the thread. I posted this offhand while loading my computer to get the numbers.
Also, I appreciate that you're just trying to score points here, but all I was asking for was transparency. There's a difference between "I've done the numbers (personally and for my own use), and don't have them to hand" and "The numbers are all over the place, but I'm not going to show them to you. Nuh-uh! Do it yourself."
This is why things like Daedalus's post are actually useful; it gave me the ability to confirm the assumptions being made when achieving the results quoted. In comparison, you're not trying to actually have a constructive debate, you're trying to score points and shout down anyone who tries to have a reasoned view as a "guard apologist".
An Actual Englishman wrote: E - in fact, if you have done the maths on this and you believe it shows that Guardsmen aren’t the best troop in the game why haven’t you provided it to illustrate your point and to disprove mine?
I never claimed Guardsmen aren't the best troop in the game; all I asked was for you to provide the maths that you claimed substantiated your assertion that they were.
Bharring wrote: "Several troops are also tougher per point, such as Marines and Plaguebearers."
Marines lose out per point in most cases. In the open, vs AP 0, they die exactly half as fast, but cost much more than twice as much. In cover, they die 1/3 as fast, but cost more than 3 times as much.
"Guard are also generally medium at melee"
One on one, sure. But 13 Guardsmen vs 4 Marines (equal points) sees Marines get destroyed in CC. In fact, Guardsmen win this fight vs most Troops. Because they're dirt cheap, and merely have no +s in CC, instead of having any drawback.
Yeah, I posted in a hurry; I was actually referring to Primaris. Also, Marines die less than half as fast as Guard, due to being T4 v T3.
As for melee, yes, Marines are one of the armies who do worse than Guard. No argument there.
Xenomancers wrote: A warlord 4++ Castellan is still the best unit for a full knights list. You can't win that arguement. Because the Castellan is that much better than every other option. What you fail to understand is that if the nerf is only so much as a light trim. Something like 40-60 points doesn't matter. It needs to pay what it's worth - which is roughly 700-750 compared to literally other comparable super heavy.
Ohh? Tell us your extensive history of playing Mono knights? I didn't know they were a faction you played with?
A Crusader with 3 turns of a 3++ is better than a Castellan with 1 turn of 3++ and 2 turns of a 4++.
Bharring wrote: Arguably, "Did you include $X" can be asked indefinitely - as there are more than enough permutations on the matchup to keep him busy long past the end of 8E.
The problem is we've had repeated instances in these kinds of debates/arguments where people act as though every single Order in the world is on the unit with there being no way at all for the other person to do anything about the character issuing the Order...which sure, you can't "deny" the Order like a psychic power, but like Aura toting characters the trick is to kill the Officer.
Where every single Craftworlder is Alaitoc, outside 12" range, while shooting with their 12" range guns and shorter. Every target is Doomed/Jinxed, every unit is Fortuned/Guideded/LQRed/etc, and at -4-to-hit. And Catlady.
Where every single Knight has T8 3++.
I'd keep going, but those are just about the only things people talk about in today's meta.
The game may not be as complex as we'd like, but it's a lot more complex than a lot of equations thrown out there.
Martel732 wrote: Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?
It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:
Lol wait. You can’t priovide your own maths?! When you have continued to berate me for not providing you mine?!
Hypocrite much?
I wasn't the one who brought the idea of maths into the thread. I posted this offhand while loading my computer to get the numbers.
Also, I appreciate that you're just trying to score points here, but all I was asking for was transparency. There's a difference between "I've done the numbers, and don't have them to hand" and "The numbers are all over the place, but I'm not going to show them to you. Nuh-uh! Do it yourself."
This is why things like Daedalus's post are actually useful; it gave me the ability to confirm the assumptions being made when achieving the results quoted.
You’re loading your computer to get the numbers? Alright, load away, I can wait.
You weren’t asking for transparency. Let’s be real. You’ve seen the numbers. You’ve said so yourself. You just don’t agree with the conclusion because you no doubt play Guard. And I wasn’t trying to score points. I was holding a mirror up to you so that you could understand your hypocritical behaviour. Know that as far as the numbers are concerned, our responses are exactly the same. You still haven’t given yours and I haven’t given mine. I can’t really be bothered to, if I’m honest.
I’ve done this song and dance so many times I’m bored. I’ve discussed/debated/argued with so many IG apologists I’ve lost track. I’ve presented countless people with the figures and very few actually take them at face value or admit Guardsmen are too cheap at 4ppm. I think I’ve seen one or two IG players actually read the numbers and admit Guardsmen seem like a 5ppm troop. It’s tiring, toxic and tedious. This defensive survivor mentality really sucks. It makes no sense to me either, those people claiming 4ppm Guardsmen are fair simultaneously complain that they can’t use Conscripts effectively anymore. Never thinking Conscripts might seem more attractive to them if Guardsmen were increased in cost. It’s Eldar players of previous editions.
If you actually want to find the maths I have seen that convinced me about Guardsmen it’s one of w1zard’s posts I believe. He did a number of comparisons that showed their strength and it was brutal.
Martel732 wrote: Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?
It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:
Several troops are better per point at shooting at medium-toughness units - Tau in particular are generally more efficient at shooting at almost any target.
Several troops are also tougher per point against anti-infantry weapons, such as Intercessors and Plaguebearers.
Guard are also generally medium at melee - though I admit that I was looking at generic Guardsmen rather than specifically Catachans, and was not looking at aura buffs.
Things like bubblewrap ability are highly contextual and hard to quantify, so I haven't assessed that.
I generally run the maths by looking at strict expected values against dummy profiles - e.g. I look at shooting v. GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Orks, light vehicles, medium vehicles and heavy vehicles, and look at defensiveness v. lasguns, bolters, heavy bolters, assault cannons, plasma, and lascannons. However, I weight the results towards assuming "good" targetting i.e. I assume high-volume, low-strength shots go against infantry where possible, and that infantry are more likely to be shot with bolters than lascannons. I admit it's not perfect, but it gives a good benchmark.
I happily concede those analytical points. My contention is that they are invaluable as road blocks. Just taking up space has value in 8th. That's without factoring in the 24" gun. I contend they are worth 4 ppm without firing a shot. Denying movement and deep strike and now all assaults is just so valuable. The fly nerf added a point or two to their value alone.
Xenomancers wrote: A warlord 4++ Castellan is still the best unit for a full knights list. You can't win that arguement. Because the Castellan is that much better than every other option. What you fail to understand is that if the nerf is only so much as a light trim. Something like 40-60 points doesn't matter. It needs to pay what it's worth - which is roughly 700-750 compared to literally other comparable super heavy.
Ohh? Tell us your extensive history of playing Mono knights? I didn't know they were a faction you played with?
A Crusader with 3 turns of a 3++ is better than a Castellan with 1 turn of 3++ and 2 turns of a 4++.
I play mono knights sometimes - it's fairly strong. I usually play 4 knights and guilliman because we don't play with required mono army regulations. Not exactly the same but even in my knights and IG army. I spend most the CP on the IG. People don't shoot at 3++ potential knights when they can shoot at 5++ knights fist. This is the struggle with full knight lists - not CP - it's you can only protect one of them. So 1 knight is best.
Daedalus81 wrote: So marines are better if always standing still and orders don't exist. Balance!
Daed, you're doing god's (pick one) work, but you're arguing in good faith against people who clearly intend to argue in bad faith.
Indeed.
You’re wasting your time. These are people who honestly think there’s a difference between them not showing the maths and me not showing the maths, for some reason.
Let’s not forget that Guardsmen are taken in the vast majority of competitive imperium lists, in numbers greater than the minimum required to fulfil detachments and despite not providing the cheapest CP per point.
Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
RIS is just fine, because it can only affect one thing - totally fair! As you'll have probably 5 things to worry about!
LQR is broken, because it can affect the one thing your enemy wants to kill! And there are only about a dozen possible targets to pick from!
It comes down to RIS being most busted in scenarios where "just shoot the other Knight" isn't a real option - such as IG/Knight soup lists.
I guess it is a fair point that this issue will only come up in soup situations.
Plus I am a strong proponent of changing the way CP is generated and giving CP negatives to allied detachments. However - knights are a unique situation - lots of armies have to contend with taking 1 of something because protecting 2 isn't an option even in mono situation. Knights just literally don't have other options.
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!
Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.
They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
Right the first thing you’re going to have to do here is prove that a Castellan is worth more in a soup list than a mono knight list.
I have addressed this by the way. Truly balanced units, stratagems and psychic powers make soup a nonissue. The responses I received to this were monologues around opportunity cost and claims that a unit is worth more in an army that doesn’t generally specialise in a particular facet ofnwarfare. My belief is that any faction should be able to compete in any phase of the game as they wish. Certainly as far as ‘souper’ factions go anyways.
Bharring wrote: Arguably, "Did you include $X" can be asked indefinitely - as there are more than enough permutations on the matchup to keep him busy long past the end of 8E.
The problem is we've had repeated instances in these kinds of debates/arguments where people act as though every single Order in the world is on the unit with there being no way at all for the other person to do anything about the character issuing the Order...which sure, you can't "deny" the Order like a psychic power, but like Aura toting characters the trick is to kill the Officer.
This is considerably difficult to do for the vast majority of armies, which is why I included a body guard in the initial post, because GSC will do it very easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Where every single Marine unit is in Gman's aura.
Where every single Craftworlder is Alaitoc, outside 12" range, while shooting with their 12" range guns and shorter. Every target is Doomed/Jinxed, every unit is Fortuned/Guideded/LQRed/etc, and at -4-to-hit. And Catlady.
Where every single Knight has T8 3++.
I'd keep going, but those are just about the only things people talk about in today's meta.
The game may not be as complex as we'd like, but it's a lot more complex than a lot of equations thrown out there.
And yet one must understand the math of these interactions to determine why something might be considered strong.
Haywire isn't often gunning for knights without Doom. Knights aren't taking on anti-tank without their best foot forward. IG aren't running around without orders.
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!
Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.
They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.
Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.
Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions.
If by "limited unit interactions compared to previous editions" you mean "I can't just shove <Insert Power Character Here> into a unit to sponge up wounds while they go about their business and grant their USRs to the unit in question", then yeah--you're right.
But we didn't have to worry about Command Points and Stratagems before and you of all people should be aware of that issue...which also includes the "Haha you can't shoot me" element to boot.
It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.
It shows that Command Point farming, even with the ability to regenerate them being nerfed, is still a large problem and that people build lists around it.
That's the whole damn reason I've continually stated that I want to see CP sharing penalized heavily and I want to see heavy restrictions on what Detachments can be taken in a "declared" army.
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!
Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.
They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.
Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.
EXACTLY - if it is showing up in soup it is probably too good. Ether a unit or a stratagem/spell interaction.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:but the counter argument to that is a like number of points cost guard will slaughter a like points cost of marines. 150ps of marines vs 150 points of guard. etc.
But a more interesting argument is what can those marines do better than the guard?
Take both units, face them off against a vehicle, or units in cover, or anything else. Two units standing and basically dueling isn't a clear representation of what they are used for. Guardsmen are obj holders. Marines are fluff wise, assault troops. If those marines were in melee, totally different outcome.
150 points of marines win hands down against 150 points of guards with BBolters.
There is one thing (and only one) that tacs do better than guards, and it is sitting in cover shooting at stuff.
Bharring wrote:"Several troops are also tougher per point, such as Marines and Plaguebearers."
Marines lose out per point in most cases. In the open, vs AP 0, they die exactly half as fast, but cost much more than twice as much. In cover, they die 1/3 as fast, but cost more than 3 times as much.
"Guard are also generally medium at melee"
One on one, sure. But 13 Guardsmen vs 4 Marines (equal points) sees Marines get destroyed in CC. In fact, Guardsmen win this fight vs most Troops. Because they're dirt cheap, and merely have no +s in CC, instead of having any drawback.
Wrong. A marine dies 3 times slower against S3 and 2,66 times slower against S4. In cover these numbers become 4,5 and 4.
An Actual Englishman wrote:
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
Right the first thing you’re going to have to do here is prove that a Castellan is worth more in a soup list than a mono knight list.[u]
I have addressed this by the way. Truly balanced units, stratagems and psychic powers make soup a nonissue. The responses I received to this were monologues around opportunity cost and claims that a unit is worth more in an army that doesn’t generally specialise in a particular facet ofnwarfare. My belief is that any faction should be able to compete in any phase of the game as they wish. Certainly as far as ‘souper’ factions go anyways.
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!
Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.
They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.
Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.
This would be very true if not for the non linear interactions between factions. Mostly CP sharing and Doom.
Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions.
If by "limited unit interactions compared to previous editions" you mean "I can't just shove <Insert Power Character Here> into a unit to sponge up wounds while they go about their business and grant their USRs to the unit in question", then yeah--you're right.
But we didn't have to worry about Command Points and Stratagems before and you of all people should be aware of that issue...which also includes the "Haha you can't shoot me" element to boot.
It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.
It shows that Command Point farming, even with the ability to regenerate them being nerfed, is still a large problem and that people build lists around it.
That's the whole damn reason I've continually stated that I want to see CP sharing penalized heavily and I want to see heavy restrictions on what Detachments can be taken in a "declared" army.
Units already had some of these rules before CP and Strategems came about. It isn't good reasoning sorry.
In general that is 3 knights, and 3 armigers, or at times 3 knights, and a single armiger, at at other times, 3 main knights, and 4 armigers.
Either way I top out at 9 CP.
I don't play the Castellan in my lists as I can't get around the 3CP to RIS. For that same 3 CP, I can RIS another unit for 3 turns.
In general I'm also playing Tanaris, and I want to have access to the threat of bringing a Knight back with Our Darkest Hour also.
In general when you see someone talking about the Castellan, they are NOT talking about mono knights. Gman, Loyal 32, Rusty 17, et all seem to be the order of the day.
The Castellan in those cases can be broken. It seems if you can get it so it has access to more than about 10-12 CP, it has enough to really go to 11 in power.
The Castellan has 2 fates. Its either going to be increased in cost, and in that case the something else hits the ground, or CP will be fixed, and again it goes back on the shelf. Sucks to thats how I see it.
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.
" It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2."
The worst affenders are (a) IG + 1 Knight, and (b) A single Farseer or Ynnari HQ with another type of Eldar.
The crux of both is taking a single unit from a different book. Both are better with more, but that single unit is the lion's share of the problem.
"Wrong. A marine dies 3 times slower against S3 and 2,66 times slower against S4. In cover these numbers become 4,5 and 4. "
I was running numbers vs S-toohightocare.
Assuming the same number of successful wounds, vs AP0, a Guardsmen loses 4 of every 6 wounds, where a Marine loses 2 of every 6 - exactly twice as slow. S3 AP0 does work out to 3 times as slow, so both of our numbers are correct.
Although the S3/S4 numbers are more reasonable than the S-toohightocare, so your point stands, but I wanted to show that the other point is true too.
"Mostly CP sharing and Doom." In a game where IG/Knights are clearly the top dog. And where armies with Doom usually also have "Act Again" Word of the Phoenix as a power. Why does *Doom* make it to the top of the complaint list?
It's a power who's best use is in fighting IG+Knight. It's a power that scales *worse* as the biggest unit in the enemy list gets smaller. Lists that take it typically also have Agents of Vect and/or "...ANd I kill you twice a round!" as a psykic power. I'm not saying it's not good. I'd even agree with a slight nerf. But how is it even in the top 10 of what should be complained about?
You’re loading your computer to get the numbers? Alright, load away, I can wait.
You weren’t asking for transparency. Let’s be real. You’ve seen the numbers. You’ve said so yourself. You just don’t agree with the conclusion because you no doubt play Guard. And I wasn’t trying to score points. I was holding a mirror up to you so that you could understand your hypocritical behaviour. Know that as far as the numbers are concerned, our responses are exactly the same. You still haven’t given yours and I haven’t given mine. I can’t really be bothered to, if I’m honest.
I don't play Guard, and haven't for about six years or so, since (among other factors) the 7th edition codex led to my army being invalidated. I've never played with them in 8th, and when I have played against them, the Guardsmen seemed decent but far from overpowered.
I'm also not the one who ever claimed anything about the quality of Guard - all I've asked for is your claimed mathematical "proof" so I could understand the underlying assumptions.
As for the numbers (on offence, counting Wounds per point before saves, shooting is assumed to be at 12" range):
* Guardians have a slightly higher damage when shooting due to the Shuriken weapon getting AP on a 6 to wound.
** Necrons have AP -1 so will convert more Wounds to Unsaved Wounds
^ This is before taking into account Charge bonuses.
Conclusion: For shooting, Guard are most efficient per point against T5, with only Tau being close. Against T3 and T4, they're also among the best - Eldar and Necrons are about as good v T3, Eldar and Tau are about as good v T4. Against T6 and T7, the S3 penalty starts really coming into play, and Guard are pretty middle of the pack. Against T8, only Tau beat Guard. Overall, Guard are among the most efficient shooting troops in the game, but Guardians are generally better.
For melee, Orks are the clear winner of the all-round troops. After that, it's Guard and Termagants at the top, due primarily to sheer volume of attacks at low cost. However, please note that this list excludes the combat specialists - Hormagaunts, Daemons of all types etc. Pure Melee troops pretty much always blow the well-rounded troops out the water in terms of efficiency.
Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.
Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?
Martel732 wrote: I happily concede those analytical points. My contention is that they are invaluable as road blocks. Just taking up space has value in 8th. That's without factoring in the 24" gun. I contend they are worth 4 ppm without firing a shot. Denying movement and deep strike and now all assaults is just so valuable. The fly nerf added a point or two to their value alone.
That's fair, it's just hard to quantify. My issue is more with the assertion that it's been mathematically proven that they're underpriced, when as far as I can see the best things about them are things that are hard to quantify mathematically. Add in the fact that almost all maths in cases like this - including my own, I freely admit - rely on a number of assumptions, and when people fail to disclose their assumptions, it's easy for the claims to get overblown or misunderstood. That's why I always like to check assumptions and other underlying principles for myself, and balk at people appealing to authority without explaining their rationale.
Units already had some of these rules before CP and Strategems came about. It isn't good reasoning sorry.
That's your opinion.
Just like I'll say that pretending that the shift from a basic rule that was complained about(Ion Shields for example) to a CP driven Stratagem didn't change the way the unit would function is not arguing in good faith and shows you've got a bit of an axe to grind.
