PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
It doesn't have points costs, it doesn't have unit options, there are no detachments. I mean if someone plays with combat roster, they may as well play open or narrative, same level of "good".
No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
that is true,GW could make DE an exeption. But at the same time GW destroyed or removed unique stuff in the past. Also just because at some point GW thought that DE should be played in a certain way is no argument for them to stay so. GK for example were designed with turn 1 deep strike of most of the army in mind, that is no longer possible, yet GW had no inclination to make GK an exeption.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?
If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.
AoS' app is free with most of that information. There's very little that requires you to pay that isn't related to stuff that is intended for full Allegiances(read: "pure" Detachments).
All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.
Yeah, train them into having incorrect lists or just copy/pasting lists they've seen elsewhere.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
And let's be clear here:
Battlescribe doesn't have "minor flaws". At times, it has allowed for entirely illegal lists to be written. Gonna point back to when the Guard book dropped and people kept running a Cadian Spearhead of a Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
It doesn't have points costs, it doesn't have unit options, there are no detachments. I mean if someone plays with combat roster, they may as well play open or narrative, same level of "good".
It's a list building tool, not a substitute for a Codex.
So basically it's Battlescribe for all intents and purposes.
No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
that is true,GW could make DE an exeption. But at the same time GW destroyed or removed unique stuff in the past. Also just because at some point GW thought that DE should be played in a certain way is no argument for them to stay so. GK for example were designed with turn 1 deep strike of most of the army in mind, that is no longer possible, yet GW had no inclination to make GK an exeption.
Or, alternatively, you don't have to always play the game as a tournament would and you can take advantage of the bonuses that the Drukhari book has with regards to Patrols.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
It doesn't have points costs, it doesn't have unit options, there are no detachments. I mean if someone plays with combat roster, they may as well play open or narrative, same level of "good".
It's a list building tool, not a substitute for a Codex.
So basically it's Battlescribe for all intents and purposes.
No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
that is true,GW could make DE an exeption. But at the same time GW destroyed or removed unique stuff in the past. Also just because at some point GW thought that DE should be played in a certain way is no argument for them to stay so. GK for example were designed with turn 1 deep strike of most of the army in mind, that is no longer possible, yet GW had no inclination to make GK an exeption.
Or, alternatively, you don't have to always play the game as a tournament would and you can take advantage of the bonuses that the Drukhari book has with regards to Patrols.
Actually post your counterargument or don't post. Linking to 1d4chan isn't anything.
Sometimes I want to look up the statline for Havocs. I don't have the book. Not using BS where can I go to freely get that information in under 30 seconds?
If I want to see how many Tzangonors I can fit in a squad, same question?
If I want to read the writing of the abilities granted to a Castellan?
Here is the dumb side of your argument. You expect people to know all of this. You refuse to allow for a privately created data source for all the information so that you don't have to flip through 30 different books.
Now, as to my link, its a break down of every one of their logical breaks in the game. Multiple Cellestines in a single list. Remember that one? Remember the kerfuffle over ATSKNF and rolling die to determine losses? Remember when they tried to roll out the new character targeting rules? My point is, GW makes ridiculous mistakes constantly, and they get paid millions. So lay off the condescension of battlescribe, because a group of unpaid hobbyists decided to do what GW didn't want to..
Sometimes I want to look up the statline for Havocs. I don't have the book. Not using BS where can I go to freely get that information in under 30 seconds?
If I want to read the writing of the abilities granted to a Castellan?
Ask someone to read them to you.
Here is the dumb side of your argument. You expect people to know all of this. You refuse to allow for a privately created data source for all the information so that you don't have to flip through 30 different books.
No, I expect people to either:
a) Own the codex in question if they're wanting to play with something.
b) Ask their opponent if they can see the book when something comes up.
Now, as to my link, its a break down of every one of their logical breaks in the game. Multiple Cellestines in a single list. Remember that one?
Yeah, it's the same garbage that existed with regards to the "people are gonna spam Archaon/Nagash/whatever!" at the start of AoS.
ApparentlyGW did have to actually tell people that yes, named characters are unique.
Remember the kerfuffle over ATSKNF and rolling die to determine losses?
No I don't, because I don't pay as much attention to the nitwittery as I should I guess.
Remember when they tried to roll out the new character targeting rules? My point is, GW makes ridiculous mistakes constantly, and they get paid millions. So lay off the condescension of battlescribe, because a group of unpaid hobbyists decided to do what GW didn't want to..
Do you seriously think that ruleswriters are "getting paid millions"?
And let's not pretend for a single second that what Battlescribe is doing is difficult outside of maintaining the app itself. It's transcription.
The Cadian Primaris Psyker nonsense is an example that I have loaded because simply put? It was a Battlescribe error. It's emblematic of the culture that has grown up around "I'll look it up on Battlescribe!" nonsense. Anyone who actually read the book should have picked up on the error, but since it didn't get flagged by Battlescribe nobody batted a frigging eye.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.
-
Yeah this is a pretty great idea. In team games it currently affects all friendly units. So it could potentially buff slaanesh units...Give me a break. My phobos Librarians can't even cast their spells on dudes in their own chapter unless they have the right armor on.
I hope they fix Mental Onslaught, change CP to be game size based, and give you a negative to CP for each detachment past the first, and each other faction beyond the first.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
I feel this depends on the CP level. If you gave 15 CP at 2K.. I feel my Pure knights of 3x Crusaders, 3x Armigers is very playable. Also, that much CP in a all Grey knight force has some implications I'd have to think more about. I'm not sure its going to be great, but I think competently played, it would surprise people.
If Marines got a decent re-write on stratagems in the Codex, I feel they would also be something pretty good with 15 CP to burn through.
And it would depend on what the limitations are for bringing extra detachments and extra factions. If its -1 per, so a person with 3 faction soup, was at 11 CP. its still a interesting fight right? 4 extra CP for being pure...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
I feel this depends on the CP level. If you gave 15 CP at 2K.. I feel my Pure knights of 3x Crusaders, 3x Armigers is very playable. Also, that much CP in a all Grey knight force has some implications I'd have to think more about. I'm not sure its going to be great, but I think competently played, it would surprise people.
If Marines got a decent re-write on stratagems in the Codex, I feel they would also be something pretty good with 15 CP to burn through.
And it would depend on what the limitations are for bringing extra detachments and extra factions. If its -1 per, so a person with 3 faction soup, was at 11 CP. its still a interesting fight right? 4 extra CP for being pure...
Even if they do something that makes certain factions unplayable overcosted trash post nerf, it might be the only way to get GW to realistically admit that current codex's have some very fundamental issues caused by the ability to power game the ally system.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
read it and weep, go up a post.
I hate to be the one to say this but:
Vigilus Ablaze Designer's Commentary wrote:Q: For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAI? Yes, it's absolutely 100% clear that Valkyries are not meant to detract from you getting the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAW? The argument can be made that yes, they do.
It's circular nonsense but it's what feeds some of the trolls in threads like these. The Vigilus Ablaze bit was effectively a RAI vs RAW perception filter.
So this leads me to another question: Who the hell cares if a paper thin army of 18" shooters gets a rarely if ever goes off ability? Oh my, you're 22 shots of S3 weaponry got an extra 3 shots! Look out for this Las weaponry, three more rounds of this and you might actually kill a single unit! That being said, that squad of Scions will be dead or fleeing by the end of your opponents turn.
RAI, RAW, doesn't matter. Give everyone the rule. Hell, give it to the Commissar: If you are building a master plan to SOMEHOW get all those squads inside Hotshot RF range and then pray that you roll straight 6's, go ahead. Go. NUTS. Because you will lose every time. And that's not the math talking, that's the experience. You build a list upon a prayer, you built a list to lose.
Yeah S3 AP -2. Making SM have guardsmen armor.
I’ve only been talking about being able to get the army into effective range.
Can you say “+1 to hit, Rerolling ones, Rerolling failed wounds against monster/vehicles safe overcharge plasma.
Can you say most of those points burg with melta in melta range?
Scions aren’t about their lasguns. They are about the two plasma in 5 man squads and 4 plasma (likewise with melta and volleyguns) in 10 man squads.
This is all on BS 3, by the way. Scions are thin yes, but Scions are a thin dagger, thrusting into the heart of an army for a deadly alpha strike.
Then you add the various armor improvement psychic powers and get down and you’ve got better armor on your lynchpins.
You MURDER chaff with all the shot Valks put out, as well as being safe from charges because lots of people don’t want to eat overwatch on BS 4 from a Valkyrie.
Scions fold quick, but if the IG is the hammer, the SM the sword, Scions are the plunging dagger.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
I feel this depends on the CP level. If you gave 15 CP at 2K.. I feel my Pure knights of 3x Crusaders, 3x Armigers is very playable. Also, that much CP in a all Grey knight force has some implications I'd have to think more about. I'm not sure its going to be great, but I think competently played, it would surprise people.
If Marines got a decent re-write on stratagems in the Codex, I feel they would also be something pretty good with 15 CP to burn through.
And it would depend on what the limitations are for bringing extra detachments and extra factions. If its -1 per, so a person with 3 faction soup, was at 11 CP. its still a interesting fight right? 4 extra CP for being pure...
Even if they do something that makes certain factions unplayable overcosted trash post nerf, it might be the only way to get GW to realistically admit that current codex's have some very fundamental issues caused by the ability to power game the ally system.
The main issue with going to a base CP is that some factions are going to feel the heat. But with GW moving into Codex2.0 releases, its a good time to make the change, and then rebalance through releases and FAQ's to make the Stratagems worth it, and remove some of the dog stratagems.
I think GW would have been better to move several more stratagems to the universal list. I think the marine shoot something coming in from reinforcement should move to the universal list, and the one that lets a vehicle operate as undamaged, even when damaged, for example.
Bharring wrote: Wait, a Phobos Librarian's Null Zone doesn't affect enemies unless the attackers are wearing a certain kind of armor? How did they write that rule?
Basically, Phobos Libs get a whole other table to look at. All things considered it's actually a pretty cool table until you see all the requirements being for only the dudes inside that particular box.
Hell, not even all of them. The Autocannon dudes don't count!
Bharring wrote: Wait, a Phobos Librarian's Null Zone doesn't affect enemies unless the attackers are wearing a certain kind of armor? How did they write that rule?
Basically, Phobos Libs get a whole other table to look at. All things considered it's actually a pretty cool table until you see all the requirements being for only the dudes inside that particular box.
As much as I'm sure I will get pounced on for this, I actually don't mind that. The buffs are tagged to the "Phobos" keyword while the debuffs are some stuff that still make bringing a Phobos Librarian an interesting endeavor without the Phobos stuff to back it up.
Hell, not even all of them. The Autocannon dudes don't count!
Suppressors aren't wearing Phobos gear. They're wearing a modified Tacitus(the Intercessor) armor suit per what Goodwin said in his interview while the Inceptors are wearing modified Gravis armor.
An adjusted armour save system ignoring ap instead of so many invulnerable saves.
Like a 2+/2++/6+++
2+ regular save. Ignore the first two ap from weapons firing at it. Regular 6+ invulnerable save.
Keeps the high ap weapons relevant against tough targets and spreads out the field a bit. Probably better for a beta rule for a few superheavies first. From the games I play I feel massed light fire and ineffective high ap, low shot weapons are a concern.
Sometimes I want to look up the statline for Havocs. I don't have the book. Not using BS where can I go to freely get that information in under 30 seconds?
If I want to read the writing of the abilities granted to a Castellan?
Ask someone to read them to you.
Here is the dumb side of your argument. You expect people to know all of this. You refuse to allow for a privately created data source for all the information so that you don't have to flip through 30 different books.
No, I expect people to either:
a) Own the codex in question if they're wanting to play with something.
b) Ask their opponent if they can see the book when something comes up.
Now, as to my link, its a break down of every one of their logical breaks in the game. Multiple Cellestines in a single list. Remember that one?
Yeah, it's the same garbage that existed with regards to the "people are gonna spam Archaon/Nagash/whatever!" at the start of AoS.
ApparentlyGW did have to actually tell people that yes, named characters are unique.
Remember the kerfuffle over ATSKNF and rolling die to determine losses?
No I don't, because I don't pay as much attention to the nitwittery as I should I guess.
Remember when they tried to roll out the new character targeting rules? My point is, GW makes ridiculous mistakes constantly, and they get paid millions. So lay off the condescension of battlescribe, because a group of unpaid hobbyists decided to do what GW didn't want to..
Do you seriously think that ruleswriters are "getting paid millions"?
And let's not pretend for a single second that what Battlescribe is doing is difficult outside of maintaining the app itself. It's transcription.
The Cadian Primaris Psyker nonsense is an example that I have loaded because simply put? It was a Battlescribe error. It's emblematic of the culture that has grown up around "I'll look it up on Battlescribe!" nonsense. Anyone who actually read the book should have picked up on the error, but since it didn't get flagged by Battlescribe nobody batted a frigging eye.
There is a reason the frontline guys try to implement tools for uplauding and checking the lists.