Bharring wrote: " It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2."
The worst affenders are (a) IG + 1 Knight, and (b) A single Farseer or Ynnari HQ with another type of Eldar.
The crux of both is taking a single unit from a different book. Both are better with more, but that single unit is the lion's share of the problem.
"Wrong. A marine dies 3 times slower against S3 and 2,66 times slower against S4. In cover these numbers become 4,5 and 4. "
I was running numbers vs S-toohightocare.
Assuming the same number of successful wounds, vs AP0, a Guardsmen loses 4 of every 6 wounds, where a Marine loses 2 of every 6 - exactly twice as slow. S3 AP0 does work out to 3 times as slow, so both of our numbers are correct.
Although the S3/S4 numbers are more reasonable than the S-toohightocare, so your point stands, but I wanted to show that the other point is true too.
"Mostly CP sharing and Doom." In a game where IG/Knights are clearly the top dog. And where armies with Doom usually also have "Act Again" Word of the Phoenix as a power. Why does *Doom* make it to the top of the complaint list?
It's a power who's best use is in fighting IG+Knight. It's a power that scales *worse* as the biggest unit in the enemy list gets smaller. Lists that take it typically also have Agents of Vect and/or "...ANd I kill you twice a round!" as a psykic power. I'm not saying it's not good. I'd even agree with a slight nerf. But how is it even in the top 10 of what should be complained about?
The fix for the Farseer to keep Doom as-is is quite simple. Limit it to just Craftworld getting the bonus. Super clean and eliminates lone Farseers from Dark Eldar lists without actual commitment towards more Eldar.
That's the only concern I have and I know I've expressed that before.
Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.
Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?
Have you just done these numbers now? No worries. Interesting stats since they don’t factor in saves.
Either way you should probably look at their durability per point, both in and out of cover, compared to other troops and against different weapon profiles. I think you’ll find that information illuminating. Considering only offensive output is about as useful as reading only a quarter of a unit’s stat line and probably accounts for your opinion.
E - you state you haven’t included melee specialists in that comparison yet I see a melee specialist Ork compared to all other units?
So the numbers *do* match that. Although as with most mathhammer, it abstracts the fact that the Guardsmen have twice the durability (same defensive stats, twice the bodies) as the Guardians.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "The fix for the Farseer to keep Doom as-is is quite simple. Limit it to just Craftworld getting the bonus. Super clean and eliminates lone Farseers from Dark Eldar lists without actual commitment towards more Eldar.
That's the only concern I have and I know I've expressed that before. "
Congrats, you've now fixed it so that IoM Soup wins everything. As apparently intended.
What is this fixation with nerfing one of the few effective counters to the solo Knight that shows up everywhere?
Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.
Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?
Have you just done these numbers now? No worries. Interesting stats since they don’t factor in saves.
Either way you should probably look at their durability per point, both in and out of cover, compared to other troops and against different weapon profiles. I think you’ll find that information illuminating. Considering only offensive output is about as useful as reading only a quarter of a unit’s stat line and probably accounts for your opinion.
Doing a full tabulation of saves is much harder to read, and since most troops have AP- it generally doesn't change the efficiency too much. Again, I created these for my own benefit, so only included those elements which I needed to satisfy myself (and no, I didn't just run them - I just picked out a selection of "staple" troops.)
And as I have said, I have looked at durability per point. Again, Guardsmen are good, but not the best in the game - though of course that varies based on the guns that are shooting at them.
An Actual Englishman wrote: E - you state you haven’t included melee specialists in that comparison yet I see a melee specialist Ork compared to all other units?
Okay, I grant that could have been clearer - I excluded those Troops choices which are purely melee, and included a single "representative" statline from the represented armies, which for me is the slugga/choppa Ork over the shoota Ork. I also didn't take into account Dakka! Dakka! Dakka! in the shooting stats, because they were run before that rule existed - I only tweaked the formula to account for the points adjustment. This kinda proves my point about understanding the underlying assumptions.
Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.
Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.
Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?
Have you just done these numbers now? No worries. Interesting stats since they don’t factor in saves.
Either way you should probably look at their durability per point, both in and out of cover, compared to other troops and against different weapon profiles. I think you’ll find that information illuminating. Considering only offensive output is about as useful as reading only a quarter of a unit’s stat line and probably accounts for your opinion.
Doing a full tabulation of saves is much harder to read, and since most troops have AP- it generally doesn't change the efficiency too much. Again, I created these for my own benefit, so only included those elements which I needed to satisfy myself (and no, I didn't just run them - I just picked out a selection of "staple" troops.)
And as I have said, I have looked at durability per point. Again, Guardsmen are good, but not the best in the game - though of course that varies based on the guns that are shooting at them.
Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.
You’re claiming that factoring a unit’s durability per point is ‘moving the goalposts’ when considering whether they are mathematically too efficient for their cost? Interesting.
I think “too efficient for their cost” is self explanatory. They outperform most other troop units in terms of damage output per point and in terms of durability per point. There are a few units that have more durability per point by a margin, however those same units are nowhere near the damage output. And vice versa, the few units that have greater damage output at range vs very specific targets per point are nowhere near the durability. Is that clear enough? You’d know this if you had ran all the numbers. Like I said your table shows very little.
Units already had some of these rules before CP and Strategems came about. It isn't good reasoning sorry.
That's your opinion.
Just like I'll say that pretending that the shift from a basic rule that was complained about(Ion Shields for example) to a CP driven Stratagem didn't change the way the unit would function is not arguing in good faith and shows you've got a bit of an axe to grind.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "I dunno, 2-4 shots of S3 at BS4+ seems better than only ever 2 at S4 Rending BS3+. I wanna double check that math."
The Guardian Defenders get 2 shots vs the Guardsmens' 4, but it's 3+/3+ vs 4+/4+. The actual math, for damage per point, is:
So the numbers *do* match that. Although as with most mathhammer, it abstracts the fact that the Guardsmen have twice the durability (same defensive stats, twice the bodies) as the Guardians.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "The fix for the Farseer to keep Doom as-is is quite simple. Limit it to just Craftworld getting the bonus. Super clean and eliminates lone Farseers from Dark Eldar lists without actual commitment towards more Eldar.
That's the only concern I have and I know I've expressed that before. "
Congrats, you've now fixed it so that IoM Soup wins everything. As apparently intended.
What is this fixation with nerfing one of the few effective counters to the solo Knight that shows up everywhere?
I've ALREADY said Knights need to be redesigned. Even without allies, they're almost broken. This isn't like last edition where everyone and their mother has Grav and Haywire to strip HP.
Martel732 wrote: Some weapons need invuln penetration. Like melta. That fixes IKs.
Agreed. Honestly Invo saves should just be an AP modifier and they should max out at 3. 4++ Wracks getting saves from volcano lances is beyond idiotic.
Aelyn wrote: Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.
So let's go over the data that you consider irrelevant, just so we're all on the same page:
AM/Knights, not SM/Knights, not Sisters/Knights, not Custodes/Knights, not even AdMech/Knights (who has to be carried by the loyal 32 as usual) not any other faction/Knights is crushing at a competitive level, and have been for the past several months, through big-FAQ2, through CA2018. - this is irrelevant.
Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot. - Super.
Regimental Doctrines are irrelevant, we're also not allowed to consider them in our calculations, because reasons - Super.
Did I miss anything? Are there any other utterly unrealistic conditions you'd like to place on the debate? Who's moving the goalposts?
As much as I find English to be a bit hyperbolic, he's not wrong on this.
I mean the mental gymnastics you people go through in defense of the most problematic units in the entire game put Nadia to shame. As I've stated many times, give me Guardsmen at 5ppm that I can't target with strats or psychic powers and I'll take them over Cultists in 9/10 lists, give me a Company Commander and I'll take them in 10/10 lists, no question, not even vaguely debatable.
Xenomancers wrote: EXACTLY - if it is showing up in soup it is probably too good. Ether a unit or a stratagem/spell interaction.
Or it's "showing up in soup" because people numbercrunch the hell out of things--or just play follow the leader.
number crunching is exactly what I am saying. Soup units win the number crunch. These are also known as OP units. Or min units so as to include as many other OP units as possible - like space marine scouts.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot - super.
Best line to come out of this thread so far. 10/10
An Actual Englishman wrote: You’re claiming that factoring a unit’s durability per point is ‘moving the goalposts’ when considering whether they are mathematically too efficient for their cost? Interesting.
I think “too efficient for their cost” is self explanatory. They outperform most other troop units in terms of damage output per point and in terms of durability per point. There are a few units that have more durability per point by a margin, however those same units are nowhere near the damage output. And vice versa, the few units that have greater damage output at range vs very specific targets per point are nowhere near the durability. Is that clear enough? You’d know this if you had ran all the numbers. Like I said your table shows very little.
No, I'm saying that trying to shift the discussion from "Can you explain or provide the underlying assumptions for the sweeping assertion you made" to "can I provide and defend the calculations I have done for my own benefit" is moving the goalposts. You tried to call me a hypocrite when I didn't instantly provide the numbers requested, yet completely ignored the fact that I was willing to provide the basis for my calculations, something you have stubbornly and persistently refused to do despite this being my entire point from the beginning.
For the record, the reason I don't think "too efficient for their cost" is self explanatory is that it can cover a wide range of qualities:
- Being the "most efficient" troop choice in the game.
- Being the "most efficient" troop choice in the Imperial lineup
- Being more than (for example) 50% more efficient than the "average" troop choice.
- Being the "most efficient" unit in their codex.
- Being the "most efficient" horde unit in the game.
- Being the cheapest Battalion-filler in the game.
- Just being generally good value overall when compared to other troop choices.
You haven't said which of these you are using, if any, and that's before considering that "most efficient" is itself a nebulous term unless you're willing to clarify what you mean when you talk about efficiency.. "Too efficient" implies that it's actively damaging the game, and I want to understand why exactly you're asserting that, if that's even what you are asserting.
One last time: I do not think Guard are bad. I have never claimed Guard are bad. All I want to know is, when you said:
An Actual Englishman wrote: We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.
What exactly do you mean by "prove... mathematically", and can you provide (either directly or via a link) the assumptions and calculations that underpin the assertion?
Because right now, it looks like the answer is "um... look the other way!" So rather than saying it's been "proven", I'd say it's been "asserted, for unspecified conditions".
Aelyn wrote: Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.
So let's go over the data that you consider irrelevant, just so we're all on the same page:
AM/Knights, not SM/Knights, not Sisters/Knights, not Custodes/Knights, not even AdMech/Knights (who has to be carried by the loyal 32 as usual) not any other faction/Knights is crushing at a competitive level, and have been for the past several months, through big-FAQ2, through CA2018. - this is irrelevant.
Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot. - Super.
Regimental Doctrines are irrelevant, we're also not allowed to consider them in our calculations, because reasons - Super.
Did I miss anything? Are there any other utterly unrealistic conditions you'd like to place on the debate? Who's moving the goalposts?
As much as I find English to be a bit hyperbolic, he's not wrong on this.
I mean the mental gymnastics you people go through in defense of the most problematic units in the entire game put Nadia to shame. As I've stated many times, give me Guardsmen at 5ppm that I can't target with strats or psychic powers and I'll take them over Cultists in 9/10 lists, give me a Company Commander and I'll take them in 10/10 lists, no question, not even vaguely debatable.
None of the tournament results are directly relevant to English's specific claim that 4ppm guardsmen have been mathematically proven to be too efficient for their points cost. They provide evidence that the Loyal 32 are very good at their role - CP generation and objective grabbing - but that's not actually the same thing. I have not disputed the statement that the detachment rules allow the Loyal 32 to provide CP to other detachments while providing objective-grabbers is overall a detriment to the game at competitive levels.
Similarly, I have never claimed orders or regimental doctrines are irrelevant. I want to know whether they are being taken into account when stating Guardsmen to be too efficient, and if so whether other force multipliers are taken into account for the units to which they're being compared - I think it's extremely unlikely, simply because this results in a massively ballooning criteria and lots of caveats, but I want to be sure.
I haven't even defended Guard at all, except to say that they aren't the single most efficient Troops choice by every measurable metric in the entire game - and I think everyone would agree with that. All I've done is to ask for more information about English's claims, information he has refused to provide except to say "I think this one person probably posted it at some point" and "but, but, how can you say I'm not automatically correct without showing me a thirty-page thesis to prove a negative."*
Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot - super.
Nobody has claimed they are "irrelevant". Pretending that the three Company and/or three Platoon Commanders in Detachments(rule of 3) are always going to be in range or alive is fudging the numbers when you're not doing a similar methodology for the other factions.
But hey, keep pretending that it's the Guard players that are the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: I find it interesting that the number 3 list had 30 conscripts. So much for them being "unplayable".
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!
Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.
They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.
Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.
EXACTLY - if it is showing up in soup it is probably too good. Ether a unit or a stratagem/spell interaction.
Again...can either of you tell me at what price point a Castellan needs to be at to be balanced in both a mono knight and guard soup list? You can't because it's impossible. Everyone here agrees that the Castellan needs to go up in points. We get it. The only solution you guys are providing right now though is to nerf units based off their highest strength potential and basically saying F**K OFF to the people who want to play the mono faction. That's not helpful, and not fair to the non try hards just trying to play semi-competitive games with their mono factions.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
Putting aside the obvious fact that comparing units and rules across editions is pretty pointless, I'm genuinely curious how you conclude that CP sharing isn't an issue when it's basically the thing that pushes the Castellan from broken to completely pants-on-head stupid. There's a reason you don't see pure knight lists but you see plenty of Castellans. Without the CP generated by their allies Castellans lose a lot of their power. Are they still too good? Probably, yes (though that's debateable). What we can say is that with sharing of CPs and stratagems they are far, far better than without.
If you think the Castellan can be fixed purely by adjusting its points you need to show how you can possibly balance a unit that gets huge benefits from stratagems when it can appear in an army that generates around 6-9 CPs and can't regenerate aany or in an army that has 15+ CPs with regeneration. How can you possibly come up with a fair points value that takes into account both situations?
"I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue."
Fortuneteller manipulating fate such that you'll die soon translates into Kabs reroll to-wounds against a single target.... So OP and unfluffy that MUST CHANGE NAO!
A lance of Knights can only rotate the Ion Shields of one of them once or twice a game. But throw 60 troopers in with one Knight, and that single Knight can rotate it's Ion Shields practically every round all game. NOBIGDEAL. Not an issue!
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
Putting aside the obvious fact that comparing units and rules across editions is pretty pointless, I'm genuinely curious how you conclude that CP sharing isn't an issue when it's basically the thing that pushes the Castellan from broken to completely pants-on-head stupid.
I'm letting you know that I read everything, but this is a crux point that needs to be talked about.
When we already know that a unit is broken, why is it fine for it's pure army but NOT as allies? That makes no sense.
Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
I'm letting you know that I read everything, but this is a crux point that needs to be talked about.
When we already know that a unit is broken, why is it fine for it's pure army but NOT as allies? That makes no sense.
I think the Castellan is probably broken in a mono-knight army as well as soup. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both things can be a factor. I also believe it's substantially more broken in a soup army because of how soup removes pretty much every weakness the knight has. In a mono-knight army the Castellan I could see how one could argue that it isn't broken because all the things that really break it in soup aren't available in a mono army - board control and virtually limitless access to CPs. It's not hard to see how access to those things makes the Castellan more broken in soup, therefore making balancing it purely though points virtually impossible.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
Putting aside the obvious fact that comparing units and rules across editions is pretty pointless, I'm genuinely curious how you conclude that CP sharing isn't an issue when it's basically the thing that pushes the Castellan from broken to completely pants-on-head stupid.
I'm letting you know that I read everything, but this is a crux point that needs to be talked about.
When we already know that a unit is broken, why is it fine for it's pure army but NOT as allies? That makes no sense.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
So with 3 gallants and 1 helerin and a warglaive exactlly how does that lost even with a Castellan which eats, 6CP rotating and companioning turn 1 and can do iy for turn 2 if no other CP is spent. Is comparable to a list with 15CP +1 per turn?
Also you are ignoring the value of being able to prevent anything being able to attack the castellen in CC it's main weakness, no invulnerable save and hitting on 4+ at best. Yeah you can maybe keep a castellen alive but loose on objectives or play objectives and loose the castellen to CC threats or something else turn 3+.
Of you take a Castellan plus 60 roid muchers for 240 points 3 HQ for another 90 add in some nlos shooting, some supporting charictors and have a castellen you can't ever get to and a 1400 point hoard killing guard list which allows the castellen to run turned up to 11 for 3 turns.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
But the next thing in line isn't as far ahead of other units as the Castellan. Something will always be the most powerful, but the distance it is from the next most powerful, and from the average, matters a lot. If that distance is small, then things will be good enough for tactics or luck to even the distance.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
For 2 turns and then?
Then Slamguinus typically dies? Like, if he goes for 3+ turns I would be more impressed than anything.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
But the next thing in line isn't as far ahead of other units as the Castellan. Something will always be the most powerful, but the distance it is from the next most powerful, and from the average, matters a lot. If that distance is small, then things will be good enough for tactics or luck to even the distance.
Bingo. The disparity shouldn't be as great as it is.
If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
People have been trying to create tournaments banning SH units since 6th. It doesn't get traction.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
But the next thing in line isn't as far ahead of other units as the Castellan. Something will always be the most powerful, but the distance it is from the next most powerful, and from the average, matters a lot. If that distance is small, then things will be good enough for tactics or luck to even the distance.
Ok, but at what point do you decide that the most op soup combo is balanced enough to everything else and how many units would you of likely had to nerf in the process to get to that point? That's not even the central argument that I'm trying to make which is you can't nerf a unit based off it's highest soup potential without completely invalidating it in a mono faction list. It seems like a lot easier solution would be to just implement a couple ways to bring soup more in line so that we can better judge what an appropriate point cost would be for it instead of just telling the majority of the player base that their units are unplayable now because competitive players are abusing it soupy potential.
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
Sadly the above has never really caught on, even if it would be healthier for the game and encourage more unit diversity. Short of GW pulling SH back out of normal 40k (something they wont due since they make a lot of money selling knights) the game for IOM players will largely revolve around battle mechs wrecking things while some cheap as chips infantry play cheerleader/space occupier at a competitive level.
- Bump mortars to 7 points like GSC - Make any out of LOS shooting -1 to hit unless the unit is visible to a friendly unit within 6" or a friendly unit with vox caster within 18"
- Increase the cost of stratagems the Castellan uses by 1
- Limit free Ynnnari actions to 1 per round
- Yvraine increases that to two
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
Dakka doesn’t consider itc to be “real” warhammer but tournaments taking it upon themselves to ban specific units that are perceived to be op is ok?
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
People have been trying to create tournaments banning SH units since 6th. It doesn't get traction.
So I don't see the problem then. If tournaments that prohibit superheavies are unpopular, then that means that - at least among tournament players - superheavies are popular. So why would Games-Workshop ever feel the impetus to try to curb the use of models in matched play that most tournament players want to keep using?
combatcotton wrote: Tournament players like the best units whatever that happens to be.
Right, so why then did tournaments that prohibit superheavies not "catch on" or "get traction" as Slayer-Fan & HoundsofDemos pointed out? Also, did Frontling Gaming in particular ever try it? They seem to be the biggest deal in terms of tournaments and certainly the one which is the subject of this heated debate.
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll. It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.
I really feel a bit dumb having to do that, when everyone in this thread already told why it is like that, but here i go.
First assumption: A castellan in a soup will use more stratagems than one in a mono knight list. Reasoning: 1) A mono knight list is extremely short on CPs, and will hardly have more than 8-9. An imperium soup grants no less than 6 more CPs over that figure and adds CP regeneration to it. 2) In a mono knight list there are other knights who could be in need of using the same stratagems of the Castellan. Since a stratagem can be used only once per phase, this means that the castellan could have to compete with other knights for them.
Second assumption: In both cases, the knight detachment is of the House Raven.
Thid assumption: In a mono knight list the Castellan is the warlord and has the Ion Bulward warlord trait and is given the Cawl's Wrath relic. In a soup list this is not true, and 2 CPs are spent to make it happen.
I will limit the model to 3 stratagems only, Rotate Ion Shields, Machine spirit resurgent, Order of Companions.
The effects of those are as follows:
Rotate ion shields: Increases the save of the castellan to 3++ for one shooting phase. This means that the durability is increased by (1/2)/(1/3)-1= 50% against ranged weapons with an AP value of at least 1. Machine spirit resurgent: The castellan can use the top bracket of the wound chart. This in mathemathical terms means that he goes from 22,16 full power equivalent wounds to 28, an increase of 26%. Order of companions: Allows the castellan to reroll all results of 1. After a bit of math you can see that this translates to: +69% damage from Cawl's wrath +36% damage from Shieldbreaker missiles +85% damage from Siegrebreaker cannons +79% damage from Volcano Lance
From this you can see that having more stratagems translates to it being mathematically superior to a version which has no access to it After 1 use of each, the Castellan in a mono knight list will become a knight without stratagems. A knight in a soup list will get to use each of those stratagems twice before running short on CPs.
Now, i'm not going to delve in the fact that the souped one has screens, objective grabbers and stuff like that. Too hard to math out, so i will leave it out. I'm also going to say that the rest of the list is equivalent in effectiveness in both cases. The only difference is that one generates more CP.
Direct question. Given equal point cost of the model, and after seeing the numbers generated by those stratagems, would you pick the model which can use the stratagems only once, or the one who can use those twice?
Mathematically speaking, there is only one possible answer.
Now, after wasting a lot of time on this, let's contribute something useful to the thread.
Look at these number and ask yourself. Why Chaos doesn't play the renegade version? Oh and don't forget that Cawl's wrath increases the damage of the plasma decimator by 50-100%, depending on target.
The castellan model stat wise is fine. What you are fighting on the field is something buffed by over 150%. The fix here is not on the point cost of the model. Restrict CP, nerf Cawls wrath and Ion bulwark. Leave it a the current point cost.
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.
I really feel a bit dumb having to do that, when everyone in this thread already told why it is like that, but here i go.
First assumption: A castellan in a soup will use more stratagems than one in a mono knight list. Reasoning:
1) A mono knight list is extremely short on CPs, and will hardly have more than 8-9. An imperium soup grants no less than 6 more CPs over that figure and adds CP regeneration to it.
2) In a mono knight list there are other knights who could be in need of using the same stratagems of the Castellan. Since a stratagem can be used only once per phase, this means that the castellan could have to compete with other knights for them.
Second assumption: In both cases, the knight detachment is of the House Raven.
Thid assumption: In a mono knight list the Castellan is the warlord and has the Ion Bulward warlord trait and is given the Cawl's Wrath relic. In a soup list this is not true, and 2 CPs are spent to make it happen.
I will limit the model to 3 stratagems only, Rotate Ion Shields, Machine spirit resurgent, Order of Companions.
The effects of those are as follows:
Rotate ion shields: Increases the save of the castellan to 3++ for one shooting phase. This means that the durability is increased by (1/2)/(1/3)-1= 50% against ranged weapons with an AP value of at least 1.
Machine spirit resurgent: The castellan can use the top bracket of the wound chart. This in mathemathical terms means that he goes from 22,16 full power equivalent wounds to 28, an increase of 26%.
Order of companions: Allows the castellan to reroll all results of 1. After a bit of math you can see that this translates to:
+69% damage from Cawl's wrath
+36% damage from Shieldbreaker missiles
+85% damage from Siegrebreaker cannons
+79% damage from Volcano Lance
From this you can see that having more stratagems translates to it being mathematically superior to a version which has no access to it
After 1 use of each, the Castellan in a mono knight list will become a knight without stratagems.
A knight in a soup list will get to use each of those stratagems twice before running short on CPs.
Now, i'm not going to delve in the fact that the souped one has screens, objective grabbers and stuff like that. Too hard to math out, so i will leave it out.
I'm also going to say that the rest of the list is equivalent in effectiveness in both cases. The only difference is that one generates more CP.
Direct question. Given equal point cost of the model, and after seeing the numbers generated by those stratagems, would you pick the model which can use the stratagems only once, or the one who can use those twice?
Mathematically speaking, there is only one possible answer.
Now, after wasting a lot of time on this, let's contribute something useful to the thread.
Look at these number and ask yourself. Why Chaos doesn't play the renegade version?
Oh and don't forget that Cawl's wrath increases the damage of the plasma decimator by 50-100%, depending on target.
The castellan model stat wise is fine. What you are fighting on the field is something buffed by over 150%.
The fix here is not on the point cost of the model. Restrict CP, nerf Cawls wrath and Ion bulwark. Leave it a the current point cost.
You haven't wasted time on this at all.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
I'm considerably aware of terrain - the tournament results for marines at LVO might help us sort the rest of the equation.
Not being snarky, just verifying that your math didn't take terrain into account.
It accounts for cover.
Please forgive me for being late to the comparison party here! But could I make a request, if you still have the numbers available?
What do the numbers look like when using Intercessors over normal marines? Would work out at 22 Intercessors and a Captain + Lieutenant with Master Crafted boltguns for 514 points. (512 if you use Storm Bolters instead)
The numbers for the Guardsmen vs MEQ are easy enough to work out, as you just half the results (to indicate how many models are removed), but I’m curious as to how close the results get using Primaris.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
That literally would curbstomp soup out of existence, beyond the fluffy one.
And the value a CP has can technically be thoerthised by the Value on a Mono dex army. You will realise that Guard, R&H pay the least for a CP, but gain the least return on their stratagems. Knights pay the most for their CP get the most return for their stratagems.
Now soup comes in and allows you to pay the price for Guard CP on IK stratagems. This is were Soup becomes the problem.
That said there are some stratagems out there that just need to be looked at.
Tides was such an exemple.
Rotate and cawls need a look at beyond CPimo.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Knights aren't getting 12CPs. Even 9 is a bit of a stretch. A 5-knight list, which is about the best mono-knight list you can make, gets 6CP. Compare the power of the mono list to what a soup with a single Castellan gets and the problem of soup should be obvious.
In a mono list you get:
Enough CPs to RIS twice on your Castellan, asuming you use no other CPs for any other reason
You do get the benefits of any skew list
You also get the disadvantages of the same. For example, your Castellan is targetted so you RIS. Not only do you lose half your CPs but your opponent can now switch targets and kill the relatively unprotected other knights
Poor board control
While your weapons are powerful they are extremely limited - you tend to have around 15-20 weapons total so you don't always have the best weapon for the job
Take the same Castellan in a soup list:
Enough CPs to juice up the knight with pre-battle bonuses and RIS 2-3 times while still having enough CPs left to use whatver stratagems the rest of your army needs
Only one knight can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. You're guaranteed to be able to protect it fully if it's shot at
Greater flexibility due to a variety of unit types
Brilliant board control
So we have 2 different scenarios and 2 completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the Castellan may be too cheap, but it should be obvious soup is a huge problem because of how it messes with the assumptions you need to make in order to balance a unit properly.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Knights aren't getting 12CPs. Even 9 is a bit of a stretch. A 5-knight list, which is about the best mono-knight list you can make, gets 6CP. Compare the power of the mono list to what a soup with a single Castellan gets and the problem of soup should be obvious.
In a mono list you get:
Enough CPs to RIS twice on your Castellan, asuming you use no other CPs for any other reason
You do get the benefits of any skew list
You also get the disadvantages of the same. For example, your Castellan is targetted so you RIS. Not only do you lose half your CPs but your opponent can now switch targets and kill the relatively unprotected other knights
Poor board control
While your weapons are powerful they are extremely limited - you tend to have around 15-20 weapons total so you don't always have the best weapon for the job
Take the same Castellan in a soup list:
Enough CPs to juice up the knight with pre-battle bonuses and RIS 2-3 times while still having enough CPs left to use whatver stratagems the rest of your army needs
Only one knight can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. You're guaranteed to be able to protect it fully if it's shot at
Greater flexibility due to a variety of unit types
Brilliant board control
So we have 2 different scenarios and 2 completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the Castellan may be too cheap, but it should be obvious soup is a huge problem because of how it messes with the assumptions you need to make in order to balance a unit properly.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
That literally would curbstomp soup out of existence, beyond the fluffy one.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
That literally would curbstomp soup out of existence, beyond the fluffy one.
Explain?
Rotate would be a one time only and more inline with mono Knights, which we don't see BECAUSE Rotate is only happening once.
It also would favour a setup of burning as much CP as possible in one Turn.
Things like Slamguinius would still work because of his "fire and forget" approach.
Edit: It would basically bring the Castellan more inline with his monodex compatriot.
It would not reign in Custodes jetbikers or slamguinisses.
Looks like many people are coming around to what I said at the start of 8th. Without some sort of built in downside for soup, or advantage for playing mono-faction, it is impossible to balance units for use in both circumstances. You either balance for the mono-faction and this allows for the fact that things might be broken in soup due to how units interact, or you balance assuming soup and mono-faction operates at a disadvantage.
1.) This could be done through points, making soup armies pay more for the same units than other armies. I think this is likely the most difficult fix as not all soups are created equal so something like a 5-10% tax across the board would hurt a lot of armies, but trying to individually determine it through something like "allied point" in every codex would get unweildly. (i.e. if you play guard your codex would contain a points list of the inclusion of allied units).
2.) Stop CP sharing - I think this is tough to track and open to abuse.
3.) Impose some other penalty or advantage - For example you only get "chapter tactics" for the faction of your warlord, or only have access to stratagems for that faction, or other stratagems cost double etc.
Without some sort of balancing mechanic you cannot have a balanced game unless the assumption is balance only occurs on the soup level, and armies without access to that should be far more powerful mono-armies than those that can soup. Essentially Imperium is now the faction, and that faction is balanced against Orks. So if you play mono-dex you are willingly playing at a disadvantage.
As others of said is the Castellan broken? Yup. But the points increase needed to balance it for soup is not the same one needed to balance it for a mono-knight army, due to having more CP, more board control, better deepstrike defense etc.
The problem with soup, as I see it, is that it allows you to compensate for a weakness in a particular faction. You basically get to do ALL the things...
Only allowing CP that a detachment generates to be spent on stratagems for that detachment seems to be the best fix. I wonder why GW have not yet addressed this?
Soup in't even the problem. It's specifically the combination of Guard in conjunction with CP hungry, expensive units.
I run a Castellan as part of a thematic AdMech army alongside Cawl. The list is not as competitive and has many short-comings including lack of mobility. Why should it be nerfed?
Nerf the loyal 32!
At the same time, any significant changes to Imperium armies immediately make Eldar the best at everything and they will sweep the whole meta.
Ishagu wrote: Soup in't even the problem. It's specifically the combination of Guard in conjunction with CP hungry, expensive units.
I run a Castellan as part of a thematic AdMech army alongside Cawl. The list is not as competitive and has many short-comings including lack of mobility. Why should it be nerfed?
Nerf the loyal 32!
At the same time, any significant changes to Imperium armies immediately make Eldar the best at everything and they will sweep the whole meta.
Wait, so soup isn't the problem but if we nerf the Castellan and the loyal 32 then Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate. So soup is still the issue if we nerf elements of it rather than dealing with the problem as a whole.
It's entirely possible, and given recent results extremely likely, that both parts of the equation are problematic and need fixing: soup is fundamentally unbalanced in its current form and some units are undercosted. I don't know why people act like it has to be one or the other.
Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate
Much like the Castellan relying on IG to be dominant the Eldar rely on Ynnari to be dominant. So fixing Ynnari would probably fix the Eldar soup. The Eldar in top 20 of LVO were all Ynnari except for one Drukhari in 12th if I recall correctly. Tells me that Ynnari is problematic(because of shoot twice I presume) and not necessarily other Aeldari soups.
Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate
Much like the Castellan relying on IG to be dominant the Eldar rely on Ynnari to be dominant. So fixing Ynnari would probably fix the Eldar soup. The Eldar in top 20 of LVO were all Ynnari except for one Drukhari in 12th if I recall correctly. Tells me that Ynnari is problematic(because of shoot twice I presume) and not necessarily other Aeldari soups.
Wrong. Dark Eldar and Harlequin combo can destroy anything without any support from Ynnari
Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate
Much like the Castellan relying on IG to be dominant the Eldar rely on Ynnari to be dominant. So fixing Ynnari would probably fix the Eldar soup. The Eldar in top 20 of LVO were all Ynnari except for one Drukhari in 12th if I recall correctly. Tells me that Ynnari is problematic(because of shoot twice I presume) and not necessarily other Aeldari soups.
Wrong. Dark Eldar and Harlequin combo can destroy anything without any support from Ynnari
You forgot the friendly neighbourhood Farseer casually jetbiking along solo.
Honestly, from an outside/non-tournament perspective, this whole argument seems a smidge overblown.
The insistence that Soup is Liek The Most Borken Thing Evar because it leads to the same handful of lists dominating the top spots at competitive events kinda falls apart when you recognise that's been the state of affairs for 40K since people started holding competitive 40K events. With each edition the selection of lists change, and the reason why they're "OP" changes, but there are always a selection of top lists that dominate tournaments, and they usually involve the Imperium and Eldar more than other factions.
Maybe the time has come to consider that it's not Soup that's the problem, or CP, or deathstars, or formation abuse - the problem is 40K as a system, no matter what incarnation it's presently in, is fundamentally unsuited to being a cutthroat, hardcore, Chess Grandmaster Smartdude-favoured tournament experience? Maybe at some stage, you guys have to look down at the crushed, splintered remnants of that big ol' square peg and reflect that it's time to stop trying to bash it through the round hole? Just a thought...
Ok, but pre castellan the problem was eldar soup. Anytime an army pops up that is really super efficient it is a soup list, unless we go way back to the begining of 8th and enter the no codex times, and then the only army with a codex and a primarch can be played mono and it is the ultramarines.
To me this is a clear sign that the ability to soup two or three armies, seems to kind of a break the game. Specially when compared with what mono armies could do.
Among fixs other people have listed, how about limiting some stratagems use to only mono lists? So lets say a IG+BA soup could have an reliced up smash captin, but he wouldn't be able to wings. The castellan would be as tough as it is not, but he would not be able to rotate shields for a +3inv. I am not saying this would fix w40k, but it seems like at least a interesting change that would neither kill soup, nor nerf mono lists in to the ground.
I mean we can tall all we want about how castellans being bad for the game, I don't like their efficiency either, but if it wasn't for them we would be living in an eldar dominated world as prior tournaments have shown. Non of the post knights codex impacted the meta enough to change that. Maybe post orcs would just see eldar go from having some playing with 3-4 flyers to all playing with 5+.
Maybe the time has come to consider that it's not Soup that's the problem, or CP, or deathstars, or formation abuse - the problem is 40K as a system, no matter what incarnation it's presently in, is fundamentally unsuited to being a cutthroat, hardcore, Chess Grandmaster Smartdude-favoured tournament experience? Maybe at some stage, you guys have to look down at the crushed, splintered remnants of that big ol' square peg and reflect that it's time to stop trying to bash it through the round hole? Just a thought...
Do you really think that outside of tournaments IG+castellan or eldar are not a meta warping problem, or that bad armies suddenly become magically valid, just because it is not the top table of LVO ?
Ishagu wrote: I do think people have forgotten just how bad things were not so long ago...
I don't know how bad things were. They must have been horrible, because I can't imagine my army being worse then it is right now. To be honest I don't understand how this is an argument though. Ton of people did not play in prior editions, for the game is what it is right now and not what was 4-5 years ago. I mean technicly we could say w40k is great, because 400 years ago 3/5 of us would be dead before reaching the age of 10 and out of those that survived maybe 1 in a 100 would be rich enough to have any form of hobby.
In 7th edition there were armies that could NEVER win against certain opponents.
There we units that were mathematically invincible, You could fire 1500 las cannons at something and not kill it.
There were other armies that you couldn't interact with it all. You could move terrain with psychic powers along with the units on the terrain, join characters to units to create crazy combinations. Armies like Dark Eldar, Orks, Guard were just punching bags that were destroyed in less time than it took you to deploy. Other armies got free units or wargear, so the 2k game has one guy put down 3k and call it a "fair game"
Vehicles were all un-usable. Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures were everywhere and could delete models without the opponent rolling dice.
combatcotton wrote: Tournament players like the best units whatever that happens to be.
Right, so why then did tournaments that prohibit superheavies not "catch on" or "get traction" as Slayer-Fan & HoundsofDemos pointed out? Also, did Frontling Gaming in particular ever try it? They seem to be the biggest deal in terms of tournaments and certainly the one which is the subject of this heated debate.