Battlescribe is not perfect, but currently its`s the best tool for list building and first list creations.
For instance in Adepticon there was list with brigade with mixed CWE, DE and harlequins and the guy played all his 4 games. Joshua Death also make list building mistake and the error was found from the online gaming community.
With or without battlescribe there will be list building errors, but using the tool will make the percentage much lower.
And yes when i test building list i don`t wanna watch 2-3 books, just to see the points and their changes. Ofcourse it will be smart to check if everything is fine afterward.
phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
Eihnlazer wrote: phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
Yeah though that should and probably will be FAQ's to be 1 additional power from the appropriate librarious discipline. No more temporal corridor nullzone RAW abuse.
Eihnlazer wrote: phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
Yeah though that should and probably will be FAQ's to be 1 additional power from the appropriate librarious discipline. No more temporal corridor nullzone RAW abuse.
In the land of Castellan Knights, Mental Onslaught, and other broke-ass gak, I think a Phobos Librarian burning a relic and then needing to cast two psychic powers (one of which is Warp Charge 8) to function is hardly a concern. Honestly, with how difficult it actually is to get off, I would be inclined to say it is actually intentional, not a rules-as-written hiccup.
Eihnlazer wrote: phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
Yeah though that should and probably will be FAQ's to be 1 additional power from the appropriate librarious discipline. No more temporal corridor nullzone RAW abuse.
In the land of Castellan Knights, Mental Onslaught, and other broke-ass gak, I think a Phobos Librarian burning a relic and then needing to cast two psychic powers (one of which is Warp Charge 8) to function is hardly a concern. Honestly, with how difficult it actually is to get off, I would be inclined to say it is actually intentional, not a rules-as-written hiccup.
I keep forgetting that GW un FAQ'd the FAQ for mental onslaught that took it from what were you smoking to just OP to leave it at what were you smoking.
Again the castellen issue is a CP system and ally system design issue, complain about the castellen when choas player's actually play them as without the strategums stack they are rather meh not bad but not must take either
Matora wrote: An adjusted armour save system ignoring ap instead of so many invulnerable saves.
Like a 2+/2++/6+++
2+ regular save. Ignore the first two ap from weapons firing at it. Regular 6+ invulnerable save.
Keeps the high ap weapons relevant against tough targets and spreads out the field a bit. Probably better for a beta rule for a few superheavies first. From the games I play I feel massed light fire and ineffective high ap, low shot weapons are a concern.
Also maybe CP generation per turn like Kill Team.
The idea is good. I do have a suspicion as of late, that GW is making the game take longer as in use more points, more models, do more rolls etc, to make it feel as if there is more to the game, then there actually is to it. Its like games having artificial road blocks, so you don't finish the whole thing under 20 hours.
Well that is kind of a good for armies like IG with their castellans as they don't take the castellan as a warlord or as a method to generate CP, they take it to fuel it with the CP they generate, and to get more out of them then if they took lets say some sort of baneblade for example.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
So let's see. As long as I have warlord alive I get 6 CP per turn. Considering I blow through them in 2.5 turns or so with pre-game cp(how would you handle those anyway?) after 3 turns I would have same CP and still go strong.
2 turns if pre-game you get another set so in this example 6.
Some armies will really, really, REALLY get help from this.
What do I want to see in the big FAQ, some of the following would be nice:
Points changes, whilst unlikely on mass I do hope for a few for codexs released after CA2018 went to the printers. Things like the Castellan up a little, some dark eldar units/options need a little tweek (dissy cannons and some flesh cult units up a smidge, perhaps some of the troop options are a little cheap whilst various underused units need to come down a bit), Ork buggies need a little drop, some genecult options like kelermorph could go up a few points.
Command Point Changes to help balance soup - A Beta rule for matched play, It will need to be simple and to still fit in with all the other printed rules without needing lots of erratra. Perhaps something like: "Each detachment that doesn't share all faction keywords with you warlords detachment reduces your command points by 2."
This makes it cost 2 CP to bring in allies, still very worth it to mitigate your armies weakness but it at least has a cost and will reduce the desire of just bringing cheap detachment for CP generation.
I would like a rework of some of the faction bonuses but I think that is unlikely.
Rework/recosting of Stratagems - This I expect, altering some of the big offenders like Rotate Ion shields to a max 4+, perhaps up the cost of all the shoot twice strats and various other outliers.
Flyers - I hope they make it so the bases of flyers do not block enemy movement,
I'd like the cover rules from cities of death to be added as a beta rule.
And lastly the thing I would most like to see is the FAQ to be released as one big complete document that is bookmarked into the appropriate sections for individual books and fully searchable containing all the rule change documents in one place.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Beta Rules have been - didn't they alter CPs for stuff like Battalions in a big faq?
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
But you have created a no pregame strategums for you solution instead
I mean, I'd say an average army tends to be battleforged, have at least one detachment, and have a warlord, so you'd be starting from 3CP for your pre-game stratagems.
Want more pregame stratagems, bring more detachments? I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many armies that MUST spend more than 5CP pre turn 1 to exist and also are particularly good for the game.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
But you have created a no pregame strategums for you solution instead
I mean, I'd say an average army tends to be battleforged, have at least one detachment, and have a warlord, so you'd be starting from 3CP for your pre-game stratagems.
Want more pregame stratagems, bring more detachments? I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many armies that MUST spend more than 5CP pre turn 1 to exist and also are particularly good for the game.
So making a chapter master for marines and strategum for an assasin, oh ravenguard well no strike from the shadow for you.
Also what is the justification for more detachments equalling more CP'S, why does a more divided army become better at doing special manoeuvres?
The system as is has some glaring issues, but half of these "minor" fixes require rewriting entire codex's.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not going to lie, is there any advantages to NOT taking a battleforged army? Like zero CP, all HQ? Is there a rule anywhere that states you are NOT allowed to play open/unaligned?
The manual states you "should" play organized rules, but is there anything saying I can't play with zero cp?
I mean, that would make an interesting offshoot style of play. ZERO cp, strength of list and units alone.
in pick up games yes, but I thin most tournaments would just say no. I have my orks allied to chaos marines, they share a lot so painting elements, leftover from 6th and 7th allies. friends have no issues and I do play it without any CP nd its still fun... but win rate is sub 50% unless we are jsu tboth playing zero CP.
Detachments that don't share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the detachment that includes your Warlord are considered Allied Detachments. Allied Detachments:
- Do not get army traits
- Do not get relics
- Do not unlock stratagems
- Generate half the normal CP (rounding down)
Clean and simple. It doesn't remove soup but removes the parts that constantly get abused, while not affecting fluffy players since they are likely not souping for min/maxing so wouldn't care if their allied detachments don't get certain things.
Wayniac wrote: The best IMHO solution for CP farming is this:
Detachments that don't share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the detachment that includes your Warlord are considered Allied Detachments. Allied Detachments:
- Do not get army traits
- Do not get relics
- Do not unlock stratagems
- Generate half the normal CP (rounding down)
Clean and simple. It doesn't remove soup but removes the parts that constantly get abused, while not affecting fluffy players since they are likely not souping for min/maxing so wouldn't care if their allied detachments don't get certain things.
So, no assassins. No knight armies with allies. Literally no one would do this except Orks, Tau, Necrons, and Eldar who still have Doom and point efficient units.
Now that fluffy army isn't terribly fluffy when it can't do what it usually does.
Why don't you just call it like it is - no soup allowed?
Honestly, why not do away with CP, and make strats the same as tactical objectives?
Draw up to 3 at the start of your turn, etc etc. That way it's completely random, you can't abuse them, and it makes a lopsided match actually playable and fun.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honestly, why not do away with CP, and make strats the same as tactical objectives?
Draw up to 3 at the start of your turn, etc etc. That way it's completely random, you can't abuse them, and it makes a lopsided match actually playable and fun.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
But you have created a no pregame strategums for you solution instead
I mean, I'd say an average army tends to be battleforged, have at least one detachment, and have a warlord, so you'd be starting from 3CP for your pre-game stratagems.
Want more pregame stratagems, bring more detachments? I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many armies that MUST spend more than 5CP pre turn 1 to exist and also are particularly good for the game.
So making a chapter master for marines and strategum for an assasin, oh ravenguard well no strike from the shadow for you.
Also what is the justification for more detachments equalling more CP'S, why does a more divided army become better at doing special manoeuvres?
The system as is has some glaring issues, but half of these "minor" fixes require rewriting entire codex's.
The goal of any proposed fix is to correct existing problems, preserve aspects of the game people seem to like, and add the minimum number of potential extra problems.
The issue I take with BCB's solution that he made above is that while it does correct a problem that a vocal many are complaining about (soup armies using allied detachments to "fuel" elite detachments with CP's) it creates major problems for a large number of the factions that exist in the game, and does nothing to address the general higher power of "horde' type armies over "elite" type armies at CP generation and use.
I feel that under BCB's solution, he would remove the current meta of soup with fueled elites added on that we see in the current competitive meta, and replace it with an even more restrictive meta of primarily just imperial guard+eldar soup/ynnari and whatever other factions are able to successfully spam light infantry to fill brigades and battalions while still retaining their teeth.
In effect, I think the problems it would leave in place would be just as bad as the problems it fixes. A guard army would only wipe you off the board marginally less efficiently by dumping its CP's/support into a Baneblade chassis as a shooty knight. Eldar are largely indifferent to having tons of CP from allied detachments, it's a trick they tend not to use, instead favoring just bringing either tons of craftworld flyers or Ynnari elites, or both, none of which really use tons of CP.
So I'd rather see something that would address what I see as a more core issue than the symptom we're seeing now: the relatively large gap between a CP-flush army and a CP-starved army, and the fact that it is very possible and optimal to spend all or almost all your CP pool in a single turn to frontload all the power in a list.
The problems of first turn being a be-all-end-all, the ITC "quasi-deathstar" meta, Cp-fueling soup detachments are all symptomatic problems of the underlying issue of the benefits of employing command points multiplicatively. You get double the impact out of the 3D6 charge stratagem and +D3A stratagem on your BA smash captain if he then proceeds to attack twice, and triple the impact if your target kills him and he gets to attack a third time. You get double the impact of the "attack characters with your seeker missile" knight stratagem if that knight then also rerolls all results of 1 for the turn.
So much of the game can shoot across the whole board or reliably appear and be in close combat that it now makes sense to dump all your command points turn 1 or turn 2 if you're a melee army and that's when you arrive.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Beta Rules have been - didn't they alter CPs for stuff like Battalions in a big faq?
Yea, last year big FAQ 1 they changed points and for big FAQ 2 they declared point changes will only be in chapter approved.
Now they even publish rules in White Dwarf, so they really have to much places to change the rules.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
But you have created a no pregame strategums for you solution instead
I mean, I'd say an average army tends to be battleforged, have at least one detachment, and have a warlord, so you'd be starting from 3CP for your pre-game stratagems.
Want more pregame stratagems, bring more detachments? I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many armies that MUST spend more than 5CP pre turn 1 to exist and also are particularly good for the game.
So making a chapter master for marines and strategum for an assasin, oh ravenguard well no strike from the shadow for you.
Also what is the justification for more detachments equalling more CP'S, why does a more divided army become better at doing special manoeuvres?
The system as is has some glaring issues, but half of these "minor" fixes require rewriting entire codex's.
The goal of any proposed fix is to correct existing problems, preserve aspects of the game people seem to like, and add the minimum number of potential extra problems.
The issue I take with BCB's solution that he made above is that while it does correct a problem that a vocal many are complaining about (soup armies using allied detachments to "fuel" elite detachments with CP's) it creates major problems for a large number of the factions that exist in the game, and does nothing to address the general higher power of "horde' type armies over "elite" type armies at CP generation and use.
I feel that under BCB's solution, he would remove the current meta of soup with fueled elites added on that we see in the current competitive meta, and replace it with an even more restrictive meta of primarily just imperial guard+eldar soup/ynnari and whatever other factions are able to successfully spam light infantry to fill brigades and battalions while still retaining their teeth.
In effect, I think the problems it would leave in place would be just as bad as the problems it fixes. A guard army would only wipe you off the board marginally less efficiently by dumping its CP's/support into a Baneblade chassis as a shooty knight. Eldar are largely indifferent to having tons of CP from allied detachments, it's a trick they tend not to use, instead favoring just bringing either tons of craftworld flyers or Ynnari elites, or both, none of which really use tons of CP.
So I'd rather see something that would address what I see as a more core issue than the symptom we're seeing now: the relatively large gap between a CP-flush army and a CP-starved army, and the fact that it is very possible and optimal to spend all or almost all your CP pool in a single turn to frontload all the power in a list.
The problems of first turn being a be-all-end-all, the ITC "quasi-deathstar" meta, Cp-fueling soup detachments are all symptomatic problems of the underlying issue of the benefits of employing command points multiplicatively. You get double the impact out of the 3D6 charge stratagem and +D3A stratagem on your BA smash captain if he then proceeds to attack twice, and triple the impact if your target kills him and he gets to attack a third time. You get double the impact of the "attack characters with your seeker missile" knight stratagem if that knight then also rerolls all results of 1 for the turn.