It's for the same reason tournaments banning FW since 5th or specific Codex entries doesn't catch on.
Telling people you have a tournament but aren't allowed to use your models is stupid and keeps people from entering the hobby more fully.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Knights aren't getting 12CPs. Even 9 is a bit of a stretch. A 5-knight list, which is about the best mono-knight list you can make, gets 6CP. Compare the power of the mono list to what a soup with a single Castellan gets and the problem of soup should be obvious.
In a mono list you get:
Enough CPs to RIS twice on your Castellan, asuming you use no other CPs for any other reason
You do get the benefits of any skew list
You also get the disadvantages of the same. For example, your Castellan is targetted so you RIS. Not only do you lose half your CPs but your opponent can now switch targets and kill the relatively unprotected other knights
Poor board control
While your weapons are powerful they are extremely limited - you tend to have around 15-20 weapons total so you don't always have the best weapon for the job
Take the same Castellan in a soup list:
Enough CPs to juice up the knight with pre-battle bonuses and RIS 2-3 times while still having enough CPs left to use whatver stratagems the rest of your army needs
Only one knight can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. You're guaranteed to be able to protect it fully if it's shot at
Greater flexibility due to a variety of unit types
Brilliant board control
So we have 2 different scenarios and 2 completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the Castellan may be too cheap, but it should be obvious soup is a huge problem because of how it messes with the assumptions you need to make in order to balance a unit properly.
9CP isn't a stretch for Knights as I have seen it done.
I also did see a post outlining how a Knight list could get 9+3 CP. I'm going to try and find it.
Also of we already KNOW the unit is too cheap JUST like with Infantry, why are we blaming allies? I already pointed out being able to bring several broken units in an army is the issue, not allying itself. If anything, it shows that RIS is an issue, is it not?
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.
I really feel a bit dumb having to do that, when everyone in this thread already told why it is like that, but here i go.
First assumption: A castellan in a soup will use more stratagems than one in a mono knight list. Reasoning:
1) A mono knight list is extremely short on CPs, and will hardly have more than 8-9. An imperium soup grants no less than 6 more CPs over that figure and adds CP regeneration to it.
2) In a mono knight list there are other knights who could be in need of using the same stratagems of the Castellan. Since a stratagem can be used only once per phase, this means that the castellan could have to compete with other knights for them.
Second assumption: In both cases, the knight detachment is of the House Raven.
Thid assumption: In a mono knight list the Castellan is the warlord and has the Ion Bulward warlord trait and is given the Cawl's Wrath relic. In a soup list this is not true, and 2 CPs are spent to make it happen.
I will limit the model to 3 stratagems only, Rotate Ion Shields, Machine spirit resurgent, Order of Companions.
The effects of those are as follows:
Rotate ion shields: Increases the save of the castellan to 3++ for one shooting phase. This means that the durability is increased by (1/2)/(1/3)-1= 50% against ranged weapons with an AP value of at least 1.
Machine spirit resurgent: The castellan can use the top bracket of the wound chart. This in mathemathical terms means that he goes from 22,16 full power equivalent wounds to 28, an increase of 26%.
Order of companions: Allows the castellan to reroll all results of 1. After a bit of math you can see that this translates to:
+69% damage from Cawl's wrath
+36% damage from Shieldbreaker missiles
+85% damage from Siegrebreaker cannons
+79% damage from Volcano Lance
From this you can see that having more stratagems translates to it being mathematically superior to a version which has no access to it
After 1 use of each, the Castellan in a mono knight list will become a knight without stratagems.
A knight in a soup list will get to use each of those stratagems twice before running short on CPs.
Now, i'm not going to delve in the fact that the souped one has screens, objective grabbers and stuff like that. Too hard to math out, so i will leave it out.
I'm also going to say that the rest of the list is equivalent in effectiveness in both cases. The only difference is that one generates more CP.
Direct question. Given equal point cost of the model, and after seeing the numbers generated by those stratagems, would you pick the model which can use the stratagems only once, or the one who can use those twice?
Mathematically speaking, there is only one possible answer.
Now, after wasting a lot of time on this, let's contribute something useful to the thread.
Look at these number and ask yourself. Why Chaos doesn't play the renegade version?
Oh and don't forget that Cawl's wrath increases the damage of the plasma decimator by 50-100%, depending on target.
The castellan model stat wise is fine. What you are fighting on the field is something buffed by over 150%.
The fix here is not on the point cost of the model. Restrict CP, nerf Cawls wrath and Ion bulwark. Leave it a the current point cost.
You haven't wasted time on this at all.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
Aaand that's what i call a fix to soup.
Not the one i would like, but definitely a fix to soup.
Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
Additionally by that logic everything in th3 came can't be a problem as it was intentionally writen into the game by GW. Oh wait they FAQ and CA the heck out of the stuff they wrote.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
Invisibility was OP because the effect was too strong for the cost (there were no modifiers in 7TH) and you could cast it on EVERYTHING, something that is literally absent in the case of 8TH with the Keyword system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 8TH that the only thing you share is specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Some armies can't take allies, so saying that it's a "self imposed limitation" is a fabrication. Many armies are very underpowered and fail to compete. By your logic, is this also intended by the game designers, and was done on purpose?
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 8TH that the only thing you share is specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Some armies can't take allies, so saying that it's a "self imposed limitation" is a fabrication. Many armies are very underpowered and fail to compete. By your logic, is this also intended by the game designers, and was done on purpose?
There's a discrepancy between what Game Designers wanted and what the game actually is. Having some armies be gak tier is not something they purposefully wanted (and they should receive a buff or rework in that case), but "Soup" (Stop using this term for feths sake) is 100% intentional and there is no problem in having a "Soup" army be strong than a Monocodex (that would only means that that Monocodex is broken as feth).
Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 8TH that the only thing you share is specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Some armies can't take allies, so saying that it's a "self imposed limitation" is a fabrication. Many armies are very underpowered and fail to compete. By your logic, is this also intended by the game designers, and was done on purpose?
There's a discrepancy between what Game Designers wanted and what the game actually is. Having some armies be gak tier is not something they purposefully wanted (and they should receive a buff or rework in that case), but "Soup" (Stop using this term for feths sake) is 100% intentional and there is no problem in having a "Soup" army be strong than a Monocodex (that would only means that that Monocodex is broken as feth).
Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one
Yeah, I use the term "allies" instead of "soup" since it better describes what's actually happening.
As far as your position goes, just to clarify, would you recommend make all of Chaos or all of the Imperium balanced as though they were a single faction? What about armies who don't have allies as options? If the game was designed with allies in mind, then what happens there? It's clear that a few Imperium, Eldar and Chaos factions and units would need some nerfs. Not to mention the command point system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
Invisibility was OP because the effect was too strong for the cost (there were no modifiers in 7TH) and you could cast it on EVERYTHING, something that is literally absent in the case of 8TH with the Keyword system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Right now soup or allies or whatever you want to call it is not fine because it is affected by non linear interactions.
The interaction between factions should be zero, that was the whole purpose of the keyword system. Then i would be 100% fine with it.
Would it matter at all if ITC adopted the Cities of Death terrain rules? Make it harder to just blow somebody off the board.
Also, the issue with soup is as people say it lets you ignore your faction weakness, which throws any sort of balance out the window. If a faction's weakness is, for example, lots of cheap troops that die easily but no heavy hitters and you can just "ally" in big heavy hitters from another faction, what is your drawback?
Each faction should have distinct strengths and weaknesses that help balance them; if some can ignore the weaknesses entirely, then it's unbalanced.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
Invisibility was OP because the effect was too strong for the cost (there were no modifiers in 7TH) and you could cast it on EVERYTHING, something that is literally absent in the case of 8TH with the Keyword system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Right now soup or allies or whatever you want to call it is not fine because it is affected by non linear interactions.
The interaction between factions should be zero, that was the whole purpose of the keyword system. Then i would be 100% fine with it.
It's not up to you to decide if interactions between Factions are fine or not. For sure Game Designers think otherwise (Check IK/Custodes/Guilliman for buffs that affect IMPERIUM units) and I wholeheartedly agree with them
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Would it matter at all if ITC adopted the Cities of Death terrain rules? Make it harder to just blow somebody off the board.
Also, the issue with soup is as people say it lets you ignore your faction weakness, which throws any sort of balance out the window. If a faction's weakness is, for example, lots of cheap troops that die easily but no heavy hitters and you can just "ally" in big heavy hitters from another faction, what is your drawback?
Each faction should have distinct strengths and weaknesses that help balance them; if some can ignore the weaknesses entirely, then it's unbalanced.
But factions do generally heavy some distinct weaknesses and when that isn't happening (aka IMPERIUM), you should nerf the biggest offenders that ruin the factions balance
The biggest offender though IMHO is being able to do it in the first place.
The Castellan definitely needs a nerf. But the solution isn't to just nerf Guard into obscurity. Guard/Loyal 32 might be the main issue but it's enabled by soup being allowed to be as powerful as it is, and stratagems being so good (one of the worst design decisions they did IMHO; stratagems should have just been generic things, not faction specific as part of the faction identity/abilities)
I am the opinion that many of the old rules that became stratagems should go back to being rules for units, and other new stratagems should be treated that way as well. I wouldn’t be apposed to Scions always having Precision Drop, for example.
Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate
Much like the Castellan relying on IG to be dominant the Eldar rely on Ynnari to be dominant. So fixing Ynnari would probably fix the Eldar soup. The Eldar in top 20 of LVO were all Ynnari except for one Drukhari in 12th if I recall correctly. Tells me that Ynnari is problematic(because of shoot twice I presume) and not necessarily other Aeldari soups.
Wrong. Dark Eldar and Harlequin combo can destroy anything without any support from Ynnari
Nuance. Almost all the top lists are using Ynnari except for a single Drukhari list that manages to squeeze in between 10-20.
Also, the strong Drukhari units are really strong. Strong enough to make up for the mediocre units that no one takes. Those units(like dissie ravagers) need to be toned down along with flyers. Harlequins are only strong because they are a good counter against the meta that is Castellan/IG.
I know people want to believe soup is the real problem, but if it were an all encompassing problem then we'd see so much more soup having trouble. Yet, considering the data, the trouble soup are more or less all similar.
I would agree with you Mad doc but for the winning list of the LVO. It was a castellan (30%) with AM (the rest). So it was not loyal 32.
Also to those who say: "soup is here deal with it." Fine if you give a Xenos faction keyword. Right now the disparity in soup possibilities is obscene. Specifically OP eldar units /Ynnarri aside.
That topic is getting ridiculous, i have to agree with Marmatag, some fraction have better utilities than the others.
This LVO really proved Castellan is real issue, put it in IG, Admech, IK army and you are doing good. The frontline guys were totally right saying multiple times IG/ Castellan is the top dog and everyone should be prepared to beat it. In the end no one was able to do it, that is like knowing the enemy attack beforehand and still fail to stop it.
Some things i dislike in this topic:
1. Guard math whine - i give you math i have 2 squads and you have 1 squad, can you control more objective than me ?
2. Conscript and commissars are unplayable, well if the guard was 5 pts than we see more conscripts, that don`t hurt IG and increase the coast of the cheap CP generation on the other fraction.
3. Castellan can`t do anything without points, totally wrong, IK list can generate enough points to fuel him, but they don`t have the bodies to control objectives. Nerfing Castellan is good even for IK, cuz it will make the other knights more viable.
4. Eldar soup is top dog - from the 9 players in top 33 only 2 were not Ynnari. Ynnari are currently the reason eldar are on the top, any other combination is less competitive.
The non Ynnari list were using doom + skyweaver combo. With almost 10% of the players bringing knights, that combo is really good in the current metta.
5. Doom + skyweaver is game breaking, well in top 33 you had 2 players using this combo without Ynnari, we also had 2 orc players and 2 tau players. I guess we have to think about orc and tau nerfs ?
6. Whatever changes GW implement soup will be king. Well we had pure IG player on 11 place,2 orc players, necron on 20 and 24 or 25 place custode army, there was pure ultramarine army in the top 33, so that shows nerfs on strong units and combos and buff on certain units effect the metta.
7. Castellan is gatekeeper, well if you assume the gatekeeper should be in front, at and after the gate that is true.
Sadly i can`t see the BCP data in the moment, so its hard for me to find other interesting details.
Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one
IOW - feth T'au, feth Necrons, feth every faction that can't ally.
Blame the background, in 7TH everybody could ally with everybody and they were so powerful that allies were actually destroying their internal synergies and making the army 100% worse at EVERYTHING
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I would agree with you Mad doc but for the winning list of the LVO. It was a castellan (30%) with AM (the rest). So it was not loyal 32.
Also to those who say: "soup is here deal with it." Fine if you give a Xenos faction keyword. Right now the disparity in soup possibilities is obscene. Specifically OP eldar units /Ynnarri aside.
Give Orks the possibility of a single Imperium detachment allied (Mercenary Orks btw) and Expand T'au miniatures ranges with Kroot and more.
Only Necrons have no possibility of redemption considering their background
Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.
There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.
Earth127 wrote: Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.
There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.
Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could
Earth127 wrote: Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.
There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.
Actually, the requirement to be Battle-Forged is for Narrative too, it's just Open Play that allows everything. Although IIRC the whole "not Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/Tyranid" rule is Matched Play only. Which still doesn't help Tau/Orks/Necrons unless you play Open and come up with some wonky situation where they would ally (e.g. the much-maligned Necron+Blood Angel "Brofist") which in and of itself would be a very rare thing to even play a game with that sort of situation; it certainly wouldn't be the sort of thing you saw frequently.
And this is a moot point anyway since Matched Play is the default 99% of the time.
It is incredibly ignorant to say "allies are here deal with it". It's a problem, it should be addressed. The blame is mostly, as usual, on GW for not having it consistent and pushing stratagems as big combos which encourage using soup to power them, and partially the inability to balance superheavies while continuing to push them as part of a normal game rather than relegate them to Apocalypse style games where balance is already largely thrown out the window and it's more about the spectacle of huge armies and gigantic war machines than actually wanting an interesting game.
Guard may be the ones who benefit the most but it's not a case of just nerf Guard and the problem goes away. And IMHO it's foolish to go down the path of well, if you keep nerfing one thing and then the next thing and then the next, eventually you'll get parity because the timelines for that is completely unrealistic. The issues should be fixed in one go, not spread out over time so that there are gaps where OP things run rampant over everything because one problem was fixed and the competitive crowd just moved on to the next best thing until thta also gets nerfed, repeat ad infinitum.
KurtAngle2 771292 10345525 wrote:
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Soup with IG and castellan is much better then both and IG and a castellan run mono. Saying there is no intreaction, is odd. The whole army is better then everything else, because of interactions. Knights get the objective campers, CP, protection from assaults they would never have if run as a mono list.
Look how the final game went down. The flyers dominated the castellan, but because the soup imperial killed everything non flyer the IG could take the board and the flyers,as superior models as they maybe, just couldn't win. On top of everything IG are so cheap, that unlike other factions that may try to squeez in a castellan, the IG still have enough spare point to buy an actual IG army, or even a third ally detachment.
nerfing IG or castellans will just create a meta shift. Maybe eldar will rule all, maybe orcs jump in to second place. But them game over all will stay the same. The problem is soup, specific builds or units are a bonus not the root of the problem. There were no mono IG or mono knights taking high placments in LVO, and they never will be because both armies as good as they maybe just can't compet with an Inari or eldar soup.
Earth127 wrote: Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.
There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.
Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could
As if GW never changed the fluff just to sell more models.
Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could
KurtAngle2 771292 10345525 wrote:
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Soup with IG and castellan is much better then both and IG and a castellan run mono. Saying there is no intreaction, is odd. The whole army is better then everything else, because of interactions. Knights get the objective campers, CP, protection from assaults they would never have if run as a mono list.
Look how the final game went down. The flyers dominated the castellan, but because the soup imperial killed everything non flyer the IG could take the board and the flyers,as superior models as they maybe, just couldn't win. On top of everything IG are so cheap, that unlike other factions that may try to squeez in a castellan, the IG still have enough spare point to buy an actual IG army, or even a third ally detachment.
nerfing IG or castellans will just create a meta shift. Maybe eldar will rule all, maybe orcs jump in to second place. But them game over all will stay the same. The problem is soup, specific builds or units are a bonus not the root of the problem. There were no mono IG or mono knights taking high placments in LVO, and they never will be because both armies as good as they maybe just can't compet with an Inari or eldar soup.
Earth127 wrote: Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.
There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.
Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could
As if GW never changed the fluff just to sell more models.
You weren't playing in 7TH then, where the interactions were so unlimited and strong that everybody made sure to include few specific things to have THAT thing (Daemon Summoning, Invisibility, etc)
KurtAngle2 771292 10345525 wrote:
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Soup with IG and castellan is much better then both and IG and a castellan run mono. Saying there is no intreaction, is odd. The whole army is better then everything else, because of interactions. Knights get the objective campers, CP, protection from assaults they would never have if run as a mono list.
Look how the final game went down. The flyers dominated the castellan, but because the soup imperial killed everything non flyer the IG could take the board and the flyers,as superior models as they maybe, just couldn't win. On top of everything IG are so cheap, that unlike other factions that may try to squeez in a castellan, the IG still have enough spare point to buy an actual IG army, or even a third ally detachment.
nerfing IG or castellans will just create a meta shift. Maybe eldar will rule all, maybe orcs jump in to second place. But them game over all will stay the same. The problem is soup, specific builds or units are a bonus not the root of the problem. There were no mono IG or mono knights taking high placments in LVO, and they never will be because both armies as good as they maybe just can't compet with an Inari or eldar soup.
Earth127 wrote: Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.
There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.
Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could
As if GW never changed the fluff just to sell more models.
You weren't playing in 7TH then, where the interactions were so unlimited and strong that everybody made sure to include few specific things to have THAT thing (Daemon Summoning, Invisibility, etc)
True enough. I think the implementation of allies as a whole has just been a mess. The command point system in particular is really telling. Even if every army had the same number of command points, armies that took allies would have more stratagems available to use than armies that played mono book.
I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.
All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.
Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one
IOW - feth T'au, feth Necrons, feth every faction that can't ally.
Blame the background, in 7TH everybody could ally with everybody and they were so powerful that allies were actually destroying their internal synergies and making the army 100% worse at EVERYTHING
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I would agree with you Mad doc but for the winning list of the LVO. It was a castellan (30%) with AM (the rest). So it was not loyal 32.