So much of the game can shoot across the whole board or reliably appear and be in close combat that it now makes sense to dump all your command points turn 1 or turn 2 if you're a melee army and that's when you arrive.
I get what your saying and in fairness none of what your saying do I particularly disagree with, the problem is that the solution doesn't to me work as it still fundamentally rewards breaking your army up into as many detachments as possible, that to me inherently feels backwards.
Also why do people keep going along with GW insistence that more troops should equal more CP, I get marines have some terrible per point troup choices, but many armies are rewarded for taking cheap effective units on mass?
Their is also some other points to bring up about the front loading of CP I know Tau for example do have issues in that regardless of the CP distribution are always going to be forced into front loading as much of their CP spend as possible as they need lots of markerlights for optimum performance and they tend to get swept off the board pdq by competent opponents.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
But you have created a no pregame strategums for you solution instead
I mean, I'd say an average army tends to be battleforged, have at least one detachment, and have a warlord, so you'd be starting from 3CP for your pre-game stratagems.
Want more pregame stratagems, bring more detachments? I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many armies that MUST spend more than 5CP pre turn 1 to exist and also are particularly good for the game.
So making a chapter master for marines and strategum for an assasin, oh ravenguard well no strike from the shadow for you.
Also what is the justification for more detachments equalling more CP'S, why does a more divided army become better at doing special manoeuvres?
The system as is has some glaring issues, but half of these "minor" fixes require rewriting entire codex's.
The goal of any proposed fix is to correct existing problems, preserve aspects of the game people seem to like, and add the minimum number of potential extra problems.
The issue I take with BCB's solution that he made above is that while it does correct a problem that a vocal many are complaining about (soup armies using allied detachments to "fuel" elite detachments with CP's) it creates major problems for a large number of the factions that exist in the game, and does nothing to address the general higher power of "horde' type armies over "elite" type armies at CP generation and use.
I feel that under BCB's solution, he would remove the current meta of soup with fueled elites added on that we see in the current competitive meta, and replace it with an even more restrictive meta of primarily just imperial guard+eldar soup/ynnari and whatever other factions are able to successfully spam light infantry to fill brigades and battalions while still retaining their teeth.
In effect, I think the problems it would leave in place would be just as bad as the problems it fixes. A guard army would only wipe you off the board marginally less efficiently by dumping its CP's/support into a Baneblade chassis as a shooty knight. Eldar are largely indifferent to having tons of CP from allied detachments, it's a trick they tend not to use, instead favoring just bringing either tons of craftworld flyers or Ynnari elites, or both, none of which really use tons of CP.
So I'd rather see something that would address what I see as a more core issue than the symptom we're seeing now: the relatively large gap between a CP-flush army and a CP-starved army, and the fact that it is very possible and optimal to spend all or almost all your CP pool in a single turn to frontload all the power in a list.
The problems of first turn being a be-all-end-all, the ITC "quasi-deathstar" meta, Cp-fueling soup detachments are all symptomatic problems of the underlying issue of the benefits of employing command points multiplicatively. You get double the impact out of the 3D6 charge stratagem and +D3A stratagem on your BA smash captain if he then proceeds to attack twice, and triple the impact if your target kills him and he gets to attack a third time. You get double the impact of the "attack characters with your seeker missile" knight stratagem if that knight then also rerolls all results of 1 for the turn.
So much of the game can shoot across the whole board or reliably appear and be in close combat that it now makes sense to dump all your command points turn 1 or turn 2 if you're a melee army and that's when you arrive.
I get what your saying and in fairness none of what your saying do I particularly disagree with, the problem is that the solution doesn't to me work as it still fundamentally rewards breaking your army up into as many detachments as possible, that to me inherently feels backwards.
Also why do people keep going along with GW insistence that more troops should equal more CP, I get marines have some terrible per point troup choices, but many armies are rewarded for taking cheap effective units on mass?
Their is also some other points to bring up about the front loading of CP I know Tau for example do have issues in that regardless of the CP distribution are always going to be forced into front loading as much of their CP spend as possible as they need lots of markerlights for optimum performance and they tend to get swept off the board pdq by competent opponents.
I assume that the current 3-detachment limit at 2k will still be in place, making the maximum CP per turn you could functionally get would be about 5, and the most you could possibly get would be 8 if you could somehow squeeze 3 brigades (I don't think that is currently possible in 2k).
So, an army with a brigade as its only detachment would actually end up with less CP than an all-bike army that had 3 different fast attack slot detachments, the real point of a Brigade would be to unlock the freedom of having 6 slots of all the types. Note that Battalions would change to being worth only 1 cp per turn, the same as smaller detachments, with the main benefit being unlocking 3 of each slot and 6 troop slots - I agree with you that "troops should be worse than other models" is a stupid, outdated philosophy and we aren't currently living that world.
The main difference of a brigade that I think makes it worth more than other detachments is that the minimum buy-in is almost always an order of magnitude more than a battalion since few armies have the hat trick of cheap elites, cheap fast, AND cheap heavy.
Also, protecting markerlights for Tau has not been a problem at all in 8th, and if you follow their competitive builds you know that primarily markerlights come out of Firesight marksmen and a few, high impact but CP-light stratagems for concentrating or spreading markers. In most cases the only markerlight effect you actually want is the first anyway, so having BS3+ models with character protections laying down 1 is usually all you need to get the benefit out of it, and if you do need ignore cover, usually spending 1cp is worth it to remove that for your whole army.
Again though I think it needs to be asked: Why are tau armies getting wiped early on, forcing them to frontload their CP expenditure? Is it because they are weak as an army, or because other armies are dragging them in to an arms race whereby it is more effective to spend your CP turn 1 because turn 2 your CP-spenders or your force multipliers might all be dead?
A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
This is another fix that would destroy DE. We (A) Can't run a brigade. (b) can't realistically run more than 2 detachments of the same faction (Kabal/Cult/Coven) as we run out of HQs even using special characters. (c) are designed to be run with all 3 things in different detachments as a mono codex. I'm quite in favour of per turn CP, but all the CP fixes people suggest seem to just blow apart mono DE.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
I like this idea! Only problem: I play Custodes. So you are making my ability to play games under 1750 basically impossible with anything other than a single assassin as a ally. Forget a 340pt execution force.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
I like this idea! Only problem: I play Custodes. So you are making my ability to play games under 1750 basically impossible with anything other than a single assassin as a ally. Forget a 340pt execution force.
And for armies that don't have something in one or more of those slots? That would just force them to never take a battalion.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
I like this idea! Only problem: I play Custodes. So you are making my ability to play games under 1750 basically impossible with anything other than a single assassin as a ally. Forget a 340pt execution force.
And for armies that don't have something in one or more of those slots? That would just force them to never take a battalion.
And now we are again at apoint where you could argue that armies that don't have any of these slots should not be armies.
Not saying per see it should be that way, but it would also free up some rules clatter.
Not Online!!! wrote: And now we are again at apoint where you could argue that armies that don't have any of these slots should not be armies.
Not saying per see it should be that way, but it would also free up some rules clatter.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to take a Necron Battalion below 1000pts without taking some proper garbage units. Some armies naturally lean towards different specialisms (Elites, Heavy Supports, Fast Attacks, etc etc.) and the buy-in is that you only have to take HQs and you "have" to take Troops. Make me take an elite and a HS every game and suddenly I can't play below 1000pts without playing garbage like min-squad Deathmarks and Canoptek Spiders.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
This is another fix that would destroy DE. We (A) Can't run a brigade. (b) can't realistically run more than 2 detachments of the same faction (Kabal/Cult/Coven) as we run out of HQs even using special characters. (c) are designed to be run with all 3 things in different detachments as a mono codex. I'm quite in favour of per turn CP, but all the CP fixes people suggest seem to just blow apart mono DE.
a) de is one of the major factions I play, and I was looking to be conscious to them specifically since I know they run differently. b) you'll notice that the CP generation of battalions and, for example, outrider detachments is now the same, so you will not run out of Hq slots as far fewer of them will be required minimum to run a cohesive army, c) as BCB pointed out, if De prove to be an exceptional case the triple patrol rule can easily be reworked to allow each patrol to generate a command point rather than the current (not super functional) version of the rule that exists right now.
The thing about this solution is that power gaming how much CP you get will include less reward if CPs are spread out over time. Ultimately, having just your warlord, battleforged,a nd the detachment your warlord is in grants you 3cp/turn. The common average I would assume would be around 4 - it makes sense to include 1 other small detachment aligned with your warlord or to expand your warlord's detachment out to a Brigade to get that fourth CP per turn, but then I'd think that the benefit of getting a souped detachment as your 3rd would work out to be better in almost all cases than stretching to get that fifth CP per turn.
An army designed to really maximise CP right now has 20 or more, plus regeneration. An army designed to disregard CP has about 4-5 (basically any army that eschews having a Battalion or bigger). That is a much bigger gulf than an army optimized for CP generation getting 5 per turn and an army not optimized at all getting 3, or I guess in some really extreme cases like your warlord being a lone knight in a super heavy aux, getting 2.
Personally, I think the best solution for CP generation is the following:
Return Battalions to 3CPs, Brigaded to 9CPs per the start of 8E. Allow Detahcments that share 2+ Faction keywords (or 1 Keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, etc) with the Army's Warlord to generate double CPs.
Now Battalions that share enough Keyword with you WL give 6CPs, thus encouraging Faction focus without being too detrimental to Soup. Loyal 32 would still be needed for Knight lists for the bodies and would still grant 3CPs to them, while the Knight detachment (which would have the Army WL) would get double CPs. Although admittedly, this might require the Knights special detachment CPs reworked alongside.
For Soup, this might be a wash, or just slightly less CPs than now, but it would be a big bonus for lists that focus on a single Faction.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
On CP I still think set amount of CP per game turn would be best. Say 3 CP per turn, batallion adds 1 per turn, brigade adds 2 per turn. these bonus CP can only be spent on units from that detachments. IE Castellen can only use the 3 but if you take loyal 32 plus heavy weapons squad go ahead and use that cp to reroll a hit or pass a morale or whatever you can do for 1 cp
I'm really tired of seeing minimal detachments. I think the game might be better with full detachments. I'd rather see someone with a full battalion rewarded more than someone with 2 minimum size battalions.
I mean, I'd say an average army tends to be battleforged, have at least one detachment, and have a warlord, so you'd be starting from 3CP for your pre-game stratagems.
Want more pregame stratagems, bring more detachments? I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many armies that MUST spend more than 5CP pre turn 1 to exist and also are particularly good for the game.
GK spend 4 minimum per turn. And more often then not it is 5. you always use heed and you always use psybolts.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
Well some of us want to run Storm Trooper Strike Forces. I intermittently hear people on Dakka complain how stormtrooper armies can’t be run like they used to.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
The same thing can be said about Grey Knights, Custodes, Inquisition, and probably quite a few other things.
Yeah, they absolutely were intended to be a sole army. It's why they shoehorned in the Commissars everywhere to boot, so that players could run the army without needing a Command Squad+Tempestor Prime.
Galef wrote: Personally, I think the best solution for CP generation is the following:
Return Battalions to 3CPs, Brigaded to 9CPs per the start of 8E.
Allow Detahcments that share 2+ Faction keywords (or 1 Keyword that is NOT Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, etc) with the Army's Warlord to generate double CPs.
Now Battalions that share enough Keyword with you WL give 6CPs, thus encouraging Faction focus without being too detrimental to Soup.
Loyal 32 would still be needed for Knight lists for the bodies and would still grant 3CPs to them, while the Knight detachment (which would have the Army WL) would get double CPs. Although admittedly, this might require the Knights special detachment CPs reworked alongside.
For Soup, this might be a wash, or just slightly less CPs than now, but it would be a big bonus for lists that focus on a single Faction.
-
You know what doesn't give enough CP right now? A guard brigade. Definitely needs at least 1/3 more CP.
Remember folks: Knights get warlord traits without BEING your warlord for 1cp. You do not magically fix the knight+soup problem by limiting detachment CP generation to the warlord's faction.
I mean, I'd say an average army tends to be battleforged, have at least one detachment, and have a warlord, so you'd be starting from 3CP for your pre-game stratagems.
Want more pregame stratagems, bring more detachments? I don't know about you but I haven't seen too many armies that MUST spend more than 5CP pre turn 1 to exist and also are particularly good for the game.
GK spend 4 minimum per turn. And more often then not it is 5. you always use heed and you always use psybolts.
OK. in 2000 points, can you make a Grey Knight army that fills 3 detachments that are not auxiliaries? Because I can. A lot more easily than I can make a GK army that can spend 5CP per turn without allies under the current system.
3 patrols, maybe two patrols and a Vanguard or Outrider if you're using a bunch of interceptors or dreadnoughts/paladins?
Martel732 wrote: Just make IK strats and relic inaccessible in the AUX deatchment. Done. Castellan instantly becomes average.
I strongly suspect in ITC it would still be worth bringing along with a pair of helverins. In regular GW rules, you would probably be right, since the power of quasi-deathstars is decreased already with the lack of old school kill points in the missions.
I don't like having a limited pool of CP, because it makes it even more plug and play. "I have 2 top tier stratagems, I will build to use them every turn I can, the rest might as well be ignored".
I mean arguably we are in that situation already, due to some stratagems being game defining, and others mediocre to the point of being forgotten, but thats not a reason to almost inevitably take them away.
The problem is soup (pls nerf) and having the same detachments for every army. Now this could get gimmicky and overpowered real quick - and the one example of this (DE triple patrol) was DOA - but it could work. There is no reason why say Custodes should only get 5 CP for a batallion while IG can 5 CP for a fraction of the price.
Now every codex is out (some odds and ends remain) it would be relatively easy to look at all the armies holistically and apply some ups and downs. But this is more a chapter approved thing than a FAQ change.
My number 1 FAQ change is a major blow to soup - any of the changes suggested would be good for a try - but I have little hope of it happening.
Martel732 wrote: Raven doesnt do much for helverins unless i misremember.
You could run and gun with the Warglaives, but Helverins have no use for the trait, really. 340+ points off a Castellan list into Helverins is a decent chunk. I'd be interested in seeing the lists that spring from that change.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
So don't run a full scions army as a battalion. You can make a Vanguard with command squads legally or take patrols. Sorry, but some armies don't get all they want. I can't play a Ravenwing or Deathwing army as battalions, so woe is me right? If your army is specialist like scions then it's not really a battalion is it? Kind of the same with Custodes....probably shouldn't be fielded as a battalion so go for Outrider etc.
A way around this would be to increase Battle Forged CP to +5, drop battalion back to +3 (requiring 1 fast, elite, heavy) and Brigade +9. Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead remain +1.
My Ravenwing and Deathwing armies automatically increase in CPs, and would allow armies to field Vanguards etc.
A battalion should require support elements, period.
If it's disparity in detachment costs, then one answer would be for detachments to grant 1CP per 100pts of units in that detachment, capped at their current values. The benefit of cheap troops then becomes lessened as your tax becomes cheaper as opposed to just cheap.
Any fix needs to be simple, not convoluted and complicated. Inevitably, someone somewhere will be butt-hurt as it will change their specific army, but if it improves the overall gameplay then it's worth it.
The detachment system currently doesn't work well. It over rewards minimum battalions and cripples specialist, elite forces with minimun to no CP. I still adhere to my point that a battalion should have to have support elements, it can't simply be just 2 HQ and 3 troops. That's barely more than a patrol and yet it yields +5CP. To gain that bonus, you should have to add some real meat to the detachment in support elements. Until that happens, the system is broken.If this applies to a Brigade, how are some of those similar requirements left out for a Battalion? And the truth of the matter is that not all armies can and should be able to field battalions. You just have to find a way to reward more CPs for the other options and I agree with Galef that the base Battle Forged points should be 5, not 3. This would really help the smaller, elite armies (that already suffer in the game) make up some CP without having to ally in a cheap, fake battalion.
And if this seems so ridiculous, then knights need to be stripped of there huge CP bonuses down to 0 for an Auxiliary, and +3CP when you bring at least 3 large knights. Currently, the fact that they get such hugfe CP incentives when other small elite armies get nothing is a slap in the face.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
So don't run a full scions army as a battalion. You can make a Vanguard with command squads legally or take patrols. Sorry, but some armies don't get all they want. I can't play a Ravenwing or Deathwing army as battalions, so woe is me right? If your army is specialist like scions then it's not really a battalion is it? Kind of the same with Custodes....probably shouldn't be fielded as a battalion so go for Outrider etc.
A way around this would be to increase Battle Forged CP to +5, drop battalion back to +3 (requiring 1 fast, elite, heavy) and Brigade +9. Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead remain +1.
My Ravenwing and Deathwing armies automatically increase in CPs, and would allow armies to field Vanguards etc.
A battalion should require support elements, period.
Vanguard-2 HQ max.
-3 elite minimum
Therefore Scions can run vanguard, because one command squad per Tempestor Prime.
I’m building a Scion army consisting of two battalions.
Why should some armies that currently can be run fine be ruined because you’re salty that you can’t run a ridiculous amounts of bikes or terminators.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
So don't run a full scions army as a battalion. You can make a Vanguard with command squads legally or take patrols. Sorry, but some armies don't get all they want. I can't play a Ravenwing or Deathwing army as battalions, so woe is me right? If your army is specialist like scions then it's not really a battalion is it? Kind of the same with Custodes....probably shouldn't be fielded as a battalion so go for Outrider etc.
Are you seriously going to try to say that Scions are a "specialist" army like Deathwing or Ravenwing?
Scions are a Troops choice, not an Elite or Fast Attack.
A way around this would be to increase Battle Forged CP to +5, drop battalion back to +3 (requiring 1 fast, elite, heavy) and Brigade +9. Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead remain +1.
My Ravenwing and Deathwing armies automatically increase in CPs, and would allow armies to field Vanguards etc.
A battalion should require support elements, period.
An even simpler way is to give these specialist armies traits that increase the CPs generated when fielded in their thematic lists.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
The same thing can be said about Grey Knights, Custodes, Inquisition, and probably quite a few other things.
Yeah, they absolutely were intended to be a sole army. It's why they shoehorned in the Commissars everywhere to boot, so that players could run the army without needing a Command Squad+Tempestor Prime.
The difference between Scions and GK/Knights/Custodes/Inquisition, is that they all have their own Codexes, and Scions are a unit within another unit's codex. When Scions have their OWN Codex, you can say they are a legitimate army/force/faction. Until then, all you have is 3 different models (Tempestor Prime, Scions, and Taurox Prime) and a "Start Collecting" kit. They are a gimmick to sell boxes, not an actual faction.
bullyboy wrote: Any fix needs to be simple, not convoluted and complicated. Inevitably, someone somewhere will be butt-hurt as it will change their specific army, but if it improves the overall gameplay then it's worth it.
The detachment system currently doesn't work well. It over rewards minimum battalions and cripples specialist, elite forces with minimun to no CP. I still adhere to my point that a battalion should have to have support elements, it can't simply be just 2 HQ and 3 troops. That's barely more than a patrol and yet it yields +5CP. To gain that bonus, you should have to add some real meat to the detachment in support elements. Until that happens, the system is broken.If this applies to a Brigade, how are some of those similar requirements left out for a Battalion? And the truth of the matter is that not all armies can and should be able to field battalions. You just have to find a way to reward more CPs for the other options and I agree with Galef that the base Battle Forged points should be 5, not 3. This would really help the smaller, elite armies (that already suffer in the game) make up some CP without having to ally in a cheap, fake battalion.
And if this seems so ridiculous, then knights need to be stripped of there huge CP bonuses down to 0 for an Auxiliary, and +3CP when you bring at least 3 large knights. Currently, the fact that they get such hugfe CP incentives when other small elite armies get nothing is a slap in the face.
Lots of Scion armies don’t just take Scions for CP.
We also take Taurox Primes and Valkyries. Those are points heavy. Is that a heavy enough contribution for you? Those are our fast attack and heavy support. Heck, Taurox Primes used to be fast attack options.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
The same thing can be said about Grey Knights, Custodes, Inquisition, and probably quite a few other things.
Yeah, they absolutely were intended to be a sole army. It's why they shoehorned in the Commissars everywhere to boot, so that players could run the army without needing a Command Squad+Tempestor Prime.
The difference between Scions and GK/Knights/Custodes/Inquisition, is that they all have their own Codexes, and Scions are a unit within another unit's codex. When Scions have their OWN Codex, you can say they are a legitimate army/force/faction. Until then, all you have is 3 different models (Tempestor Prime, Scions, and Taurox Prime) and a "Start Collecting" kit. They are a gimmick to sell boxes, not an actual faction.
Cool, so we can dump Grey Knights and Custodes into an Agents of the Imperium book and move on?
Militarum Tempestus had its own Codex. Skitarii had their own Codex, Cult Mechanicus had their own Codex. For whatever reason these armies were bunched together with others rather than fleshed out.
Difference is that Tempestus, while being part of the Guard Codex, is a "legitimate" subfaction within the Guard book. They have 4 different units tied to them(Command Squads, Tempestor Primes, Taurox Prime, and Scions) that allow for them to potentially field a viable force right now.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
The same thing can be said about Grey Knights, Custodes, Inquisition, and probably quite a few other things.
Yeah, they absolutely were intended to be a sole army. It's why they shoehorned in the Commissars everywhere to boot, so that players could run the army without needing a Command Squad+Tempestor Prime.
The difference between Scions and GK/Knights/Custodes/Inquisition, is that they all have their own Codexes, and Scions are a unit within another unit's codex. When Scions have their OWN Codex, you can say they are a legitimate army/force/faction. Until then, all you have is 3 different models (Tempestor Prime, Scions, and Taurox Prime) and a "Start Collecting" kit. They are a gimmick to sell boxes, not an actual faction.
They had their own codex. Just like Black Templars. Are Balck Templars not a faction? They are a sub faction, as are Scions. And, sub factions can make armies.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
The same thing can be said about Grey Knights, Custodes, Inquisition, and probably quite a few other things.
Yeah, they absolutely were intended to be a sole army. It's why they shoehorned in the Commissars everywhere to boot, so that players could run the army without needing a Command Squad+Tempestor Prime.
The difference between Scions and GK/Knights/Custodes/Inquisition, is that they all have their own Codexes, and Scions are a unit within another unit's codex. When Scions have their OWN Codex, you can say they are a legitimate army/force/faction. Until then, all you have is 3 different models (Tempestor Prime, Scions, and Taurox Prime) and a "Start Collecting" kit. They are a gimmick to sell boxes, not an actual faction.
They had their own codex. Just like Black Templars. Are Balck Templars not a faction? They are a sub faction, as are Scions. And, sub factions can make armies.
So it;'s possible to run a brigade of Scions? Because you sure can for Templars, Word Bearers, and every other "sub faction". I'm not shifting the goal posts here either. The original point was my assertion that Scions were never meant to be a pure army. Because you can't take ten squads of Scions, a couple Taurox primes, and run matches. I say again, based off the way GW wrote their rules, my opinion is that GW NEVER intended Scions to be a stand alone army.
Now, as to the "back in my day" argument, who cares? What does that have to do with the point? Super heavies never used to be allowed in none apoc games. That doesn't mean anything to now. The rules now are the only rules that matter now.
Sorry, but scions are elite units of the Imperium, they're better than basic troops. The fact that they occupy a troops slot doesn't change that fact. They should have been an Elites choice and maybe that change needs to happen.
It doesn't change the way I feel the CP detachment bonus should change. Perhaps there are some armies that need an addendum that could be addressed in a WD (Index Scion Strikeforce for example) that would give them an opportunity to field lone armies without too much of a hamstring. As it stands, I don't see why you should be rewarded with +10CP by bringing 2 battalions when it's just a few Troops choices. Not when other armies that are just as thematic but can barely bring +2CP.
Change Scions to Elite choices, I don't care, the system needs change. Or you could just take Astra Militarum options in your list to make up for those slots. Not much different to me hearing how I should just take scouts in my Ravenwing force.
I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
bullyboy wrote: Sorry, but scions are elite units of the Imperium, they're better than basic troops. The fact that they occupy a troops slot doesn't change that fact. They should have been an Elites choice and maybe that change needs to happen.
It doesn't change the way I feel the CP detachment bonus should change. Perhaps there are some armies that need an addendum that could be addressed in a WD (Index Scion Strikeforce for example) that would give them an opportunity to field lone armies without too much of a hamstring. As it stands, I don't see why you should be rewarded with +10CP by bringing 2 battalions when it's just a few Troops choices. Not when other armies that are just as thematic but can barely bring +2CP.
Change Scions to Elite choices, I don't care, the system needs change. Or you could just take Astra Militarum options in your list to make up for those slots. Not much different to me hearing how I should just take scouts in my Ravenwing force.
I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
bullyboy wrote: I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
I still hold that it's probably a bad idea to make Battalions functionally unavailable to some armies below a certain points limit, esp. when they're the armies that probably need the most help.
So it;'s possible to run a brigade of Scions? Because you sure can for Templars, Word Bearers, and every other "sub faction". I'm not shifting the goal posts here either.
Ehhh...the bit about "brigades" is a bit of a sticky situation.
You can't run "brigades" of Haemonculi Coven, Wych Cults, or Cult Mechanicus or Skitarii. You can't run "brigades" of Imperial/Renegade Knights.
The original point was my assertion that Scions were never meant to be a pure army. Because you can't take ten squads of Scions, a couple Taurox primes, and run matches. I say again, based off the way GW wrote their rules, my opinion is that GW NEVER intended Scions to be a stand alone army.
Except for where their Regimental rule literally requires them to be ran as a standalone army, right?