Also to those who say: "soup is here deal with it." Fine if you give a Xenos faction keyword. Right now the disparity in soup possibilities is obscene. Specifically OP eldar units /Ynnarri aside.
Give Orks the possibility of a single Imperium detachment allied (Mercenary Orks btw) and Expand T'au miniatures ranges with Kroot and more.
Only Necrons have no possibility of redemption considering their background
And in 7th the only real offenders for allies were Wolfstar and Centurionstar. That's why we have the aforementioned units paying for their sins this edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.
All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.
So we need to fix Grey Knights and cost other units appropriately.
How is that a problem with allies? Banning allies doesn't fix Grey Knights whatsoever, nor does it stop Infantry from being the mathematically superior troop.
Karol wrote: I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.
All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.
The meta has been stale for a while now. The top 2 armies (being Ynarri and IG+Knights+other) have been sitting in the top for several months now. Now, we might see some changes in the FAQ in April (which would still be another 2 month of the same meta), but GW really should have been making some effort to change the game state when they detected the problems (if they even wanted to fix it to begin with).
The meta has been stale for a while now. The top 2 armies (being Ynarri and IG+Knights+other) have been sitting in the top for several months now. Now, we might see some changes in the FAQ in April (which would still be another 2 month of the same meta), but GW really should have been making some effort to change the game state when they detected the problems (if they even wanted to fix it to begin with).
Well, the timing of when those codexes came out placed them out of the CA window. The FAQ did tag them, but it wasn't enough. Small and slow fixes are best, regardless. We'll see what GW has to offer in March.
Karol wrote: I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.
All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.
The meta has been stale for a while now. The top 2 armies (being Ynarri and IG+Knights+other) have been sitting in the top for several months now. Now, we might see some changes in the FAQ in April (which would still be another 2 month of the same meta), but GW really should have been making some effort to change the game state when they detected the problems (if they even wanted to fix it to begin with).
I kind of disagree, the only think that did`t really change is IG/IK, now we have high placed orcs, tao, necron and 2 mono imperium armies, number 10 is bringing SM list, eldar list are more diverse than ever, the usual dark reapers/spears combo is not in every list and did not do better than other Ynnari builds. So the game is moving slowly in other direction, genestealers will probably have some effect on the game, like Nids last year. Sadly no Ynnari codex annoyance.
I'm considerably aware of terrain - the tournament results for marines at LVO might help us sort the rest of the equation.
Not being snarky, just verifying that your math didn't take terrain into account.
It accounts for cover.
Please forgive me for being late to the comparison party here! But could I make a request, if you still have the numbers available?
What do the numbers look like when using Intercessors over normal marines? Would work out at 22 Intercessors and a Captain + Lieutenant with Master Crafted boltguns for 514 points. (512 if you use Storm Bolters instead)
The numbers for the Guardsmen vs MEQ are easy enough to work out, as you just half the results (to indicate how many models are removed), but I’m curious as to how close the results get using Primaris.
Sure thing.
Note: In doing this I realized I only did one squad worth of attacks for the IG against regular marines. Here is the corrected math for that section:
Spoiler:
Two squads of IG
64 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 5.4 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
64 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 14.2 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice
1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover
Intercessor
1 * .333 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 1.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 23.3 / 2 = 0.6 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .5 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 23.3 / 2 = 1 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .666 * .5 * 23.3 / 2 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 2.6 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
(these increased over normie marines considerably)
1 * .666 * .833 * 23.3 = 12.9 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 23.3 = 10.3 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover
Conclusion
-- Shooting
Intercessors have a strong advantage with 30" guns to be able to stay put and get shots without compromising too much on location. It seems, because of the bolter rule the AGL is no longer a significant edge unless you need a krak for something tougher. Intercessors are still worse when forced to move or when IS have you in 12", but they should be at full effect far earlier, so I think this is a wash or the edge goes to Intercessors.
-- Melee
No one can really compete with IG here.
--Durability
Two wounds really shines and Intercessors are about twice as durable...except when D2 weapons come in and then they're half as durable.
So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?
I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.
Kanluwen wrote: So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?
I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.
This is why I say the math is garbage.
He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.
What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.
Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.
Kanluwen wrote: So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?
I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.
This is why I say the math is garbage.
He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.
Him including the cost of the character in the calculation wasn't my point. It's that he just throws "points v points" into things. Geegollywillickers, the army that has cheaper infantry can throw more infantry at you!
Who knew! What a shock!
What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.
Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.
And another reason I loathe the math. Running the numbers is great and all but if you consistently are adding variables without expressing them?
Kanluwen wrote: So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?
I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.
This is why I say the math is garbage.
If you wanna add his cost in there, sure. Remember you get the shot on a 3+ at best when using a Relic slot. Then go ahead and add an equivalent number of points to Imperial Guard for appropriate calculations.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Loyal 32 (and variants thereon) are the central issue though when Souping.
They bring only CP to the party. That's it. And in a quantity those they're being donated to normally can't scrape up that easily.
Remove the ability to CP farm, and Soup starts to become less of a sure thing.
The soup meta feels like it has moved on a bit from just CP farming.
Aeldari/Ynnari are not really souping up for CP farming so much as to stack all the buffs including psychic powers.
The Castellan lists I saw towards the top of the LVO were moving away from the Loyal 32 and tended to have a lot more AM in there than the bare minimum.
CP generation is part of what is happening here but some of it is wombo-combo building and some plain old pick-the-best.
The winning AM list looks much like a classic AM list but replaces the heavy artillery element with a Castellan because the knight is just outright better than equal points of AM big guns that would fill the same role. Honestly I rather like that winning list other than the fact that it has too many under-costed things so there is just too much of it on the table for most opponents to feasibly deal with. If everything in that list were costed right the general approach of the list would be just fine and because it would not be stupidly good we would not have the boredom issue of meeting essentially the same thing so many times in a tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Would it matter at all if ITC adopted the Cities of Death terrain rules? Make it harder to just blow somebody off the board.
Also, the issue with soup is as people say it lets you ignore your faction weakness, which throws any sort of balance out the window. If a faction's weakness is, for example, lots of cheap troops that die easily but no heavy hitters and you can just "ally" in big heavy hitters from another faction, what is your drawback?
Each faction should have distinct strengths and weaknesses that help balance them; if some can ignore the weaknesses entirely, then it's unbalanced.
Cities of Death rules rather than the ITC rules would definitely shift things around a bit - the whole terrain vs shooting thing would become a lot less binary and a lot more interactive. That would be really bad for Dark Reapers for example which are currently immune to any shooting weapon which requires LOS so long as the CP don't run out.
But honestly just create a tournament level reward for non-allied armies. Change the dumb ITC faction rules so that you actually have to play the faction to count as that faction, none of this "680 points of GK so I am running a GK army" stuff. Then have good enough prizes at the faction level that everyone has a decent prize to be playing for. That leaves the allies players all competing for just one prize and the rest of the goodies all up for grabs by the non-allied armies. I knowingly took an army to my last big tournament that risked running into an unwinnable scenario (which did indeed happen) but I was aiming for best of faction and I knew that if shooting was crippled in one scenario then the other T'au players would be just as crippled as me. So I lost that game but I got best in faction anyway, which was my aim all along.
Rewarding each faction for being itself will promote variety of lists in a tournament more than "fixing soup" which will just switch from the current 2 or 3 dominant list archetypes to a new and different 2 or 3 dominant list archetypes. Unless you have an aesthetic dislike of allies lists i think the objective is to make for more varied interesting tournaments in which more players have something worthwhile to play for - right??
Daedalus81 wrote: It's moving into double tap range, charging, and punching twice for no CP.
Just so I'm clear - what are you referring to as "punching twice" here? Straken's +1A aura, or the IG Order?
Bharring wrote: LQR is broken, because it can affect the one thing your enemy wants to kill! And there are only about a dozen possible targets to pick from!
Sorry - LQR?
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.
Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.
There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.
Yes, to all participants of this topic and beyond, kindly stop using the word "cancer", as it is crass, callous and generating a lot of alerts on our end.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's moving into double tap range, charging, and punching twice for no CP.
Just so I'm clear - what are you referring to as "punching twice" here? Straken's +1A aura, or the IG Order?
Bharring wrote: LQR is broken, because it can affect the one thing your enemy wants to kill! And there are only about a dozen possible targets to pick from!
Sorry - LQR?
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.
Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.
There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.
Not talking about the C word BUT
I actually LOVE 7th, it had some of the worst problems, but it had the best game play i have and every will have from table top gaming, there will never be a game better than 7th for me. I played Corsairs and a good friend (very good player, equal to top players for sure) was playing SM-WS demi company (the move out of vehicle, shoot, move into vehicle).
Quick story time/Batrep
His lists where built for fun, limited D weapons, he had lots of Marines with plasma, RHinos, Bikers, and the Skyhammer Formation (2 dev, 2 assualt, 2 drop pods)
My list, Prince bike, Baron Jump, Baron jump, Baron jump, 5x7 Reavers 2 Fusion guns, 1 Bike unit of 3 sargents (they could do that) with 3 force swords, 2 normal bikers on them and the Prince, unit of Jump heavy weapons, 2 Hornets, 1 Warphunter.
The game was a master class of movements, I could Move, shoot Move (and overwatch+move) he could Move shoot Move as well, we both had ways to DS and re-DS mid game.
It was just this game of, i move into a good position for a good shot, then move out into cover/away from him, but he would do the same. I had 1 D-weapon, but thats b.c he had the Skyhammer formation, we agreed it would be fair (Warp hunter in the list was basically my Anti-tank and he only had Rhinos and Drop pods, 8-9 in total, so killing 1 Rhino a turn was not a big deal).
Our game was 5 hours for 3 turns, and was equal the full time, we both called it as it was taking a long time, but we both left winning and feeling amazed. I will never forget that game.
7th, just like 8th can be amazing and more balanced if you and your partner go in knowing what type of game you want. but 7th rules actually made the game more strategy based for sure, they could have just cleaned it up and took away the formations (re-did codex's) and it would have been even better for. I like 8th, i just think its to stream line now (to the point it broke the game and needed to many rules adjustments).
I'm considerably aware of terrain - the tournament results for marines at LVO might help us sort the rest of the equation.
Not being snarky, just verifying that your math didn't take terrain into account.
It accounts for cover.
Please forgive me for being late to the comparison party here! But could I make a request, if you still have the numbers available?
What do the numbers look like when using Intercessors over normal marines? Would work out at 22 Intercessors and a Captain + Lieutenant with Master Crafted boltguns for 514 points. (512 if you use Storm Bolters instead)
The numbers for the Guardsmen vs MEQ are easy enough to work out, as you just half the results (to indicate how many models are removed), but I’m curious as to how close the results get using Primaris.
Sure thing.
Note: In doing this I realized I only did one squad worth of attacks for the IG against regular marines. Here is the corrected math for that section:
Two squads of IG
64 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 5.4 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
64 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 14.2 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice
1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover
Intercessor
1 * .333 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 1.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 23.3 / 2 = 0.6 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover
1 * .5 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 23.3 / 2 = 1 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover
1 * .666 * .5 * 23.3 / 2 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 2.6 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover
(these increased over normie marines considerably)
1 * .666 * .833 * 23.3 = 12.9 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 23.3 = 10.3 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover
Conclusion
-- Shooting
Intercessors have a strong advantage with 30" guns to be able to stay put and get shots without compromising too much on location. It seems, because of the bolter rule the AGL is no longer a significant edge unless you need a krak for something tougher. Intercessors are still worse when forced to move or when IS have you in 12", but they should be at full effect far earlier, so I think this is a wash or the edge goes to Intercessors.
-- Melee
No one can really compete with IG here.
--Durability
Two wounds really shines and Intercessors are about twice as durable...except when D2 weapons come in and then they're half as durable.
Thanks for all the work and the write up! It still seems that one of the best ways to kill Guard, is to use Guard, but, the shooting advantage/benefits of the new Intercessors is pretty interesting to note and might allow some interesting counter ideas. The theoretical 22 Intercessors with Captain and Lieutenant would take out 22 Guardsmen, if they have the opportunity going first.
Kanluwen wrote: So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?
I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.
This is why I say the math is garbage.
He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.
What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.
Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.
When we talk about balance we look to things that are being used. Catachans are being used. Iron Hands are typically not. Marines have little in the way of offensive buffs from traits. And one might say, "well I'm not using Catachans so don't nerf me!", and that's completely legitimate.
And despite this IG buffs come primarily from orders.
I could take Vostroyans or Armageddon to counter the range of Intercessors or pretend they're Mordians when doing overwatch, but that isn't a real accounting of what's out there.
That said this is a tiny piece of the picture. Marine bikes trash IG at shooting.
Why don't people take more bikes now? Well, they might, but they're also as risk of D2 weapons. Disintegrators will surely appear at some point in a tournament. One ravager kills a 3 man of bikes without blinking, but GEQ doesn't really mind.
And that's the core of the issue, right? 3 Ravagers will remove 10% of a marine army using bikes, but only 5% of an army featuring fictional 9 point IG. The more that people take low volume weapons the more GEQ profits. Any attempt to take high volume shooting risks exposure to burst cannons, dissies, etc. Any attempt to use special weapons to have a better role on the field only makes those losses sharper.
My talking points:
- Marines and IG are now probably reasonably close in mathhammer world under strict circumstances
- Catachans make a real mess of things
- Lots of common weapons make a mess of marines, but not GEQ - The crime of IS isn't so much the points on a basic level, but the flexibility - IG can move faster, cover more objectives, die more slowly (relatively), and be combat monsters if they so choose
- GSC will probably make a mess of IG soon
With BBolters SM now have quite good returns on killing guards, especially if Crimson Fist.
One squad of sternguard with stormbolters clocks at 80 points, but removes more than 7 guards per phase. 10 if you include morale*, which is a 50% return, better than a dissie ravager on intercessors.
* (Unless they pay 2 CP but who pays 2 CPs for 3 guards? The 1CP stratagem will not save them)
Kanluwen wrote: So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?
I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.
This is why I say the math is garbage.
He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.
What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.
Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.
When we talk about balance we look to things that are being used. Catachans are being used. Iron Hands are typically not. Marines have little in the way of offensive buffs from traits. And one might say, "well I'm not using Catachans so don't nerf me!", and that's completely legitimate.
And despite this IG buffs come primarily from orders.
I could take Vostroyans or Armageddon to counter the range of Intercessors or pretend they're Mordians when doing overwatch, but that isn't a real accounting of what's out there.
That said this is a tiny piece of the picture. Marine bikes trash IG at shooting.
Why don't people take more bikes now? Well, they might, but they're also as risk of D2 weapons. Disintegrators will surely appear at some point in a tournament. One ravager kills a 3 man of bikes without blinking, but GEQ doesn't really mind.
And that's the core of the issue, right? 3 Ravagers will remove 10% of a marine army using bikes, but only 5% of an army featuring fictional 9 point IG. The more that people take low volume weapons the more GEQ profits. Any attempt to take high volume shooting risks exposure to burst cannons, dissies, etc. Any attempt to use special weapons to have a better role on the field only makes those losses sharper.
My talking points:
- Marines and IG are now probably reasonably close in mathhammer world under strict circumstances
- Catachans make a real mess of things
- Lots of common weapons make a mess of marines, but not GEQ - The crime of IS isn't so much the points on a basic level, but the flexibility - IG can move faster, cover more objectives, die more slowly (relatively), and be combat monsters if they so choose
- GSC will probably make a mess of IG soon
Well that is not true, Crimson fists and Dark Angels have offensive buffs, and quite strong ones.
This doesn't really matter though, i agree with your conclusions. Those squads are good because they are flexible.
* (Unless they pay 2 CP but who pays 2 CPs for 3 guards? The 1CP stratagem will not save them)
Depends on the mission and such. I see it quite commonly and it is perhaps more amplified in ITC. Saving 3 models could deny your opponent Kill More and Hold More, which is 2 points of their game total. It doesn't always happen that way, but it can be devastating.
Kanluwen wrote: So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?
I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.
This is why I say the math is garbage.
He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.
What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.
Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.
When we talk about balance we look to things that are being used. Catachans are being used. Iron Hands are typically not. Marines have little in the way of offensive buffs from traits. And one might say, "well I'm not using Catachans so don't nerf me!", and that's completely legitimate.
And despite this IG buffs come primarily from orders.
I could take Vostroyans or Armageddon to counter the range of Intercessors or pretend they're Mordians when doing overwatch, but that isn't a real accounting of what's out there.
That said this is a tiny piece of the picture. Marine bikes trash IG at shooting.
Why don't people take more bikes now? Well, they might, but they're also as risk of D2 weapons. Disintegrators will surely appear at some point in a tournament. One ravager kills a 3 man of bikes without blinking, but GEQ doesn't really mind.
And that's the core of the issue, right? 3 Ravagers will remove 10% of a marine army using bikes, but only 5% of an army featuring fictional 9 point IG. The more that people take low volume weapons the more GEQ profits. Any attempt to take high volume shooting risks exposure to burst cannons, dissies, etc. Any attempt to use special weapons to have a better role on the field only makes those losses sharper.
My talking points:
- Marines and IG are now probably reasonably close in mathhammer world under strict circumstances
- Catachans make a real mess of things
- Lots of common weapons make a mess of marines, but not GEQ - The crime of IS isn't so much the points on a basic level, but the flexibility - IG can move faster, cover more objectives, die more slowly (relatively), and be combat monsters if they so choose
- GSC will probably make a mess of IG soon
Raven Guards -1 to hit at max range makes guard hit on 5's or 6's, which is significant since they can hug cover for a 2+ and fire 12 shots per 5, with a stormbolter Sargent.
Raven Guards -1 to hit at max range makes guard hit on 5's or 6's, which is significant since they can hug cover for a 2+ and fire 12 shots per 5, with a stormbolter Sargent.
Yep - I could see RG bikes being a solid element. 24 shots though - 4 shots per bike x 5 plus 4 for the SB. The problem with bikes is that it's much harder to get cover than if they were infantry.
Kdash wrote: Thanks for all the work and the write up! It still seems that one of the best ways to kill Guard, is to use Guard, but, the shooting advantage/benefits of the new Intercessors is pretty interesting to note and might allow some interesting counter ideas. The theoretical 22 Intercessors with Captain and Lieutenant would take out 22 Guardsmen, if they have the opportunity going first.