Now, as to the "back in my day" argument, who cares? What does that have to do with the point? Super heavies never used to be allowed in none apoc games. That doesn't mean anything to now. The rules now are the only rules that matter now.
We're not talking about 3rd edition or anything here. It was the last iteration of the game.
bullyboy wrote: Any fix needs to be simple, not convoluted and complicated. Inevitably, someone somewhere will be butt-hurt as it will change their specific army, but if it improves the overall gameplay then it's worth it.
The detachment system currently doesn't work well. It over rewards minimum battalions and cripples specialist, elite forces with minimun to no CP. I still adhere to my point that a battalion should have to have support elements, it can't simply be just 2 HQ and 3 troops. That's barely more than a patrol and yet it yields +5CP. To gain that bonus, you should have to add some real meat to the detachment in support elements. Until that happens, the system is broken.If this applies to a Brigade, how are some of those similar requirements left out for a Battalion? And the truth of the matter is that not all armies can and should be able to field battalions. You just have to find a way to reward more CPs for the other options and I agree with Galef that the base Battle Forged points should be 5, not 3. This would really help the smaller, elite armies (that already suffer in the game) make up some CP without having to ally in a cheap, fake battalion.
And if this seems so ridiculous, then knights need to be stripped of there huge CP bonuses down to 0 for an Auxiliary, and +3CP when you bring at least 3 large knights. Currently, the fact that they get such hugfe CP incentives when other small elite armies get nothing is a slap in the face.
I think it is one of the universal inconvenient truths of the modern era that "simpler does not equal better" when it comes to solutions.
You are calling out the current problem of
"Armies with cheap troops and HQs are too easily able to use cheap battalions to feed CP to elite souped allies, while elite armies' battalions cost more because the minimum cost of their HQs and Troops is higher."
and advocating a solution of
"Require everyone to take 1 Fast, 1 Elite, and 1 Heavy Support to make a Battalion."
Do you not see how this exacerbates, rather than solves, the problem? A current minimum Guard battalion is 180pts. A current minimum Marine battalion is somewhere in the realm of 245 I think?
This is enough to make marine battalions less efficient in competititve play.
You are now advocating to make that guard battalion around 300 points, and that marine battalion upwards of 550. in other words, widening the gap, and making battalions from the "we've got cheap stuff" armies MORE vital to the function of competitive armies.
It's a simple fix (well, it is until you go "And for knights we'll do this different thing! And for Battleforged we'll do this other thing!") but it's...quite frankly, so simple that it doesn't actually fix anything.
It's like the "let's make detachments with your warlord's faction double the CP" suggestion - threads like this make me honestly pretty appreciative that we don't make writing the rules for 40k into some sort of crowdsourced living ruleset.
bullyboy wrote: A fairly simple fix to alter the CP maxing problem would be to bump a Battalion requirements to include at least 1 fast, 1 elite and 1 heavy support choice. If a damn brigade has to take 3 of each of those, a battalion should at least require 1. This would at least make the Loyal 32 add some mortars, a sentinel, etc. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem (some armies have super cheap options in these slots), but it does change the dynamic somewhat and make a detachment look more like a cohesive force.
Then Scions can’t be run in battalions. They don’t have those.
As a former IG player, I would humbly submit that Scions were never meant to be a stand alone army. They are part and parcel to IG. Maybe a sole detachment, but never a sole army.
That might be how you feel, but they were always treated as a stand-alone army due to having a separate codex prior to being rolled into AM at the dawn of 8th.
bullyboy wrote: Sorry, but scions are elite units of the Imperium, they're better than basic troops. The fact that they occupy a troops slot doesn't change that fact. They should have been an Elites choice and maybe that change needs to happen.
It doesn't change the way I feel the CP detachment bonus should change. Perhaps there are some armies that need an addendum that could be addressed in a WD (Index Scion Strikeforce for example) that would give them an opportunity to field lone armies without too much of a hamstring. As it stands, I don't see why you should be rewarded with +10CP by bringing 2 battalions when it's just a few Troops choices. Not when other armies that are just as thematic but can barely bring +2CP.
Change Scions to Elite choices, I don't care, the system needs change. Or you could just take Astra Militarum options in your list to make up for those slots. Not much different to me hearing how I should just take scouts in my Ravenwing force.
I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
Sorry, but the SOB are just the elite guardians of the Imperium. They should just be an elite option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it’s troops, elites, transports, and flyers. Plus
bullyboy wrote: Sorry, but scions are elite units of the Imperium, they're better than basic troops. The fact that they occupy a troops slot doesn't change that fact. They should have been an Elites choice and maybe that change needs to happen.
It doesn't change the way I feel the CP detachment bonus should change. Perhaps there are some armies that need an addendum that could be addressed in a WD (Index Scion Strikeforce for example) that would give them an opportunity to field lone armies without too much of a hamstring. As it stands, I don't see why you should be rewarded with +10CP by bringing 2 battalions when it's just a few Troops choices. Not when other armies that are just as thematic but can barely bring +2CP.
Change Scions to Elite choices, I don't care, the system needs change. Or you could just take Astra Militarum options in your list to make up for those slots. Not much different to me hearing how I should just take scouts in my Ravenwing force.
I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
Sorry, but the SOB are just the elite guardians of the Imperium. They should just be an elite option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it’s troops, elites, transports, and flyers. Plus
Um, ACTUALLY, space marines are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Well HOLD ON, Primaris marines are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Uh, EXCUSE ME, but Grey Knights are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Oh, I'M SORRY, but Custodes are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
bullyboy wrote: Sorry, but scions are elite units of the Imperium, they're better than basic troops. The fact that they occupy a troops slot doesn't change that fact. They should have been an Elites choice and maybe that change needs to happen.
Hey remember how those "elite units of the Imperium" were able to be fielded as a Platoon in the last Guard book but not in their dedicated, standalone book?
It doesn't change the way I feel the CP detachment bonus should change. Perhaps there are some armies that need an addendum that could be addressed in a WD (Index Scion Strikeforce for example) that would give them an opportunity to field lone armies without too much of a hamstring. As it stands, I don't see why you should be rewarded with +10CP by bringing 2 battalions when it's just a few Troops choices. Not when other armies that are just as thematic but can barely bring +2CP.
And I don't see why you should be rewarded for taking bits from outside of your faction yet here we continually are. And we still have people who think the problem isn't that you can take a "battery" of random stuff but rather that an army which traditionally has had cheap troops is the issue.
Change Scions to Elite choices, I don't care, the system needs change. Or you could just take Astra Militarum options in your list to make up for those slots. Not much different to me hearing how I should just take scouts in my Ravenwing force.
If you take Scouts, does it remove your Ravenwing bonus? Serious question as I haven't followed Dark Angels.
Because taking non-Scions in a Scion force removes their Regimental trait.
I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
And I still stand by giving themed armies an actual bonus.
Your Ravenwing should be getting bonus CP or reduced CP costs for running an Outrider Detachment.
Look at how much discussion has been generated by a complicated suggestion to fix CP, and how unintended consequences harm factions that can ill afford it while leaving the main culprits unaddressed.
Seems everyone is eager for a major splash when all that's needed is a small change to the usual suspects. Turns out, addressing the Castellan directly won't have much impact on Scions or GK and won't require entire codexes to be rewritten.
bullyboy wrote: Sorry, but scions are elite units of the Imperium, they're better than basic troops. The fact that they occupy a troops slot doesn't change that fact. They should have been an Elites choice and maybe that change needs to happen.
It doesn't change the way I feel the CP detachment bonus should change. Perhaps there are some armies that need an addendum that could be addressed in a WD (Index Scion Strikeforce for example) that would give them an opportunity to field lone armies without too much of a hamstring. As it stands, I don't see why you should be rewarded with +10CP by bringing 2 battalions when it's just a few Troops choices. Not when other armies that are just as thematic but can barely bring +2CP.
Change Scions to Elite choices, I don't care, the system needs change. Or you could just take Astra Militarum options in your list to make up for those slots. Not much different to me hearing how I should just take scouts in my Ravenwing force.
I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
Sorry, but the SOB are just the elite guardians of the Imperium. They should just be an elite option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it’s troops, elites, transports, and flyers. Plus
Um, ACTUALLY, space marines are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Well HOLD ON, Primaris marines are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Uh, EXCUSE ME, but Grey Knights are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Oh, I'M SORRY, but Custodes are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Checkmate, Atheists.
Proof that the rules-writers hate CWE. Their elite Guardians have the same rules as their non-elite Guardians - just some stratagem you can use. Otherwise, they're as durable as Guardsmen but twice the points.
bullyboy wrote: Any fix needs to be simple, not convoluted and complicated. Inevitably, someone somewhere will be butt-hurt as it will change their specific army, but if it improves the overall gameplay then it's worth it.
The detachment system currently doesn't work well. It over rewards minimum battalions and cripples specialist, elite forces with minimun to no CP. I still adhere to my point that a battalion should have to have support elements, it can't simply be just 2 HQ and 3 troops. That's barely more than a patrol and yet it yields +5CP. To gain that bonus, you should have to add some real meat to the detachment in support elements. Until that happens, the system is broken.If this applies to a Brigade, how are some of those similar requirements left out for a Battalion? And the truth of the matter is that not all armies can and should be able to field battalions. You just have to find a way to reward more CPs for the other options and I agree with Galef that the base Battle Forged points should be 5, not 3. This would really help the smaller, elite armies (that already suffer in the game) make up some CP without having to ally in a cheap, fake battalion.
And if this seems so ridiculous, then knights need to be stripped of there huge CP bonuses down to 0 for an Auxiliary, and +3CP when you bring at least 3 large knights. Currently, the fact that they get such hugfe CP incentives when other small elite armies get nothing is a slap in the face.
I think it is one of the universal inconvenient truths of the modern era that "simpler does not equal better" when it comes to solutions.
You are calling out the current problem of
"Armies with cheap troops and HQs are too easily able to use cheap battalions to feed CP to elite souped allies, while elite armies' battalions cost more because the minimum cost of their HQs and Troops is higher."
and advocating a solution of
"Require everyone to take 1 Fast, 1 Elite, and 1 Heavy Support to make a Battalion."
Do you not see how this exacerbates, rather than solves, the problem? A current minimum Guard battalion is 180pts. A current minimum Marine battalion is somewhere in the realm of 245 I think?
This is enough to make marine battalions less efficient in competititve play.
You are now advocating to make that guard battalion around 300 points, and that marine battalion upwards of 550. in other words, widening the gap, and making battalions from the "we've got cheap stuff" armies MORE vital to the function of competitive armies.
.
I'm not seeing the problem you are suggesting. Do you think marine armies are taking battalions for their awesome Troop choices? No.
As a Dark Angel player, if I want to run a battalion, i shouldn't expect a couple of JP captains/librarians and 3x5 scouts make me good to go. I should add a unit of Deathwing Knights, maybe a darkshroud and perhaps a predator to make this a cohesive force. Marine armies are taking Troops as tax to get access to the better stuff. Making them get the better stuff in the first place is not a problem.
Avoiding the Loyal 32 etc is a much better solution.
GW has the system ass-backwards IMHO. The detachments in Vigilus looked to be a step in the right direction (a wraith host, a RW attack squadron, etc), but instead of them giving you more CP to be fluffy, they charged you an additional CP, lol. No thanks! So my Ravenwing Strike force still has 3x5 scouts just so I can use the CPs I need for this to work. Oops.
The system is currently broken and I don't think GW has any idea how to fix it.
Lemondish wrote: Look at how much discussion has been generated by a complicated suggestion to fix CP, and how unintended consequences harm factions that can ill afford it while leaving the main culprits unaddressed.
Seems everyone is eager for a major splash when all that's needed is a small change to the usual suspects. Turns out, addressing the Castellan directly won't have much impact on Scions or GK and won't require entire codexes to be rewritten.
Yeah because of course it the Castellen thats the issue, lets see the top imperial lists for the last year has been
Guard + Custard creams, Guard plus Custards plus smash captiains, Guard plus Smash captain plus Castellen, Guard plus Custards plus Castellen, Guard plus Castellen, Guard plus Custards, Guard plus Crusader.
You know what's not been smashing tournament, Custards plus Castellen or Smash Captain & friends plus Castellen, I wounder why?
Change the Battle Forged to 5CP base.
Have a Battalion require 1 elite, fast, heavy and be +3CP
Brigade as is but yields +9CP.
Create specialist detachments that yield additional CPs if they follow the theme of the intended army. Yes, this would be quite an undertaking, but it would begin to reward thematic armies. This would include your scions, ravenwing, Deathwing, Spirithosts, Wild Rider jetbikes, etc, etc.
The issue is that CPs are not generated fairly across the board and thus people look for loop holes to increase their number. The Loyal 32 is a perfect example of course. Why a trio of knights, the Loyal 32 and a minimum Battalion of BAs yields 19CP is beyond silly. Yet I bring a thematic Ravenwing detachment with 3 Outrider detachments, and get 6CP, and must spend 1CP for each one if I wish it to be a specialist Vigilus detachment is just bad rules writing.
I use Ravenwing as an example as it is one i am more familiar with.
bullyboy wrote: Any fix needs to be simple, not convoluted and complicated. Inevitably, someone somewhere will be butt-hurt as it will change their specific army, but if it improves the overall gameplay then it's worth it.
The detachment system currently doesn't work well. It over rewards minimum battalions and cripples specialist, elite forces with minimun to no CP. I still adhere to my point that a battalion should have to have support elements, it can't simply be just 2 HQ and 3 troops. That's barely more than a patrol and yet it yields +5CP. To gain that bonus, you should have to add some real meat to the detachment in support elements. Until that happens, the system is broken.If this applies to a Brigade, how are some of those similar requirements left out for a Battalion? And the truth of the matter is that not all armies can and should be able to field battalions. You just have to find a way to reward more CPs for the other options and I agree with Galef that the base Battle Forged points should be 5, not 3. This would really help the smaller, elite armies (that already suffer in the game) make up some CP without having to ally in a cheap, fake battalion.
And if this seems so ridiculous, then knights need to be stripped of there huge CP bonuses down to 0 for an Auxiliary, and +3CP when you bring at least 3 large knights. Currently, the fact that they get such hugfe CP incentives when other small elite armies get nothing is a slap in the face.
I think it is one of the universal inconvenient truths of the modern era that "simpler does not equal better" when it comes to solutions.
You are calling out the current problem of
"Armies with cheap troops and HQs are too easily able to use cheap battalions to feed CP to elite souped allies, while elite armies' battalions cost more because the minimum cost of their HQs and Troops is higher."
and advocating a solution of
"Require everyone to take 1 Fast, 1 Elite, and 1 Heavy Support to make a Battalion."
Do you not see how this exacerbates, rather than solves, the problem? A current minimum Guard battalion is 180pts. A current minimum Marine battalion is somewhere in the realm of 245 I think?
This is enough to make marine battalions less efficient in competititve play.
You are now advocating to make that guard battalion around 300 points, and that marine battalion upwards of 550. in other words, widening the gap, and making battalions from the "we've got cheap stuff" armies MORE vital to the function of competitive armies.
.
I'm not seeing the problem you are suggesting. Do you think marine armies are taking battalions for their awesome Troop choices? No.
As a Dark Angel player, if I want to run a battalion, i shouldn't expect a couple of JP captains/librarians and 3x5 scouts make me good to go. I should add a unit of Deathwing Knights, maybe a darkshroud and perhaps a predator to make this a cohesive force. Marine armies are taking Troops as tax to get access to the better stuff. Making them get the better stuff in the first place is not a problem.
Avoiding the Loyal 32 etc is a much better solution.
GW has the system ass-backwards IMHO. The detachments in Vigilus looked to be a step in the right direction (a wraith host, a RW attack squadron, etc), but instead of them giving you more CP to be fluffy, they charged you an additional CP, lol. No thanks! So my Ravenwing Strike force still has 3x5 scouts just so I can use the CPs I need for this to work. Oops.
The system is currently broken and I don't think GW has any idea how to fix it.
The hilariously broken thing is 3 msu scout units and the 1 HQ to turn a marine specialist detachments into a battalion cost 30 more points than the 32 douche bags.
the_scotsman wrote: It's like the "let's make detachments with your warlord's faction double the CP" suggestion - threads like this make me honestly pretty appreciative that we don't make writing the rules for 40k into some sort of crowdsourced living ruleset.
bullyboy wrote: In an ideal world, I would have it as thus...
Change the Battle Forged to 5CP base.
Have a Battalion require 1 elite, fast, heavy and be +3CP
Brigade as is but yields +9CP.
Create specialist detachments that yield additional CPs if they follow the theme of the intended army. Yes, this would be quite an undertaking, but it would begin to reward thematic armies. This would include your scions, ravenwing, Deathwing, Spirithosts, Wild Rider jetbikes, etc, etc.
The issue is that CPs are not generated fairly across the board and thus people look for loop holes to increase their number. The Loyal 32 is a perfect example of course. Why a trio of knights, the Loyal 32 and a minimum Battalion of BAs yields 19CP is beyond silly. Yet I bring a thematic Ravenwing detachment with 3 Outrider detachments, and get 6CP, and must spend 1CP for each one if I wish it to be a specialist Vigilus detachment is just bad rules writing.
I use Ravenwing as an example as it is one i am more familiar with.
All this does is turn the game back into a 7th edition formation roulette, with hordes getting a Get Out Of Jail Free card. If barebones battalions are the issue, just punish the barebones nature of them.
the_scotsman wrote: It's like the "let's make detachments with your warlord's faction double the CP" suggestion - threads like this make me honestly pretty appreciative that we don't make writing the rules for 40k into some sort of crowdsourced living ruleset.
the_scotsman wrote: It's like the "let's make detachments with your warlord's faction double the CP" suggestion - threads like this make me honestly pretty appreciative that we don't make writing the rules for 40k into some sort of crowdsourced living ruleset.
Amen.
Yeah I always forget that Knights have super special snowflake abilities that circumvent all my reasonably simple solutions to "fix" CP abuse.
Maybe if we "fix" Knights to work a little more like everyone else we can finally get some problems fixed.
Make Battalions 3CPs, REMOVE Brigades completely (because only Guard seem to get any use out of them and it effs up my solution)
Now you can give detachments sharing multiple Keywords with the WL double CPs.
Knights now need a bit of an adjustment to allow them to select a single Questorus or Dominus class Knight as the WL. CPs can be spend for relics.
Easy fix. Soup and Monofaction lists are on even footing now. Monofactions should tend to get more CPs (because they SHOULD), yet Soup lists will still have the advantage being able to cover each factions deficiencies
the_scotsman wrote: It's like the "let's make detachments with your warlord's faction double the CP" suggestion - threads like this make me honestly pretty appreciative that we don't make writing the rules for 40k into some sort of crowdsourced living ruleset.
Amen.
To be fair, GW is almost as bad....
Oh for sure. I just love that when GW comes out with a really super simple solution like, oh, I don't know, slapping battalions up to 5CP and Brigades up to 12CP for no reason, and going "And now space marine armies will have 8-9CP to play with, PROBLEM SOLVED!" people instantaneously recognize that this is a hilariously over-simplistic solution and they're leaving out that they just handed even MORE CP to the ultra-cheap horde factions and made tack-on detachments even more mandatory.
but then they turn around and go "I HAVE THE REAL SOLUTION! We need to give EVEN MORE cp to factions that are the same as your warlord! Now surely marines and guard will be...on the same...level..."
"no wait I have an even better idea, let's add extra slot requirements to battalions, that will solve the issue of the factions with cheap units...having a huge...advantage?"
I don't get what makes it so difficult to grasp.
There exists an imbalance.
Buffing everyone equally, or nerfing everyone equally, will NEVER resolve that imbalance, unless you go to some ludicrous extreme like "100 COMMAND POINTS FOR A BATTALION" in which case everyone would just be tabled turn 2 before either player runs out of command points, or "no command points for any detachment!"
I'll complain about draconian solutions all day long because I think over-nerfing will just reinforce the army imbalance, but man...BCB's thing was way better than these solutions at least.
You actually have to identify the problem before you can fix it, that's pretty obvious.
What's the problem?
To many, it seems that accessing cheap detachments that yield high CPs to activate your power units with those CP is the problem. Am I missing something?
If that's the case, the first step is to make it so that those cheap add-ons don't offer enough bonus to make the effort worthwhile.
In my suggestion, requiring a Guard battalion to add an elites, fast and heavy slot before giving those knights just 3 extra CP would probably not be worth it. The player may then just look at taking a better guard army overall to supplement his knights. I see no issue with this.
The Scotsmen keeps bringing up marines as if they're an issue with the additional battalion tax. I disagree. If you're playing marines, you're taking more than just troops. If not, then you're doing it to gain CP and fuel smash captains etc. This goes back to the initial problem, harvesting detachments for CPs. Take this incentive away.
Also, adjust the knight CP bonus to be less obnoxious.
What are the real CP abusers out there? Cheap battalions that yield +5CP seem to be the only problem. At least with a Brigade people are investing in the army completely. You change Battalions to be more of a complete army choice and lower the CPs it generates, we now get some semblance of normalcy.
I have yet to see a valid argument that negates this proposal. Yes, some armies that can now run battalions may have a harder time doing so. OK, in that case, they should look at other detachment options. If there are still armies that struggle to field a force with this change then a small change to keywords etc can adjust it on a case by case basis.
As it stands, the number one goal (IMHO) to initiate some form of balance is to make the cheap CP batteries less appealing.
Everyone loves to pick on guard, but honestly there is more than just guard slipping by the troops tax.
Would it break the game to make Company Commanders 85pts? To elevate him closer to the other HQ's? I mean, even at 95pts he's still worth it.
I'd be happy with Bully's suggestion though, Guard needs to see some form of alteration to how they generate CP. But then so do Orks, Nids, Cultists, and to a lesser extent Firewarriors.
It will never end. Let's say tomorrow FAQ drops, Guard squads are 15pts per model and their min BN is an elite and a Fast attack. 450pts per(out of my butt). Then VERY NEXT DAY people would light up these forums about how "It's too easy for Nids to make BNs". Or "Orks are dominating the Meta with their cheap troops" or "I'm drowning in firewarriors, NERFFFFFFFF".
It never ends. We all agree Guard needs a fix, but to act like that balances the game, I dunno. The only way to flat out balance is if everyone has the same stats, and then we'd bitch about how your models are unfairly giving you LOS.....
Reemule wrote: In a game where a viable army could be 4 models (Knights) or 200 models (Orks) having CP attached to Detachments is doomed to failure.
Moving the CP to something that is going to be more consistent, like the point value of the game, is going to be a much better long term fix.
Overall I agree that as it stands, moving CPs to points level is probably better than detachment.
However, it is worth considering that some Factions have really good strats due to being cheaper than others or their units being better. Eldar, for example have some great and cheap strats, but at the same time, not too easy of a way to get a cheap Battalion. So Eldar tend to have less CPs because of this, but get more out of their Strats.
If we give everyone the same number of CPs, Eldar get a significant boost over other factions.
Ideally, a combined approach would be better. Make the bulk of CPs come from being Battle Forged (say 3CPs per 500pts) and most detachments giving no CP, save maybe Battalions (only 3) and Brigaded (preferably less than 9).
Now most armies get roughly the saem number, but armies that can field cheaper Troops don't suffer as much.
Now you fix Guardsman to be 5ppm and Marines/CSM to 11ppm and the balance is much closer to better.
bullyboy wrote: You actually have to identify the problem before you can fix it, that's pretty obvious.
What's the problem?
To many, it seems that accessing cheap detachments that yield high CPs to activate your power units with those CP is the problem. Am I missing something?
If that's the case, the first step is to make it so that those cheap add-ons don't offer enough bonus to make the effort worthwhile.
In my suggestion, requiring a Guard battalion to add an elites, fast and heavy slot before giving those knights just 3 extra CP would probably not be worth it. The player may then just look at taking a better guard army overall to supplement his knights. I see no issue with this.
The Scotsmen keeps bringing up marines as if they're an issue with the additional battalion tax. I disagree. If you're playing marines, you're taking more than just troops. If not, then you're doing it to gain CP and fuel smash captains etc. This goes back to the initial problem, harvesting detachments for CPs. Take this incentive away.
Also, adjust the knight CP bonus to be less obnoxious.
What are the real CP abusers out there? Cheap battalions that yield +5CP seem to be the only problem. At least with a Brigade people are investing in the army completely. You change Battalions to be more of a complete army choice and lower the CPs it generates, we now get some semblance of normalcy.
I have yet to see a valid argument that negates this proposal. Yes, some armies that can now run battalions may have a harder time doing so. OK, in that case, they should look at other detachment options. If there are still armies that struggle to field a force with this change then a small change to keywords etc can adjust it on a case by case basis.
As it stands, the number one goal (IMHO) to initiate some form of balance is to make the cheap CP batteries less appealing.
I think your fix just shifts the problem, while also hurting some forces that have a very hard time getting to the basic battalion. I feel what your proposing was really attempted and failed in the nerfing of the Patrol detachment.
Seriously if they nerfed battalions like that, I'd most likely start looking at running a stronghold attacker detachment when i could, or the defender. And then after another year cycle and it gets nerfed, I'll be on to something else.
As long as the requirement is going to be something about where if you bring X things and get X reward the race is always going to be towards what combo gives me the reward with the least cost. Change it so your reward is starting with the best behavior you want, and then penalize when they move from the desired position.
Oh for sure. I just love that when GW comes out with a really super simple solution like, oh, I don't know, slapping battalions up to 5CP and Brigades up to 12CP for no reason, and going "And now space marine armies will have 8-9CP to play with, PROBLEM SOLVED!" people instantaneously recognize that this is a hilariously over-simplistic solution and they're leaving out that they just handed even MORE CP to the ultra-cheap horde factions and made tack-on detachments even more mandatory.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Those changes occurred before the Castellan was around. It WAS a good change, because IG can't really use all that CP and elite armies COULD. Now it has become frankenstein with knights showing off their toys. This doesn't mean GW made a bad decision in the moment.