But still, it's all about overall list synergy.
Thanks again!
The best way to kill guard is assault, morale, and damaging their tanks enough to maim but not kill. Space marines should have no issues mowing down guard and getting into combat. Most hoard IG lists cannot get away from marines in a fall back phase since you can easily consolidate into the surrounding units.
The game was fundamentally designed poorly. High ap, high str weapons need to prey on armor. Invluns on armor just removes their natural predators (low RoF, high str/damage/ap). Buff armor T to 12+ (so that str 6 weapons wound on 6) give the 1+ or even 0+ saves (so those -3/-4 ap weapons actually have a role) and double up their wounds. Buff anti-tank to ludicrous levels (28 str4d6 volcano cannons who cares), let str 14 dark lances do 2d6 damage with very limited shots (hell, re-roll against vehicles to help mitigate the dice gods and low ROF weapons.) Now you don't have a weapon that works against armor and infantry and knights don't need RIS to protect them from getting blown off the table by dissie cannons.
Give elite infantry the invlun saves. Expensive low wound models with invlun saves make those anti armor guns really inefficient at killing elite infantry and make them t5-8 (reducing anti-chaff weapons efficiency vs them).
Now chaff is actually chaff, elite infantry actually doesn't get blown off the table in a point efficient manner by all guns and you actually need las-cannons/dark lances instead of just spamming as much re-rollable s5-6 2d shots as you can get.
None of that is going to happen so now we have GW running around trying to nerf things as they pop up with limited testing budget and time. Swallowing spiders to get of flies, birds to get rid of spiders, cats to get rid of birds...
TL/DR this is a lot of relatively simple comparative mathhammer, much of which is going to be pretty boring for those who don't like this sort of thing.
I don't really understand your "applied unit costs" Daedalus.
I think you can take 3 company commanders and 6 IG squads for 330 points. This is more or less the cost of 3 barebones tacticals, a captain and a lieutenant. (I think its 1 point more, although you might have to take some gear).
Lets shoot some fire warriors.
Marines move but are outside 12"= 15*2/3*7/6*2/3*7/6*1/2=4.53 dead fire warriors.
Marines stay stationary or are within 12"= double the shots, therefore 9.07 dead fire warriors
Guard outside 12" without orders: 54*1/2*1/2*1/2=6.75 dead fire warriors.
Guard outside 12" with FRFSRF=13.5 dead fire warriors.
Guard in 12" with FRFSRF=27 dead fire warriors (and a further 0.75 from the sergeant's laspistols).
13.5>9, and 27>>>>9.
Now are you going to get all 6 squads into 12" of some rather sad looking fire warriors? Probably not - but there are plenty of situations where you will get some squads into rapid fire range and you are getting a ludicrous return for your points.
Lets shoot 10 fire warriors at them at long range.
Against Marines:
10*1/2*2/3*1/3*13=14.4 points.
Against Guard:
10*1/2*2/3*2/3*4=8.888 points. So fire warriors are about 60% more effective for their points versus marines than guardsmen.
Maybe a bad example (as would say DE venom, or Eldar Shuriken weapons....)
What about the humble Necron warrior?
10*2/3*1/2*1/2*13=21.666 points of Marines.
10*2/3*2/3*5/6*4=14.81 points of guardsmen. So just 46% more efficient this time.
Intercessors fare a bit better, but not much.
You could have 11.5 intercessors plus characters - lets call it 12.
Against Fire Warriors:
Moving outside rapid fire: 12*2/3*7/6*2/3*7/6*2/3=4.84 dead fire warriors.
Inside rapid fire or stationary=9.67 fire warriors.
So... basically the same as the tacticals, still inferior to the guardsmen.
Taking fire?
Fire Warriors:
10*1/2*2/3*1/3*(17/2)=9.444 points of intercessors. So a lot better than Marines (unsurprisingly so) but still lose more points than Guardsmen.
Their own upside is getting shot by Guardsmen:
9*1/2*1/3*1/3*8.5=4.25 points of intercessors.
Compared with shooting at Guardsmen:
9*1/2*1/2*2/3*4=6 points of guardsmen.
So they are resilient versus S3 AP- attacks.
However thats about it. Shoot some Necrons at the Intercessors:
10*2/3*1/2*1/2*8.5=14.16
This is pretty marginal versus the Guardsmen above at 14.81.
It gets worse with S, AP or 2D.
Conclusion: Guardsmen have great firepower base, and obscene firepower with FRFSRF. They are also tough for their points, only losing out to intercessors against weak guns, and competing with them against anything more lethal. Cadia and Catachan are great chapter tactics - and quite why a 4 point model should - whatever the buffs - be able to fire 4 times at S3 and then charge in to punch 2/3 times at S4 is a mystery.
These are the reasons they are run at tournaments, and its getting a bit late in the day to claim other things could compete with them. If they did people would run them.
I feel say Raven Guard can perform well versus the BS 4+ armies like Guard and Tau. Unfortunately 40k is a meta system, and you have a high chance of drawing a BS 3+ army at some point in a tournament - especially Eldar, who combine modifiers to hit with obscene damage output and speed to be within 12" if they want to be.
I think this is also the reason Orks underperformed against expectations. While they should theoretically have the tools to cope with the IG+Castelan list, there are other lists that eat them up or chess clock them out.
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?
You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
I don't agree. If all the guards are dead the two company commanders might only contribute a whole 2 las pistols, but they can still sit on backfield objectives. Sure you can go kill them, or put 2 models on said objectives, but thats still something you need to do which is not always convenient if large portions of your army is dead. You can't say company commanders are worth 0 points.
Your argument would maybe have more to it if I literally have the loyal 32 - but if I have a brigade, and looking at the LVO you should, there are typically more units. Okay 30 guardsmen are dead? I'll go buff my mortars or more guardsmen or have these commanders sprint across the table to help claim or contest something late game.
Sure the SM characters can buff more units. Also if the units they are babysitting die, they can jog over the field and buff something else. I don't know however, beyond modelling whole armies which will become abstract and somewhat arbitrary, you can express this as a performance/points ratio any more than issues above. I can't very easily put a points value on move^3 - I just know it is an exceptionally useful ability that contributes to winning games.
I can only say however that we know, outside of Guilliman lists, that Marines typically don't perform, and since I believe 40k largely comes down to probability, this would suggest they are mathematically inferior - as opposed to just being consistently unlucky.
If you want a solution to the soup issue, I would say keep it simple, something like +6 CP for a battleforged army that's mono faction instead of the usual +3. Or if you wanted to go in the other direction, soup armies don't get +3 CP for being battle forged, but to me it might incentivize more soup to make up for it, so why not reward mono faction armies more instead of punishing soup? Or if you don't think it's enough, go for both options: +6 CP for battleforged mono armies and something like +1 CP for battleforged soup armies. That way mono armies get a loyal 32 battalion's worth of CP without having to take them while soup still maintains their tactical flexibility. Easy to remember and less book keeping.
So with all the talk on soups had anyone tried running different armies to balance each other that aren't gaurd/Knight or eldars? Even without directly affecting each other they can still cover weaknesses.
Example below is plain but you have 3 different elements range, armor, troops. Something that should be common in lists.
2k
Tau batt (bork)
- suit, etheral
- 3x fire warriors with turret
Gaurd spearhead (catachan)
- tank commander
- 3x Russ
Eldar outrider (saim)
- autarch on bike
- 3x6 wind riders
- 2x exarch planes.
What if this was the basic idea behind a standard army?
MacDaddyNasty wrote: So with all the talk on soups had anyone tried running different armies to balance each other that aren't gaurd/Knight or eldars? Even without directly affecting each other they can still cover weaknesses.
Example below is plain but you have 3 different elements range, armor, troops. Something that should be common in lists.
2k
Tau batt (bork)
- suit, etheral
- 3x fire warriors with turret
Gaurd spearhead (catachan)
- tank commander
- 3x Russ
Eldar outrider (saim)
- autarch on bike
- 3x6 wind riders
- 2x exarch planes.
What if this was the basic idea behind a standard army?
Taudar is famously strong and is a large part of why the ally table got gutted. Riptide wings were a problem for the same exact reasons Castellans currently are. They were undercosted for what they did, had extra rules that made them overperform for their cost, and most importantly ANYONE COULD RUN THEM. Looking back at tournament results there were very few if any pure Tau lists that did well. Most had eldar, sisters of silence, or any other number of things to compensate for their weaknesses. It's part of why its a little ridiculous that xenos soup is too strong to be allowed, but here we are on year 2 of Imperial soup consistently placing at top tables.
By me, soup is fine. I like fielding different units in a single army (in a fluffy way) or just adding assassins or inquisitors to the fray. The problem is the abuse of this mechanic.
Really, restricting CPs to sub-factions they were generated by (Battleforged bonus CPs can be used by anyone) should deal with it pretty effectively. No more CP-farms as we know them, period. CompensCastellan Knights (and that Eldar thing) being undercosted is a different thing that has to be dealt with.
My simple armchair solution - which all of these are - would be to have CP a fixed number for everyone regardless of detachments, regardless of codex, faction, and soup. Let's say the magic number would be 6 CP for a whole fight. This would mean that there is no need to fill out several detachments just to eke out a CP or two(or 5 if you are going for loyal 32). It would also mean that the currency exchange of CP over every single codex would be fixed, ie. no codex would be designed to be more CP using than the other, but instead standardized against each other. Hell, if people want things to be a bit more nuanced and variable let's say all codexes get 13 CP, then have the stratagem pricing be the thing that differs more. So something like IG would get a lot of 1CP stratagems while something like the Aeldari would have 2-3 CP stratagems on average.
This would just simplify the system and make it standardized enough to be easier to balance and nobody would be needing to take a detachment chaff just to get a few more CP.
bananathug wrote: The game was fundamentally designed poorly. High ap, high str weapons need to prey on armor. Invluns on armor just removes their natural predators (low RoF, high str/damage/ap). Buff armor T to 12+ (so that str 6 weapons wound on 6) give the 1+ or even 0+ saves (so those -3/-4 ap weapons actually have a role) and double up their wounds. Buff anti-tank to ludicrous levels (28 str4d6 volcano cannons who cares), let str 14 dark lances do 2d6 damage with very limited shots (hell, re-roll against vehicles to help mitigate the dice gods and low ROF weapons.) Now you don't have a weapon that works against armor and infantry and knights don't need RIS to protect them from getting blown off the table by dissie cannons.
Give elite infantry the invlun saves. Expensive low wound models with invlun saves make those anti armor guns really inefficient at killing elite infantry and make them t5-8 (reducing anti-chaff weapons efficiency vs them).
Now chaff is actually chaff, elite infantry actually doesn't get blown off the table in a point efficient manner by all guns and you actually need las-cannons/dark lances instead of just spamming as much re-rollable s5-6 2d shots as you can get.
None of that is going to happen so now we have GW running around trying to nerf things as they pop up with limited testing budget and time. Swallowing spiders to get of flies, birds to get rid of spiders, cats to get rid of birds...
I agree completely with this. It's quite similar in effect to how Epic deals with weapons, where some are anti-tank and others are anti-personnel and you can't use one for the other purpose in a lot of cases. I think GW were far too conservative in how they converted units and weapons from 7th into 8th. The rules actively encourage high volume of fire/attacks over anything else, which leaves low ROF anti-tank weapons as poor options in most cases. This is also partly down to the ridiculous ramping up in attack output for many weapons and units. As a recent example, I was watching a game with the new GSC this week and a single unit of Acolytes put out something like 80 attacks (they were buffed by a psychic power at the time) while a Genestealer unit did something similar. That Acolyte unit clawed a wave Serpent to death. We were discussing things after the game and the problem with these units is they don't have a defined purpose any more because the way the rules work make them good at everything. A unit with 60+ attacks will kill pretty much anything regardless of the target but that leaves no room for any tactical decision making because there is no optimal target. Widening out the range of Toughness and Save values while also taking a different approach to elite units.weapons other than adding more attacks would go a long way to making the game better.
As far as soup is concerned I think we just need a valid reason to go mono-Codex. Allies are fine as a concept but there needs to be inherent weaknesses and disadvantages for taking them otherwise they will continue to dominate. Making that weakness a reduction in CPs or stratagem access (or both) seems like the most logical approach since those are the hardest elements to balance when dealing with soup. That goes hand-in-hand with actually balancing units in general, and GW has definitely dropped the ball big time in that area too, but I don't think you can move towards a balanced game without dealing with both.
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
I don't agree. If all the guards are dead the two company commanders might only contribute a whole 2 las pistols, but they can still sit on backfield objectives. Sure you can go kill them, or put 2 models on said objectives, but thats still something you need to do which is not always convenient if large portions of your army is dead. You can't say company commanders are worth 0 points.
Your argument would maybe have more to it if I literally have the loyal 32 - but if I have a brigade, and looking at the LVO you should, there are typically more units. Okay 30 guardsmen are dead? I'll go buff my mortars or more guardsmen or have these commanders sprint across the table to help claim or contest something late game.
Sure the SM characters can buff more units. Also if the units they are babysitting die, they can jog over the field and buff something else. I don't know however, beyond modelling whole armies which will become abstract and somewhat arbitrary, you can express this as a performance/points ratio any more than issues above. I can't very easily put a points value on move^3 - I just know it is an exceptionally useful ability that contributes to winning games.
I can only say however that we know, outside of Guilliman lists, that Marines typically don't perform, and since I believe 40k largely comes down to probability, this would suggest they are mathematically inferior - as opposed to just being consistently unlucky.
Sure if you consider a brigade things are a little different, but not much.
Take for example the brigade of the winning list, which has 8 squads, priest, straken and enough company commanders for all the squads. If you remove 2 squads, you have also "removed" a company commander. If you remove the 8 squads, you have "removed" Straken, Priest and 3 CC, which makes the basic cost of guard 6,5 points. Those guards are worse meatshields than kabalites.
Apart from 3 small mortar squads, where orders have minimal effect, you don't have much to order around. All those supports are now potential free kill points and character kills.
Guards are incredibly good, but it's not honest to say that they can shoot twice, move move move, A3 AND meathshield at 4ppm. They can meatshield at 4ppm and are the best in the game in this role, but if you also make them shooty, mobile and punchy, they are no longer good meathshields.
Objective still exist and 1CC I can't kill (charictor) or outscore(lack of obsec or just not enough models left) that "removed" model is still contributing.
They can order themselves so still getting use of those at a reduced return.
Deepstrike doesn't ignore charictors so still plugs up that deepstrike denial zone.
Ignoring the above and working under the pretence you created, why does noone else not get to add their charictors into the cost of their troops in maths then?
Really though the answer to the problem is in the GSC codex,
The broodbrothers rule should realy just have been the default Guard CP rules period you get the allies but not the broken CP ontop of the best chaff.
Hopefully it would also allow some of the previous nerfs ans auch to attempt to bring guard CP under control to be revoked.
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.
Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.
There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.
I remain adamant in me naming it that way, since the Rule bloat growth rate, Formations ,etc have had a eerily similar way of behaviour to a tumor and was unhealthy for the game.
Also "was" not you would get. The only way i can see you actually get it would be if you drank all paint pots and worked on resin, made lines out off the dust and took that line down.
5th was good, 6 th showed the bloat rate and 7th was in that case the absolute endpoint.
Also as someone that actually has to regulary get tumors cut out of himself i could care less about your sentiment about it.
Ice_can wrote: Your logic is flawed because of a number of facts
Objective still exist and 1CC I can't kill (charictor) or outscore(lack of obsec or just not enough models left) that "removed" model is still contributing.
They can order themselves so still getting use of those at a reduced return.
Deepstrike doesn't ignore charictors so still plugs up that deepstrike denial zone.
Ignoring the above and working under the pretence you created, why does noone else not get to add their charictors into the cost of their troops in maths then?
Really though the answer to the problem is in the GSC codex,
The broodbrothers rule should realy just have been the default Guard CP rules period you get the allies but not the broken CP ontop of the best chaff.
Hopefully it would also allow some of the previous nerfs ans auch to attempt to bring guard CP under control to be revoked.
"Remove" could not be the correct term, but surely they have now a severely reduced value. Should we call them "Neutralized"? I don't care about the term.
Also, other factions should totally include the cost of the support in the model cost when talking about meatshielding, but some supports are easier to neutralize than others. A farseer is almost never neutralized for example, you would have to almost table the eldar army.
The GSC codex rule is nice, but which is your main detachment, the one with the warlord?
Ice_can wrote: Your logic is flawed because of a number of facts
Objective still exist and 1CC I can't kill (charictor) or outscore(lack of obsec or just not enough models left) that "removed" model is still contributing.
They can order themselves so still getting use of those at a reduced return.
Deepstrike doesn't ignore charictors so still plugs up that deepstrike denial zone.
Ignoring the above and working under the pretence you created, why does noone else not get to add their charictors into the cost of their troops in maths then?
Really though the answer to the problem is in the GSC codex,
The broodbrothers rule should realy just have been the default Guard CP rules period you get the allies but not the broken CP ontop of the best chaff.
Hopefully it would also allow some of the previous nerfs ans auch to attempt to bring guard CP under control to be revoked.
"Remove" could not be the correct term, but surely they have now a severely reduced value. Should we call them "Neutralized"? I don't care about the term.
Also, other factions should totally include the cost of the support in the model cost when talking about meatshielding, but some supports are easier to neutralize than others. A farseer is almost never neutralized for example, you would have to almost table the eldar army.
The GSC codex rule is nice, but which is your main detachment, the one with the warlord?
Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.
But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.
Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.
Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.
But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.
Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.
And what do you do, if you have a guard army that is formed out of diffrent Regiments?
Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.
But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.
Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.
And what do you do, if you have a guard army that is formed out of diffrent Regiments?
The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.
Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".
The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.
Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".
And here is where your lore argument is wrong:
There are regiments that work very well in tandem with each other and then there are the "macabian Jannisaries, DKoKs that are rarely liked by other regiments, However most of those mixed Guard regiments get an overarching General Staff with CLEAR hierarchy.
But i do agree a mono IG force would not care about 6+- CP since on what would you spend it really.
I think, inherently, you can't have true balance from the moment you begin to add character/flavour. Chess is a great example of a balanced game (as close as you could possibly be), yet each player has to have the same pieces to play the game. You can't pick and choose pieces, you can't upgrade their ranges etc, everything is exactly the same so true balance is never going to be available when you start allowing the picking and choosing of units, abilities etc.