Reemule wrote: In a game where a viable army could be 4 models (Knights) or 200 models (Orks) having CP attached to Detachments is doomed to failure.
Moving the CP to something that is going to be more consistent, like the point value of the game, is going to be a much better long term fix.
Overall I agree that as it stands, moving CPs to points level is probably better than detachment.
However, it is worth considering that some Factions have really good strats due to being cheaper than others or their units being better. Eldar, for example have some great and cheap strats, but at the same time, not too easy of a way to get a cheap Battalion. So Eldar tend to have less CPs because of this, but get more out of their Strats.
If we give everyone the same number of CPs, Eldar get a significant boost over other factions.
Ideally, a combined approach would be better. Make the bulk of CPs come from being Battle Forged (say 3CPs per 500pts) and most detachments giving no CP, save maybe Battalions (only 3) and Brigaded (preferably less than 9).
Now most armies get roughly the saem number, but armies that can field cheaper Troops don't suffer as much.
Now you fix Guardsman to be 5ppm and Marines/CSM to 11ppm and the balance is much closer to better.
-
Once you have a stable CP system, you can revamp Stratagems to make sense.
Honest thought experiment: what other things could you attach cp to other than unit size, that would effectively be more balanced than the current situation? Damage done? Enemy units killed? Friendly forces alive at the end of turn?
That would be interesting. You could receive multiple bonuses if you kill X units, and only Y units were lost in the turn.
I'm getting flashbacks to my last game of Maelstrom of War.
The quickest and laziest change I can think of is "If you have less than 500pts in a Battalion it doesn't grant any CP", with a more nuanced approach (X00pts=XCP, up to 5) if people feel like the bookkeeping.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Wasn't a dig at Guard, but rather the idea that going from a 180pt -> 249pt CP battery was in any way significant
Its absolutely significant if those additional requirements only yield 3CP instead of 5CP.
To answer your earlier question, lets take the old boogeyman from last year..Castellan, guard batt, BA Batt. Currently that yields 3CP base +3CP Castellan and +5CP ea for the battalions for a total of 16 CP.
In my suggestion it would yield 5CP base + 0 for Castellan, +6CP for both battalions for total of 11CP plus the two battalions would need more investment.
So what am I missing?
Honestly I think faction specific command points would go to fixing this, not perfect but certainly better than we have now.
Something like only allowing guard to use the command points it produces, floating command points from certain characters like guilliman, Azrael, creed etc. Can be used for any part of the army, so creed would let marines use his command points (not even sure he generates them but just spit balling).
Another alternative is to bring back strategy ratings, so marines could have a strat rating of 10 and that is how many points they get for being a hard hitting strike force, guard would have 8 but get more for having certain characters or whatever.
There are plenty of ways of solving this problem, it's just making sure they do actually fix it.
bullyboy wrote: Sorry, but scions are elite units of the Imperium, they're better than basic troops. The fact that they occupy a troops slot doesn't change that fact. They should have been an Elites choice and maybe that change needs to happen.
It doesn't change the way I feel the CP detachment bonus should change. Perhaps there are some armies that need an addendum that could be addressed in a WD (Index Scion Strikeforce for example) that would give them an opportunity to field lone armies without too much of a hamstring. As it stands, I don't see why you should be rewarded with +10CP by bringing 2 battalions when it's just a few Troops choices. Not when other armies that are just as thematic but can barely bring +2CP.
Change Scions to Elite choices, I don't care, the system needs change. Or you could just take Astra Militarum options in your list to make up for those slots. Not much different to me hearing how I should just take scouts in my Ravenwing force.
I still stand by a battalion requiring one each of the elites, fast and heavy options.
Sorry, but the SOB are just the elite guardians of the Imperium. They should just be an elite option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it’s troops, elites, transports, and flyers. Plus
Um, ACTUALLY, space marines are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Well HOLD ON, Primaris marines are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Uh, EXCUSE ME, but Grey Knights are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Oh, I'M SORRY, but Custodes are the elite guardians of the imperium, so they should be elites.
Checkmate, Atheists.
Proof that the rules-writers hate CWE. Their elite Guardians have the same rules as their non-elite Guardians - just some stratagem you can use. Otherwise, they're as durable as Guardsmen but twice the points.
When will GW's anti-Eldar bias end?
I disagree, i don`t like that they made storm guardians cheaper than boyz. Storm guardians really needed to be reworked, now players take them just to fill the slots and have extra bodies. Even 6 pts is to much compared with conscripts, guard, kabalites, fire warriors, skitari rangers, tsangors, cultist, horrors.....
The other think i don`t like is that for ancient dyeing race the eldar are kind of stupid, they value their lives more than anything yet they arm their militia with short range guns so the enemy can easily charge them and destroy them and that is in the iniverse where you can find lastguns and boltguns everywhere.
GW should either increase the range of their shuriken catapults or give them rule, for example they should be able to move after shooting or celestial shield should give them invul even in mele.
-First, make the spearhead, Vanguard, and outrider detachments worth 3 CP
-Then, get rid of the battle forge bonus and replace it with a 3 CP faction bonus( basically the same requirements that detachments have, so no imperium, chaos, etc)
These changes are not meant to be drastic but to tip the scale a little against soup. They would accomplish several things.
-If you want to soup, you have to give up that 3 CP bonus.
-The bonus can work as an additional balance variable, meaning that if you want to to further buff mono factions, increasing the bonus would be an option.
-The 3 CP detachments would enable elite armies to get more CP without a heavy troop tax or resorting to a battery. They could potentially get 12 command points with no troops
These changes won't cripple anything but would help out several CP starved armies. This fix is also simple enough to feasibly fit into an faq.
Regarding scions as troops.
If I recall correctly, they where troops when using the Tempestus codex, and elites in a guard army.
Just do the same here. It you have a militarum tempestus detachment, they count as troops, otherwise they are elites. You can also use this opportunity to change veterans into troops as well.
A min-sized Guard battalion under your system costs 249pts. Said battalion is the loyal 32 plus a Commissar, a Heavy Weapons Squad and a Sentinel. Not bad for 249pts.
In the Necron codex, a troop costs 12pts. Minimum. The cheapest Necron Battalion you can make under your system (Two barebones Lords, 3*5 Immortals, 5 Flayed Ones, 3*Scarabs, 1 Heavy Destroyer) is 535 points, and just about every aspect of that Battalion does not function, independent of external comparison.
All your system does is change: "Minimum Troops+HQ costs > 180pts? Take a Guard Battalion instead!" into the far worse "Minimum Troops+HQ's+Elite+Fast Attacks+Heavy Support > 249pts? Take a Guard Battalion instead!" which is way more common.
-First, make the spearhead, Vanguard, and outrider detachments worth 3 CP
-Then, get rid of the battle forge bonus and replace it with a 3 CP faction bonus( basically the same requirements that detachments have, so no imperium, chaos, etc)
These changes are not meant to be drastic but to tip the scale a little against soup. They would accomplish several things.
-If you want to soup, you have to give up that 3 CP bonus.
-The bonus can work as an additional balance variable, meaning that if you want to to further buff mono factions, increasing the bonus would be an option.
-The 3 CP detachments would enable elite armies to get more CP without a heavy troop tax or resorting to a battery. They could potentially get 12 command points with no troops
These changes won't cripple anything but would help out several CP starved armies. This fix is also simple enough to feasibly fit into an faq.
Regarding scions as troops.
If I recall correctly, they where troops when using the Tempestus codex, and elites in a guard army.
Just do the same here. It you have a militarum tempestus detachment, they count as troops, otherwise they are elites. You can also use this opportunity to change veterans into troops as well.
From a lore perspective, I always wondered what Veteran Squads thought of Scion Command Squads. It's basically the same unit, just with different weapons options, and can't understand the same orders given by different people. But honestly, Vets looking at Scions, and thinking, what makes them so special??? Emperor's finest my butt.
That might be how you feel, but they were always treated as a stand-alone army due to having a separate codex prior to being rolled into AM at the dawn of 8th.
How long have you been playing? To me, Scions (or as we called them back in the day, Stormtroopers) having their own codex was a fairly recent thing, and played out as an excuse to soak players for a few more bucks by getting them to buy a codex that, in earlier editions, would have been army rules released in White Dwarf for funsies.
-First, make the spearhead, Vanguard, and outrider detachments worth 3 CP
-Then, get rid of the battle forge bonus and replace it with a 3 CP faction bonus( basically the same requirements that detachments have, so no imperium, chaos, etc)
These changes are not meant to be drastic but to tip the scale a little against soup. They would accomplish several things.
-If you want to soup, you have to give up that 3 CP bonus.
-The bonus can work as an additional balance variable, meaning that if you want to to further buff mono factions, increasing the bonus would be an option.
-The 3 CP detachments would enable elite armies to get more CP without a heavy troop tax or resorting to a battery. They could potentially get 12 command points with no troops
These changes won't cripple anything but would help out several CP starved armies. This fix is also simple enough to feasibly fit into an faq.
Regarding scions as troops.
If I recall correctly, they where troops when using the Tempestus codex, and elites in a guard army.
Just do the same here. It you have a militarum tempestus detachment, they count as troops, otherwise they are elites. You can also use this opportunity to change veterans into troops as well.
That was the old codex. Currently Tempestus Scion Squads are troops choices. Tempestus Scion Command Squads are elites, whereas they used to be HQ when the Tempestor Prime was with them, now he is alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In addition to what was being said earlier, I pay 9ppm for Scions. They are cheap command points that accomplish anything in barebones double Lord Commissar + minimum sized squad times three. That’s 5 CP, but also useless.
The army I’m building consists of two battalions with about one thousand points in each. I’m definitely committing enough points to the detachments, taking support from Lord Commissar, Officer of the Fleet, two Astropaths, three Valkyries and four Taurox Primes. Should this perfectly working army be messed up for a bad solution?
A min-sized Guard battalion under your system costs 249pts. Said battalion is the loyal 32 plus a Commissar, a Heavy Weapons Squad and a Sentinel. Not bad for 249pts.
In the Necron codex, a troop costs 12pts. Minimum. The cheapest Necron Battalion you can make under your system (Two barebones Lords, 3*5 Immortals, 5 Flayed Ones, 3*Scarabs, 1 Heavy Destroyer) is 535 points, and just about every aspect of that Battalion does not function, independent of external comparison.
All your system does is change: "Minimum Troops+HQ costs > 180pts? Take a Guard Battalion instead!" into the far worse "Minimum Troops+HQ's+Elite+Fast Attacks+Heavy Support > 249pts? Take a Guard Battalion instead!" which is way more common.
How does this affect Necrons? We're trying to cut back on CP bloat, don't think this even applies to Necrons
How do you stop X cheap thing being taken for CP's?
Not with complicated rules but simply by inverting the entire system.
Everyone starts with X CP's regardless of army. (could scale with points)
Every detachment gives a reduction in CP.
Big detachments (Brigade, Battalion) give a smaller reduction.
Small detachments (Vanguard, spearhead ect) give a bigger reduction.
Viola, soup for CP is dead.
Soup itself will still exist but carry an actual penalty compared to Mono lists (since you need more detachments and so start with less CP)
Does it fix everything? ofcourse not. No single change will but it will greatly improve some of the more glaring problems without getting all wierd or complicated.
bullyboy wrote: How does this affect Necrons? We're trying to cut back on CP bloat, don't think this even applies to Necrons
My point is that for many armies under your system, by the time they've filled their first Battalion with useful units they literally can't take a second Battallion or a third detachment, capping their CP to 5+3+1 (9), whereas Imperial Soup can still probably go 5+3+3+1 (12). Your system doesn't cut CP bloat, it cuts CP in general and does so more harshly for elite armies.
Oh for sure. I just love that when GW comes out with a really super simple solution like, oh, I don't know, slapping battalions up to 5CP and Brigades up to 12CP for no reason, and going "And now space marine armies will have 8-9CP to play with, PROBLEM SOLVED!" people instantaneously recognize that this is a hilariously over-simplistic solution and they're leaving out that they just handed even MORE CP to the ultra-cheap horde factions and made tack-on detachments even more mandatory.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Those changes occurred before the Castellan was around. It WAS a good change, because IG can't really use all that CP and elite armies COULD. Now it has become frankenstein with knights showing off their toys. This doesn't mean GW made a bad decision in the moment.
See guard plus Custards, see guard plus captain smash it wasn't just knights guard CP was always the problem. Nerfing smash captains just because guard could run 3 didn't actually help marines did it?
bullyboy wrote: How does this affect Necrons? We're trying to cut back on CP bloat, don't think this even applies to Necrons
My point is that for many armies under your system, by the time they've filled their first Battalion with useful units they literally can't take a second Battallion or a third detachment, capping their CP to 5+3+1 (9), whereas Imperial Soup can still probably go 5+3+3+1 (12). Your system doesn't cut CP bloat, it cuts CP in general and does so more harshly for elite armies.