Soup in its present incarnation is a bit overstated as being this huge game breaking issue. It's the most competitive way to play and if you don't like that, it's just kind of tough. Sometimes in reality there's a new way to do something that comes on the block that surpasses the old way. There's no point in the fluff, logic, reason or rhym to say that soup is wrong other than an aversion to change or a preferred way as to how things have been or are in other games. Armies can be played mono and they may do well, that's fine but, naturally, if you want to be the best you can be, you'll call upon your allies to help plug short comings.
I'm a huge soup fan. I think it's great and fits the fluff more than it doesn't. Could there be changes to it? Absolutely. Despite being a fan I do think there are some things that would need changing.
- Stratagems are only usable by the warlord's detachment with the exception of the core rule book ones.
- Better balance at that meta soup level but, as someone rightly pointed out earlier in this discussion, that comes down to seeing where the imbalances are - castellans are part of almost every imperium list whilst the Eldar can bring a variety. Ergo, imperium needs a better balance as a whole against the Eldar. Similarly with Chaos.
- Non Soup lists do need a bonus of some kind. Personal suggestion being that remove the blanket 3CP everyone gets, this applies to non soup lists only.
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?
You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?
Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.
Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --
12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without
(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage
This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.
The easiest way to "fix" soup it to rejig the way CPs are generated. There are several ways this could be done, but I personally think it needs to involve lowering the detachment generated CPs, and increasing Battle-Forged CP. Maybe even doubling CPs for detachments that share 2+ keyword with your WL to encourage taking more of the same faction without completely nerfing Allies
How I would do this is to take Battalions/Brigades back down to 3/9CPs as they were when 8E came out than do just ONE of the following: A) Any detachment that shares 2+ keyword with your WL (or rather 1+ non-Battle Brother keyword) gains double the CP bonus. So the "Loyal 32" would only give 3CPs, unless you have a Guard WL, or B) Just bump Battle Forged to 5-6CPs, or C) Battle Forge stays are 3CP, but generates those at the beginning of each Battle Round as long as your WL is alive.
Any of those would significantly change the appeal of Soup list, either by reducing the benefit of taking Allies, or increasing the benefits of taking the same faction. Some of those options would still benefit from Allies, but not to the extreme extent as now. The disparity would be much lower
Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.
But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.
Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.
What sort of situation are we encountering where we have multiple different Regiments in a single detachment? Attempting to do that now already results in regimental Doctrine bonuses being turned off.
Galef wrote: The easiest way to "fix" soup it to rejig the way CPs are generated. There are several ways this could be done, but I personally think it needs to involve lowering the detachment generated CPs, and increasing Battle-Forged CP.
Maybe even doubling CPs for detachments that share 2+ keyword with your WL to encourage taking more of the same faction without completely nerfing Allies
How I would do this is to take Battalions/Brigades back down to 3/9CPs as they were when 8E came out than do just ONE of the following:
A) Any detachment that shares 2+ keyword with your WL (or rather 1+ non-Battle Brother keyword) gains double the CP bonus. So the "Loyal 32" would only give 3CPs, unless you have a Guard WL, or
B) Just bump Battle Forged to 5-6CPs, or
C) Battle Forge stays are 3CP, but generates those at the beginning of each Battle Round as long as your WL is alive.
Any of those would significantly change the appeal of Soup list, either by reducing the benefit of taking Allies, or increasing the benefits of taking the same faction.
Some of those options would still benefit from Allies, but not to the extreme extent as now. The disparity would be much lower
-
I would go with B as it's more level and doesn't reward trying to tripple battalion as much for some armies, which would make them seriously unfun to play with or against. Also A wouldn't stop the current AM/Castellan list, it might actually help it as 18 CP for the guard brigade alone is broken.
D) Implement rules within the books that need it to help them out.
Stuff like the Drukhari getting bonus CPs from Patrols was a good start--it's a shame that tournaments screw that up thanks to limiting numbers of Detachments.
this could "fix" the 32 problem. I don't think it would change IG armies taking a castellan though. He is just a more efficient shadowsword, even with less CP.
Don't think it would "fix" the eldar soup problem either. Those aren't about generating CP, but more about overlaping rules. Using vect one less time in an Inari list, will dimish its power, but not by that much.
Semper wrote: I think, inherently, you can't have true balance from the moment you begin to add character/flavour. Chess is a great example of a balanced game (as close as you could possibly be), yet each player has to have the same pieces to play the game. You can't pick and choose pieces, you can't upgrade their ranges etc, everything is exactly the same so true balance is never going to be available when you start allowing the picking and choosing of units, abilities etc.
Soup in its present incarnation is a bit overstated as being this huge game breaking issue. It's the most competitive way to play and if you don't like that, it's just kind of tough. Sometimes in reality there's a new way to do something that comes on the block that surpasses the old way. There's no point in the fluff, logic, reason or rhym to say that soup is wrong other than an aversion to change or a preferred way as to how things have been or are in other games. Armies can be played mono and they may do well, that's fine but, naturally, if you want to be the best you can be, you'll call upon your allies to help plug short comings.
I'm a huge soup fan. I think it's great and fits the fluff more than it doesn't. Could there be changes to it? Absolutely. Despite being a fan I do think there are some things that would need changing.
- Stratagems are only usable by the warlord's detachment with the exception of the core rule book ones.
- Better balance at that meta soup level but, as someone rightly pointed out earlier in this discussion, that comes down to seeing where the imbalances are - castellans are part of almost every imperium list whilst the Eldar can bring a variety. Ergo, imperium needs a better balance as a whole against the Eldar. Similarly with Chaos.
- Non Soup lists do need a bonus of some kind. Personal suggestion being that remove the blanket 3CP everyone gets, this applies to non soup lists only.
You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.
The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.
Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".
And here is where your lore argument is wrong:
There are regiments that work very well in tandem with each other and then there are the "macabian Jannisaries, DKoKs that are rarely liked by other regiments, However most of those mixed Guard regiments get an overarching General Staff with CLEAR hierarchy.
But i do agree a mono IG force would not care about 6+- CP since on what would you spend it really.
Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.
Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, Aeldari Soup just needs the change suggested earlier for <Craftworld> to apply to the psyker bits.
To be fair, the 2 biggest offenders for Aeldari soup is Ynnari, which desperately needs and overhaul, and Doom, which can easily be Erratta'd to only affect <Asuryani> units
You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.
To me trying to balance soup factions vs non soup factions seems illogical. There is no way GW can make all the mono factions balanced against each other and balanced as soup. Oddly enough if one looks at how mono factions perform vs each other, IG vs eldar or IG vs Knights doesn't seem too one sided. The bad factions stay bad vs everything. But the real problem come when a good area denying army mixed up with some great fire power, or a good shoting or melee unit gets boosted in to the sky by a combo of doom, or a ton of CP. For balance it would be better if soup was a thing in narrative and open games only.
Of course GW won't do that, because most armies bought are matched play. So in the end it is probably best to save up money buy a good army just post a CA or big FAQ and get a few good months of playing, anything else seems foolish or hope based that suddenly GW makes the army you have top tier.
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.
Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.
There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.
I remain adamant in me naming it that way, since the Rule bloat growth rate, Formations ,etc have had a eerily similar way of behaviour to a tumor and was unhealthy for the game.
Also "was" not you would get.
The only way i can see you actually get it would be if you drank all paint pots and worked on resin, made lines out off the dust and took that line down.
5th was good, 6 th showed the bloat rate and 7th was in that case the absolute endpoint.
Also as someone that actually has to regulary get tumors cut out of himself i could care less about your sentiment about it.
If you're not going to listen to me, can I suggest you listen to the mod who posted in big red text just after me?
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.
Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.
There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.
I remain adamant in me naming it that way, since the Rule bloat growth rate, Formations ,etc have had a eerily similar way of behaviour to a tumor and was unhealthy for the game.
Also "was" not you would get.
The only way i can see you actually get it would be if you drank all paint pots and worked on resin, made lines out off the dust and took that line down.
5th was good, 6 th showed the bloat rate and 7th was in that case the absolute endpoint.
Also as someone that actually has to regulary get tumors cut out of himself i could care less about your sentiment about it.
If you're not going to listen to me, can I suggest you listen to the mod who posted in big red text just after me?
a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Secondly i like how you tried to paint my point as telling something gives you "cupcakes" instead off actually seeing the analogy/ respectivly reading propperly , I would be the last one to wish it upon anyone, yet you still belittled me, painting me as a Simpleton with this:
"There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them"
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?
You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?
Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.
Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --
12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without
(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage
This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.
My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?
You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?
Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.
Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --
12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without
(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage
This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.
My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?
You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?
Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.
Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --
12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without
(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage
This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.
My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Any types of troops? You just said they can't do Scions. Conscripts are dead, and no one uses them. That leaves Guardsmen. What "any types of troops they have" are you talking about?
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?
You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?
Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.
Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --
12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without
(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage
This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.
My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Any types of troops? You just said they can't do Scions. Conscripts are dead, and no one uses them. That leaves Guardsmen. What "any types of troops they have" are you talking about?
Yet we saw them at LVO........
Also Conscripts and Guardsmen are the troops they have?
Which you will also field, sure you can't buff vehicles like certain other Charachters but imo the general better effects of the order imo make that a zero sum game no?
The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.
Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".
And here is where your lore argument is wrong:
There are regiments that work very well in tandem with each other and then there are the "macabian Jannisaries, DKoKs that are rarely liked by other regiments, However most of those mixed Guard regiments get an overarching General Staff with CLEAR hierarchy.
But i do agree a mono IG force would not care about 6+- CP since on what would you spend it really.
Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.
Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken so where is thr tripple castellen list, if it's so broken?
Where is the 140 or 200 guardsmen lists?
Or will you admit that their is synergy between codex's that punishing mono codex's for though points costing will not rebalance.
If Castellan is so broken what was the highest Knight primary faction list placing again?
Does a Castellan or specifically cawls wrath need tweaking yes, doesn't mean just making a castellen 1k+ fixes balance like you keep suggesting.
Because your willingness to throw everything under the bus to preserve the lopsided allies rules is really poor show.
My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.
Right - which is why losing a single Catachan fully buffed is very much like losing a 9 point model. Bobby has the ability to get into melee, but how often does he or how often do lists he is in support that?
Spoletta wrote: Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.
If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.
This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.
In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.
This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.
Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?
You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?
Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.
Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --
12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby 12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without
(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points (6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage
This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.
My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken. In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still. It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Any types of troops? You just said they can't do Scions. Conscripts are dead, and no one uses them. That leaves Guardsmen. What "any types of troops they have" are you talking about?
I guess that he meant Non-Auxiliary infantry. You can order guards, conscripts, heavy weapons teams and special weapon teams, but really only guards justify the cost of the order, except maybe and heavy weapon team with big weapons.
Compared to that, the SMHQs buff the entire codex. Now, we can discuss about the efficency of those units in the first place, but surely an HQ will always have someone to buff. If not then you got tabled.
You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.
To me trying to balance soup factions vs non soup factions seems illogical. There is no way GW can make all the mono factions balanced against each other and balanced as soup. Oddly enough if one looks at how mono factions perform vs each other, IG vs eldar or IG vs Knights doesn't seem too one sided. The bad factions stay bad vs everything. But the real problem come when a good area denying army mixed up with some great fire power, or a good shoting or melee unit gets boosted in to the sky by a combo of doom, or a ton of CP. For balance it would be better if soup was a thing in narrative and open games only.
Of course GW won't do that, because most armies bought are matched play. So in the end it is probably best to save up money buy a good army just post a CA or big FAQ and get a few good months of playing, anything else seems foolish or hope based that suddenly GW makes the army you have top tier.
I don't think there is any need to get rid of soup... and let's be honest it never will because its a great way to encourage the sale of more models (like model x but not its whole faction just bolt it onto the one you like). But soup does need to be hindered right now soup
1. cherry pick the best units from different codexes
2. Cover built-in weaknesses of books by bolting on books without that weakness
3. Is not available to non super faction
4. Has way to many combinations for playtesting to ever fully address
They either need to give some major boost for mono faction build or a hindrance to souping. Leave soup in the game for sales and fluff but bring it down a peg so its not always the competitive choice
Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.
Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......
Hrm, while true that you could run both in the same detachment, army construction and faction breakdowns and how that all worked was radically different than 8E with substantially less synergy stuff to worry about that supercharges lists today, and people would very much poke fun at these kinds of lists when people did run them for giggles, just as they have bemoaned Magnus/Morty lists, and some older editions had animosity rules.
As is, the biggest issue appears to be Castellans and Guardsmen together. While there are many arguments about these units, it is clear that in combination they are far more powerful than otherwise, and spammed on their own or used in conjunction with other forces they dominate in the same way.
I don't think there is any need to get rid of soup... and let's be honest it never will because its a great way to encourage the sale of more models (like model x but not its whole faction just bolt it onto the one you like). But soup does need to be hindered right now soup
1. cherry pick the best units from different codexes
2. Cover built-in weaknesses of books by bolting on books without that weakness
3. Is not available to non super faction
4. Has way to many combinations for playtesting to ever fully address
They either need to give some major boost for mono faction build or a hindrance to souping. Leave soup in the game for sales and fluff but bring it down a peg so its not always the competitive choice
^^^^
If we're gonna keep soup, we need to acknowledge it's issues and adjust accordingly.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Can you order a Chimera? Sentinel? Ratlings? Ogryns? Crusaders?
How about a Heavy Weapons Squad outside of 6"? Special Weapons Squad at the same distance?
There's a ton of things that can't receive Orders than you seem to be thinking--and not just in regards to the whole "Infantry can't Order vehicles" and "Vehicles can't Order infantry". There's also the issue of Voxcasters(a supposedly integral part of the army) being restricted to 5 units(Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Scion Squads, and both flavors of Command Squads) and that Tank Commanders literally can only "Order" one specific vehicle type.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Can you order a Chimera? Sentinel? Ratlings? Ogryns? Crusaders?
How about a Heavy Weapons Squad outside of 6"? Special Weapons Squad at the same distance?
There's a ton of things that can't receive Orders than you seem to be thinking--and not just in regards to the whole "Infantry can't Order vehicles" and "Vehicles can't Order infantry". There's also the issue of Voxcasters(a supposedly integral part of the army) being restricted to 5 units(Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Scion Squads, and both flavors of Command Squads) and that Tank Commanders literally can only "Order" one specific vehicle type.
I don't deny that, still feel that orders are overall equal to aura charachters.
"To be fair, the 2 biggest offenders for Aeldari soup is Ynnari, which desperately needs and overhaul, and Doom, which can easily be Erratta'd to only affect <Asuryani> units "
How does <Doom> rate so high in an army with:
-Word of the Phoenix
-Quicken
-Alaitoc Flyers/rangers/etc
-Disintigration Cannons
-SfD
etc.
How is <Doom> a top-5 Aeldari OP-problem?
It's like saying Guardsmen should be S2, because that'll fix them. Sure, it'll certainly nerf one of the problems (no more S4 guardsmen). But it's not one of the biggest problems.
You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.
To me trying to balance soup factions vs non soup factions seems illogical. There is no way GW can make all the mono factions balanced against each other and balanced as soup. Oddly enough if one looks at how mono factions perform vs each other, IG vs eldar or IG vs Knights doesn't seem too one sided. The bad factions stay bad vs everything. But the real problem come when a good area denying army mixed up with some great fire power, or a good shoting or melee unit gets boosted in to the sky by a combo of doom, or a ton of CP. For balance it would be better if soup was a thing in narrative and open games only.
Of course GW won't do that, because most armies bought are matched play. So in the end it is probably best to save up money buy a good army just post a CA or big FAQ and get a few good months of playing, anything else seems foolish or hope based that suddenly GW makes the army you have top tier.
It is not illogical. If an army cannot soup, it needs to be able to compete with those that can. You present the other side which is do away with soup and balance all the mono-factions. TO me there are 3 ways to go about this.
1.) NO SOUP - all armies are designed to stand alone and balanced that way. Soup is not allowed in matched play.
2.) Balanced SOUP - All factions are balanced considering all their available allies, against other factions w/ available allies. Mono-faction armies that cannot take allies are stronger than mono-faction armies that can in order to compete with soup.
3.) Bonus/Penalty - Either a significant Bonus to playing a more restricted army, or a significant penalty to playing a soup army.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Can you order a Chimera? Sentinel? Ratlings? Ogryns? Crusaders?
How about a Heavy Weapons Squad outside of 6"? Special Weapons Squad at the same distance?
There's a ton of things that can't receive Orders than you seem to be thinking--and not just in regards to the whole "Infantry can't Order vehicles" and "Vehicles can't Order infantry". There's also the issue of Voxcasters(a supposedly integral part of the army) being restricted to 5 units(Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Scion Squads, and both flavors of Command Squads) and that Tank Commanders literally can only "Order" one specific vehicle type.
I don't deny that, still feel that orders are overall equal to aura charachters.
They are and they aren't.
They provide a bit more "oomph" than most auras do, but they also are heavily restrictive when outside of specific circumstances.
People loooooooooove to talk about FRFSRF being broken, but they always also love to ignore that:
a) It's restricted to one weapon type(lasguns--normal and hotshot variety).
b) The squads that most benefit from it(Scions and Infantry/Veteran Squads) both are coming in from the outset with only 9/10 models able to benefit from the perk. That doesn't include any Heavy Weapons Teams in Veteran/Infantry Squads or Special Weapons in all three varieties of squads.
c) Orders lock out the unit from receiving a second Order, unless Laurels of Command are taken on one specific Officer and you roll a 4+, and it 'consumes' one of the Officer's Orders, again unless that one specific Officer happens to be your Warlord and you are playing Cadians.
It also continually ignores that Commanders are paying for a 5+ save with a basically nonexistent Invulnerable and a single Laspistol, plus Orders.
You want Commanders to be pricier? They damn well had better get better options.
The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.
Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".
And here is where your lore argument is wrong:
There are regiments that work very well in tandem with each other and then there are the "macabian Jannisaries, DKoKs that are rarely liked by other regiments, However most of those mixed Guard regiments get an overarching General Staff with CLEAR hierarchy.
But i do agree a mono IG force would not care about 6+- CP since on what would you spend it really.
Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.
Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......
I seem to remember some lore arguments against things like Wolfstar, or Beastpack star. That said the things that upset people the most were not based around allies for the most part, but rather around psychic powers. The issues with soup to me are not so much lore based as mechanical
Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.
Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......
Hrm, while true that you could run both in the same detachment, army construction and faction breakdowns and how that all worked was radically different than 8E with substantially less synergy stuff to worry about that supercharges lists today, and people would very much poke fun at these kinds of lists when people did run them for giggles, just as they have bemoaned Magnus/Morty lists, and some older editions had animosity rules.
As is, the biggest issue appears to be Castellans and Guardsmen together. While there are many arguments about these units, it is clear that in combination they are far more powerful than otherwise, and spammed on their own or used in conjunction with other forces they dominate in the same way.
I don't think there is any need to get rid of soup... and let's be honest it never will because its a great way to encourage the sale of more models (like model x but not its whole faction just bolt it onto the one you like). But soup does need to be hindered right now soup
1. cherry pick the best units from different codexes
2. Cover built-in weaknesses of books by bolting on books without that weakness
3. Is not available to non super faction
4. Has way to many combinations for playtesting to ever fully address
They either need to give some major boost for mono faction build or a hindrance to souping. Leave soup in the game for sales and fluff but bring it down a peg so its not always the competitive choice
^^^^
If we're gonna keep soup, we need to acknowledge it's issues and adjust accordingly.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
Karol wrote: TO me there are 3 ways to go about this.
1.) NO SOUP - all armies are designed to stand alone and balanced that way. Soup is not allowed in matched play.
2.) Balanced SOUP - All factions are balanced considering all their available allies, against other factions w/ available allies. Mono-faction armies that cannot take allies are stronger than mono-faction armies that can in order to compete with soup.
3.) Bonus/Penalty - Either a significant Bonus to playing a more restricted army, or a significant penalty to playing a soup army.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them
Can you order a Chimera? Sentinel? Ratlings? Ogryns? Crusaders?
How about a Heavy Weapons Squad outside of 6"? Special Weapons Squad at the same distance?
There's a ton of things that can't receive Orders than you seem to be thinking--and not just in regards to the whole "Infantry can't Order vehicles" and "Vehicles can't Order infantry". There's also the issue of Voxcasters(a supposedly integral part of the army) being restricted to 5 units(Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Scion Squads, and both flavors of Command Squads) and that Tank Commanders literally can only "Order" one specific vehicle type.
I don't deny that, still feel that orders are overall equal to aura charachters.
They are and they aren't.
They provide a bit more "oomph" than most auras do, but they also are heavily restrictive when outside of specific circumstances.
People loooooooooove to talk about FRFSRF being broken, but they always also love to ignore that:
a) It's restricted to one weapon type(lasguns--normal and hotshot variety).
b) The squads that most benefit from it(Scions and Infantry/Veteran Squads) both are coming in from the outset with only 9/10 models able to benefit from the perk. That doesn't include any Heavy Weapons Teams in Veteran/Infantry Squads or Special Weapons in all three varieties of squads.
c) Orders lock out the unit from receiving a second Order, unless Laurels of Command are taken on one specific Officer and you roll a 4+, and it 'consumes' one of the Officer's Orders, again unless that one specific Officer happens to be your Warlord and you are playing Cadians.
It also continually ignores that Commanders are paying for a 5+ save with a basically nonexistent Invulnerable and a single Laspistol, plus Orders.
You want Commanders to be pricier? They damn well had better get better options.
I did not say anything about prices, i was just questioning the line of them beeing "too restricted" which i feel for what they offer is not true.
that said, werever Carapace armour options went, probably in the same pocket dimension of Trollzyn as marks with actual effects, should get back.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
Bharring wrote: "To be fair, the 2 biggest offenders for Aeldari soup is Ynnari, which desperately needs and overhaul, and Doom, which can easily be Erratta'd to only affect <Asuryani> units "
How does <Doom> rate so high in an army with: -Word of the Phoenix -Quicken -Alaitoc Flyers/rangers/etc -Disintigration Cannons -SfD etc.
How is <Doom> a top-5 Aeldari OP-problem?
Let me clarify: by "offender" I don't mean "rule/ability that keeps showing up in top placing tables and making them win", I mean "rule that should not combine with other factions as it does right now" Quicken is a CWE power that affects CWE units, so not a Soup "offender" The same goes with Alaitoc Flyers & Rangers. Those are powerful units the CWE can take, yes, but my comment, as with this thread, was targeted specifically at Soup.
Word of the Phoenix & SfD are Ynnair issues, which I did indeed note as a main offender of Aeldari Soup. I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear that is was specific to Soup and not powerful Aeldari units in general
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
The units themselves though are broken by themselves, though. When a broken unit like a Castellan has mediocre screening, it can at least be easier to reach it.
When Infantry are as stupid good as they are, you gotta hope you'll reach the somewhat okay tanks that can still do damage that Guard has (though Tank Commanders have approached stupid. To me, at least).
So obviously when the internal + external issues like that happen, of course we can try and blame allies. However, when these units were ALREADY shown to be mathematically amazing, shouldn't that be handled anyway first?
I did not say anything about prices, i was just questioning the line of them beeing "too restricted" which i feel for what they offer is not true.
that said, werever Carapace armour options went, probably in the same pocket dimension of Trollzyn as marks with actual effects, should get back.
but that is just personal preference.
Carapace Armor isn't the problem. It's that you're talking about a model which, once the units he buffs are dead is useless in both ranged and melee.
One of the things that Dawn of War did best was introducing the idea of the Commander rocking a sniper rifle, meltagun, or whatever. It was a unique piece of kit for a character to have and it made them feel like they contributed something while still also making them a "backline" character.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
I think we're just at a fundamental impasse then. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about Infantry Squads getting repriced and not making one damn bit of difference because the shift will just continue to be towards whatever the mathhammerers find is the most "cost effective" unit.
I really do feel like:
A) Changing Infantry Squads' composition to make them less attractive(REMOVE THE FRICKING MORTARS FROM THE INFANTRY SQUADS) would go a long way towards balancing things out a bit more. Right now, the biggest reason we see them taken is for the stupid Mortars and capping objectives out of LOS.
B) Changing the Command Point Generation system to grant less CPs with Guard Detachments when souped in(I've suggested this one multiple times--just call it Bureaucratic Infighting and be done with it)
C) Remaking Orders entirely, with a "layered" system of Army->Detachment->Squad(each "layer" having a different effect)
Those three major changes would retain Guard as a viable monoarmy, fix a problem unit without another points cockup that just outright kills them as an option(except in weird circumstances like that one unit of Conscripts for a Valhallan Detachment we saw at LVO), and address the issue of CP generation in Imperial factions.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
The units themselves though are broken by themselves, though. When a broken unit like a Castellan has mediocre screening, it can at least be easier to reach it.
When Infantry are as stupid good as they are, you gotta hope you'll reach the somewhat okay tanks that can still do damage that Guard has (though Tank Commanders have approached stupid. To me, at least).
So obviously when the internal + external issues like that happen, of course we can try and blame allies. However, when these units were ALREADY shown to be mathematically amazing, shouldn't that be handled anyway first?
Have you prove though that guardsmen are broken?
Because i often play mono guard, mainly because the R&H index can atm not really be called an index. I can't say they are bad, but broken?
No.
What is broken is the fact that the CP for Guard, which has, if restricted to guard stratagems, alot less value than many other codices, can be used on the Castellan.
Because the principle of CP scarcity for the Knights just goes out the window.
For what it's worth, I've been taking Lascannons in my allied Infantry squads when I use them. I go the Cadian or Vostroyan route so get a good amount of use from that. Mortars have amazing appeal though don't they?
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
The units themselves though are broken by themselves, though. When a broken unit like a Castellan has mediocre screening, it can at least be easier to reach it.
When Infantry are as stupid good as they are, you gotta hope you'll reach the somewhat okay tanks that can still do damage that Guard has (though Tank Commanders have approached stupid. To me, at least).
So obviously when the internal + external issues like that happen, of course we can try and blame allies. However, when these units were ALREADY shown to be mathematically amazing, shouldn't that be handled anyway first?
Have you prove though that guardsmen are broken?
Because i often play mono guard, mainly because the R&H index can atm not really be called an index. I can't say they are bad, but broken?
No.
What is broken is the fact that the CP for Guard, which has, if restricted to guard stratagems, alot less value than many other codices, can be used on the Castellan.
Because the principle of CP scarcity for the Knights just goes out the window.
That is my personal experience.
Compared to any other troops you can get? Absolutely I would call them broken. The current 7 point Rangers are an issue too, though that isn't the topic at hand (I want them to go back to the same pricing as Vanguard though).
Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.
Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......
Hrm, while true that you could run both in the same detachment, army construction and faction breakdowns and how that all worked was radically different than 8E with substantially less synergy stuff to worry about that supercharges lists today, and people would very much poke fun at these kinds of lists when people did run them for giggles, just as they have bemoaned Magnus/Morty lists, and some older editions had animosity rules.
As is, the biggest issue appears to be Castellans and Guardsmen together. While there are many arguments about these units, it is clear that in combination they are far more powerful than otherwise, and spammed on their own or used in conjunction with other forces they dominate in the same way.
I don't think there is any need to get rid of soup... and let's be honest it never will because its a great way to encourage the sale of more models (like model x but not its whole faction just bolt it onto the one you like). But soup does need to be hindered right now soup
1. cherry pick the best units from different codexes
2. Cover built-in weaknesses of books by bolting on books without that weakness
3. Is not available to non super faction
4. Has way to many combinations for playtesting to ever fully address
They either need to give some major boost for mono faction build or a hindrance to souping. Leave soup in the game for sales and fluff but bring it down a peg so its not always the competitive choice
^^^^
If we're gonna keep soup, we need to acknowledge it's issues and adjust accordingly.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
I guess I can see that, but I think it applies in this case too at least through the CP generation if nothing else, and they are clearly more powerful together than they are strictly within their own respective mono-lists.
That's not to say that we also shouldn't look at individual units, we should, but we there are also very definitely issues with mix-n-match soup beyond just the units themselves.
I see the finger being pointed at soup, specific units (i.e. Castellan), points costs, army builds, benefits vs. weaknesses, stratagems, blah, blah, blah...
Root cause analysis... The problem is the command point system.
Stratagems bump power and effectiveness... The resource (i.e. Command Points) that facilitates the use of stratagems is too abundant.
Go back to Battalions being 3 CP's and Brigades being 9 CP's.
The incentive to "farm" CP's needs to be removed. Period!
I see the finger being pointed at soup, specific units (i.e. Castellan), points costs, army builds, benefits vs. weaknesses, stratagems, blah, blah, blah...
Root cause analysis... The problem is the command point system.
Stratagems bump power and effectiveness... The resource (i.e. Command Points) that facilitates the use of stratagems is too abundant.
Go back to Battalions being 3 CP's and Brigades being 9 CP's.
The incentive to "farm" CP's needs to be removed. Period!
That simultaneously makes elite armies weaker and gives the advantage to cheap battalions, which IG can do thereby bringing us back to square one.
The problem with soup is that it messes up the core dynamic of the game.
You pick your army, that army has strengths and weaknesses.
Soup allow you to fill your weaknesses with other units that are strong.
Overall this doesn't seem to be an issue until you remember that not armies have the access to soup, hence the same armies always appear in the top ratings, because the others don't have access to plug their flaws.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Soup is great but it should not be allowed for matched play or for tournaments. Makes sense from a lore stand point but overall it just overly punishes players far too much.
There are other problems such as just rampant abuses of -1 to hit and just the issue with having d6s.
Why does the game prioritize minimally filing detachments, over completely filling ever larger detachments to get max points.
Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Reemule wrote: Why does the game prioritize minimally filing detachments, over completely filling ever larger detachments to get max points.
Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Perhaps, what if we gave someone an additional command point for every slot type they filled, say a battalion with six troop unit gets 6 command points instead of five.
I see the finger being pointed at soup, specific units (i.e. Castellan), points costs, army builds, benefits vs. weaknesses, stratagems, blah, blah, blah...
Root cause analysis... The problem is the command point system.
Stratagems bump power and effectiveness... The resource (i.e. Command Points) that facilitates the use of stratagems is too abundant.
Go back to Battalions being 3 CP's and Brigades being 9 CP's.
The incentive to "farm" CP's needs to be removed. Period!
That simultaneously makes elite armies weaker and gives the advantage to cheap battalions, which IG can do thereby bringing us back to square one.
I disagree.
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 3 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes! 2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes! 3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 5 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes!
2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes!
3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
Perhaps something which would prevent the sharing of CP between armies? Use similar rules to Battle Brothers so that you have to share a (non-Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids) keyword in order to use CP generated by another detachment.
Sumilidon wrote: The problem with soup is that it messes up the core dynamic of the game.
You pick your army, that army has strengths and weaknesses.
Soup allow you to fill your weaknesses with other units that are strong.
Overall this doesn't seem to be an issue until you remember that not armies have the access to soup, hence the same armies always appear in the top ratings, because the others don't have access to plug their flaws.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Theoretically, armies have strengths and weaknesses. The issue is that doesn't really happen even with pure armies.
Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered? How about Orks? How about Dark Eldar?
Armies end up having units that cover roles, which invalidates the very idea of weaknesses. For example, Infantry COULD be poor in melee, except they aren't. They can also fall back literally and metaphorically) on Ogryn/Bullgryns. Assuming proper balance, what's the weakness?
Just make each faction, especially mono factions, have access to a big ass robot that can kick some ass. The models are already there, just bump up their rules to make them somewhat competitive.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Theoretically, armies have strengths and weaknesses. The issue is that doesn't really happen even with pure armies.
Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered? How about Orks? How about Dark Eldar?
Armies end up having units that cover roles, which invalidates the very idea of weaknesses. For example, Infantry COULD be poor in melee, except they aren't. They can also fall back literally and metaphorically) on Ogryn/Bullgryns. Assuming proper balance, what's the weakness?
Guard is good pure (daresay balanced), but a Castellan which it uses itself in soup, invalidates most of the guard AT/armor options (Baneblade variants, Leman russ). The weakness of guard is also having to rely on the most part BS4+ and in a meta which can spam -1 to hit that hurts a little. Guard also lacks invulnerable saves army wide (other than Bullgrn) so most things that shoot will hurt.
A mono guard list would have no chance against AH list in the finals. In many of Brandon Grants match ups it was a close game, and the only thing that stopped Ynnari from walking over the list was the Castellan.
Smirrors wrote: Just make each faction, especially mono factions, have access to a big ass robot that can kick some ass. The models are already there, just bump up their rules to make them somewhat competitive.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Theoretically, armies have strengths and weaknesses. The issue is that doesn't really happen even with pure armies.
Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered? How about Orks? How about Dark Eldar?
Armies end up having units that cover roles, which invalidates the very idea of weaknesses. For example, Infantry COULD be poor in melee, except they aren't. They can also fall back literally and metaphorically) on Ogryn/Bullgryns. Assuming proper balance, what's the weakness?
Guard is good pure (daresay balanced), but a Castellan which it uses itself in soup, invalidates most of the guard AT/armor options (Baneblade variants, Leman russ). The weakness of guard is also having to rely on the most part BS4+ and in a meta which can spam -1 to hit that hurts a little. Guard also lacks invulnerable saves army wide (other than Bullgrn) so most things that shoot will hurt.
A mono guard list would have no chance against AH list in the finals. In many of Brandon Grants match ups it was a close game, and the only thing that stopped Ynnari from walking over the list was the Castellan.
Pretty much this, the knights cover the guards weaknesses, and themselves profit on top of it.
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered?
The weakness is supposed to be lack of mobility. IG are an unstoppable force that can overwhelm anything with sheer volume of dice and bodies, but they're slow to apply that force and are easily outmaneuvered by faster armies. An IG player who screws up their positioning or makes the wrong call on which objectives to go for can find themselves thoroughly camped on their deployment zone but unable to do much besides keep those objectives 100% secure and hope for a stray Basilisk shot to finish off the enemy unit claiming something on the other side of the table. That's why the few fast IG units are either aircraft (which can't score at all) or one-shot suicide weapons (storm troopers) that are really just a Basilisk shot on round bases. But 8th edition has two problems with this theory:
1) Lack of a reasonable LOS system. If nothing blocks LOS then gunlines are too good and a lack of mobility doesn't really matter. There's nowhere to hide an objective camping unit, so who cares if you're out of position? Just declare a target on the other side of the table and kill it with no penalty.
2) Soup giving IG units they aren't supposed to have. Suffering from a lack of fast units that can wreck stuff in the inevitable melee combat that happens when you move up to claim objectives? No problem, just ally in some jetbikes or a melee knight.
Fix both of these things and IG are much less of a problem.
I honestly would've said suffering alot more from -1 to hit, morale and relatively impactless stratagems.
Morale however does rarely play a factor because msuIG squad spam.
The cp can be used on other armies.
-1 is still an issue somewhat but again see above.
I can accept that ‘soup’ is not the problem, because all factions have access to infantry, artillery, armour and air assets. So even a ‘mono’ list is ‘soup’ because of the wide variety of units available.
I’m of the opinion that points values should reflect the offensive and defensive ability of the unit - how you use them is what we call tactics.
Stratagems should have a points value, and each use should be paid for.
Similarly with auras/other buffs - points should be paid for any benefits you get.
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
The current system rewards taking as many detachments as possible, filled to the minimum possible, to build the biggest pile of CP.
I feel the refutation of your point that its to take more core units isn't true, as if it was, the Patrol Detachment would still give CP.
I'd much prefer a system that encouraged balanced forces (I.E troops) and rewarded people that went above and beyond in taking those troops. But we don't have that with the current system.
My Views
1: I have no issue with soup lists. I like that my dudes can ally with my dudes, if the lore is the same.
2: I liked when someone said 40k is designed for ALL players. Not just some not-so fringe unique format ergo the ITC event with a ton of players.
3: A wide sweeping change will end up only hurting the bad armies more than the BEST armies and/or players.
4: Top Players will exploit anything to win, thus the ally system isn't the real issue. You are only playing whack a mole / and or moving the goal posts.
If there was enough support from the community that likes the ITC event style games.
You could have detachments/ Ally rules for
standard 40k (ergo the rulebook as it stands)
Then an Event Only Rules.
-however that would take a lot work...to not mess up more than you do.
I doubt this is something that can even be fixed in 8th ed. More so should be part of the design of 9th Ed...
That is definitely for 