Id take 12 - 9 CP difference any day over what we have currently. Most of my armies dont even reach double digit CPs and many of them would get better with a 5CP base.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Wasn't a dig at Guard, but rather the idea that going from a 180pt -> 249pt CP battery was in any way significant
Its absolutely significant if those additional requirements only yield 3CP instead of 5CP.
To answer your earlier question, lets take the old boogeyman from last year..Castellan, guard batt, BA Batt. Currently that yields 3CP base +3CP Castellan and +5CP ea for the battalions for a total of 16 CP.
In my suggestion it would yield 5CP base + 0 for Castellan, +6CP for both battalions for total of 11CP plus the two battalions would need more investment.
So what am I missing?
Your so wrong about that it was 3 battleforged 0 knight CP, +5and +5 for battalions plus the 6 regened by guard.
That might be how you feel, but they were always treated as a stand-alone army due to having a separate codex prior to being rolled into AM at the dawn of 8th.
How long have you been playing? To me, Scions (or as we called them back in the day, Stormtroopers) having their own codex was a fairly recent thing, and played out as an excuse to soak players for a few more bucks by getting them to buy a codex that, in earlier editions, would have been army rules released in White Dwarf for funsies.
No, it wouldn't have been. At most it would have been army rules in a Chapter Approved only available for a year with a constantly argued about "legality".
And at that time, Stormies were an Elites choice.
Funny how you mention the "soak players for a few more bucks" bit...
Scions were Troops in Militarum Tempestus. They were also single squads of 5 models.
By comparison, they were Elites in Guard...and were available in Platoons of 1-3 Squads and a Command Squad.
The book went out of print for extensive amounts of time as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: How do you stop X cheap thing being taken for CP's?
By not letting Battalions or Brigades be taken as Allied Detachments.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Wasn't a dig at Guard, but rather the idea that going from a 180pt -> 249pt CP battery was in any way significant
Its absolutely significant if those additional requirements only yield 3CP instead of 5CP.
To answer your earlier question, lets take the old boogeyman from last year..Castellan, guard batt, BA Batt. Currently that yields 3CP base +3CP Castellan and +5CP ea for the battalions for a total of 16 CP.
In my suggestion it would yield 5CP base + 0 for Castellan, +6CP for both battalions for total of 11CP plus the two battalions would need more investment.
So what am I missing?
Your so wrong about that it was 3 battleforged 0 knight CP, +5and +5 for battalions plus the 6 regened by guard.
How on earth does that change the current situation with regen nerf and knight bonus increased?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Everyone loves to pick on guard, but honestly there is more than just guard slipping by the troops tax.
Would it break the game to make Company Commanders 85pts? To elevate him closer to the other HQ's? I mean, even at 95pts he's still worth it.
If you want to "elevate him closer to the other HQs", you damn well better be putting a lot of options on him to make that price reasonable.
30 pts is 5+/5++ with 2 Orders and T3.
To put it in comparison, your "85pts"?
The new Lieutenant in Phobos Armour is 80pts base, 86pts kitted out as he is supposed to be.
WS 2+/BS3+ S/T/A4 with 5Ws and LD8 plus a 3+ save and Deep Strike and a reroll wound rolls of 1 for friendly Chapter units within 6". His Bolt Carbine(Master-Crafted Occulus" variant) grants him S4 RF1 AP0 2 damage @ 24" with the ability to make units not get the benefit of cover against them.
By comparison, that Company Commander has a Laspistol and Grenades.
Anytime someone makes the suggestion of "buff the price on Company Commanders", it makes me wonder if they ever have actually looked at the profiles on them or what they have available. Because that unit? It's not 85pts. It's not 95pts. It's not even 40pts.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Everyone loves to pick on guard, but honestly there is more than just guard slipping by the troops tax.
Would it break the game to make Company Commanders 85pts? To elevate him closer to the other HQ's? I mean, even at 95pts he's still worth it.
If you want to "elevate him closer to the other HQs", you damn well better be putting a lot of options on him to make that price reasonable.
30 pts is 5+/5++ with 2 Orders and T3.
To put it in comparison, your "85pts"?
The new Lieutenant in Phobos Armour is 80pts base, 86pts kitted out as he is supposed to be.
WS 2+/BS3+ S/T/A4 with 5Ws and LD8 plus a 3+ save and Deep Strike and a reroll wound rolls of 1 for friendly Chapter units within 6". His Bolt Carbine(Master-Crafted Occulus" variant) grants him S4 RF1 AP0 2 damage @ 24" with the ability to make units not get the benefit of cover against them.
By comparison, that Company Commander has a Laspistol and Grenades.
Anytime someone makes the suggestion of "buff the price on Company Commanders", it makes me wonder if they ever have actually looked at the profiles on them or what they have available. Because that unit? It's not 85pts. It's not 95pts. It's not even 40pts.
Then you have to think about how the Tempestor Prime works. WS and BS 3. Has Aerial Drop. 4+ save, no invulnerable save. Give one order, or pays an extra 5 points to not have a pistol and take a rod which gives him a second order. Has frag and Krak grenades, while also having basic power weapon access, but you’d never use him for that.
-First, make the spearhead, Vanguard, and outrider detachments worth 3 CP
-Then, get rid of the battle forge bonus and replace it with a 3 CP faction bonus( basically the same requirements that detachments have, so no imperium, chaos, etc)
These changes are not meant to be drastic but to tip the scale a little against soup. They would accomplish several things.
-If you want to soup, you have to give up that 3 CP bonus.
-The bonus can work as an additional balance variable, meaning that if you want to to further buff mono factions, increasing the bonus would be an option.
-The 3 CP detachments would enable elite armies to get more CP without a heavy troop tax or resorting to a battery. They could potentially get 12 command points with no troops
These changes won't cripple anything but would help out several CP starved armies. This fix is also simple enough to feasibly fit into an faq.
Regarding scions as troops.
If I recall correctly, they where troops when using the Tempestus codex, and elites in a guard army.
Just do the same here. It you have a militarum tempestus detachment, they count as troops, otherwise they are elites. You can also use this opportunity to change veterans into troops as well.
From a lore perspective, I always wondered what Veteran Squads thought of Scion Command Squads. It's basically the same unit, just with different weapons options, and can't understand the same orders given by different people. But honestly, Vets looking at Scions, and thinking, what makes them so special??? Emperor's finest my butt.
Not to many now know if the current stormtrooper lore.
Scions are the best of orphaned noble blood/children of officers. Any memories they have are wiped later in the process. They get three years of training in the Schola Progenium. So First, Scions are smarter.
Then they are sent off to the Schola Tempestus to refine their stormtrooper skills.
Scions have far superior equipment, such as health monitors, carapace armor, magboots, airtight armor, better weapons and weapon access (and the training to use it), excellent medical supplies, nutrient feeders through the helmet for extended operations up to weeks at a time, and personal wrist mounted data slated for receiving orders.
With airtight armor and magboots, Scions are adept at surviving the cold realm of space for short times. With minimal shielding (their armor and a space thermal blanket) Scions can survive drops from planetary strataspheres.
Scion regiments also have a great deal autonomy, meaning they do not have to rely on the Adeptus Administratum to give them objectives all the time, allowing regiments to take their own initiative.
Scions are also usually much healthier, and have incredible stamina.
There are many reason for even the most experienced of guardsmen to be jealous of these stormtroopers.
Kanluwen wrote: If you want to "elevate him closer to the other HQs", you damn well better be putting a lot of options on him to make that price reasonable.
30 pts is 5+/5++ with 2 Orders and T3.
To put it in comparison, your "85pts"?
The new Lieutenant in Phobos Armour is 80pts base, 86pts kitted out as he is supposed to be.
WS 2+/BS3+ S/T/A4 with 5Ws and LD8 plus a 3+ save and Deep Strike and a reroll wound rolls of 1 for friendly Chapter units within 6". His Bolt Carbine(Master-Crafted Occulus" variant) grants him S4 RF1 AP0 2 damage @ 24" with the ability to make units not get the benefit of cover against them.
By comparison, that Company Commander has a Laspistol and Grenades.
Anytime someone makes the suggestion of "buff the price on Company Commanders", it makes me wonder if they ever have actually looked at the profiles on them or what they have available. Because that unit? It's not 85pts. It's not 95pts. It's not even 40pts.
The problem is you say this...and yet all of it is bloat. A primaris lieutenant does almost nothing. He's not a shooting threat since all he has is a 2 damage boltgun. He's not an assault threat with a few S4 dagger attacks because even if they are accurate he's taking out a couple of chaff a turn or failing to kill a marine.
He's a buff bot. He hangs out with your other units, and he buffs them. Assuming you castle up, its worth buffing units to do 7/6 times more damage (and smooth out bad luck, which is harder to quantify) - and he fills up an HQ slot which you have to do.
A company commander has no bloat. Okay he has a laspistol. You can buy him a bolter if you want? You don't though because... 1 bolter on a company commander isn't worth any more than that 2 damage magic bolt carbine above. In assault he only has 4 (chainsword) WS3+, S3 hits (or maybe S4, because Catachan master race)? Okay he's crap too - but so? Given he's almost a third of points he's actually a lot more efficient. The thing is though, he's a buff bot. He brings exceptional buffs to the table - and he's an incredibly cheap way of filling in those mandatory HQ slots. You also get a 5++ because... reasons.
The reality is that the leuitenant is probably worth about 10~ points more than the Company Commander for his statline. Unless you think rerolling 1s is worth 45 ish more points than having 2 orders, its fairly obvious who has the better deal.
Kanluwen wrote: By not letting Battalions or Brigades be taken as Allied Detachments.
"You may only take one of each of the following detachments: Battalion, Brigade". It's a bit harsher, but also a lot cleaner.
Truthfully, if I had my way?
Each book would have access to different Detachments from the selection. The codex would tell you exactly what options you got both from your book and allied books.
So, for example, Guard: -Battalion -Brigade -Spearhead -Flyer Wing -Supreme Command -Auxiliary Superheavy or Superheavy
Blahblahblah "Guard can also take Vanguard, Outrider, Patrol or Auxiliary Detachments from any non-Guard Imperial keyworded faction."
We have Auxiliary Detachments in the game. Nobody takes them, because why would they? They deduct a CP anytime you use them.
Kanluwen wrote: If you want to "elevate him closer to the other HQs", you damn well better be putting a lot of options on him to make that price reasonable.
30 pts is 5+/5++ with 2 Orders and T3.
To put it in comparison, your "85pts"?
The new Lieutenant in Phobos Armour is 80pts base, 86pts kitted out as he is supposed to be.
WS 2+/BS3+ S/T/A4 with 5Ws and LD8 plus a 3+ save and Deep Strike and a reroll wound rolls of 1 for friendly Chapter units within 6". His Bolt Carbine(Master-Crafted Occulus" variant) grants him S4 RF1 AP0 2 damage @ 24" with the ability to make units not get the benefit of cover against them.
By comparison, that Company Commander has a Laspistol and Grenades.
Anytime someone makes the suggestion of "buff the price on Company Commanders", it makes me wonder if they ever have actually looked at the profiles on them or what they have available. Because that unit? It's not 85pts. It's not 95pts. It's not even 40pts.
The problem is you say this...and yet all of it is bloat. A primaris lieutenant does almost nothing. He's not a shooting threat since all he has is a 2 damage boltgun. He's not an assault threat with a few S4 dagger attacks because even if they are accurate he's taking out a couple of chaff a turn or failing to kill a marine.
He's a buff bot. He hangs out with your other units, and he buffs them. Assuming you castle up, its worth buffing units to do 7/6 times more damage (and smooth out bad luck, which is harder to quantify) - and he fills up an HQ slot which you have to do.
A company commander has no bloat. Okay he has a laspistol. You can buy him a bolter if you want? You don't though because... 1 bolter on a company commander isn't worth any more than that 2 damage magic bolt carbine above. In assault he only has 4 (chainsword) WS3+, S3 hits (or maybe S4, because Catachan master race)? Okay he's crap too - but so? Given he's almost a third of points he's actually a lot more efficient. The thing is though, he's a buff bot. He brings exceptional buffs to the table - and he's an incredibly cheap way of filling in those mandatory HQ slots. You also get a 5++ because... reasons.
The reality is that the leuitenant is probably worth about 10~ points more than the Company Commander for his statline. Unless you think rerolling 1s is worth 45 ish more points than having 2 orders, its fairly obvious who has the better deal.
Orders affect only affect two infantry units per CC, the LT can buff three leviathans with dual storm cannons + anything else you can stuff within 6". The LT's potential max buff output is way higher than the CC's.
If anything is needed to be addressed on the CC, it's that 'move move move' needs to cut one or both advance rolls so you can't get 18-24" movement on a squad of guardsmen.
I don't understand this hatred for soup. Yes the rules need some work but for non-competitive games it's no big deal. I'd like to see some of the terrain issues addressed. I understand it's difficult & can be some what subjectively but better definitions & rules for certain types of terrain would be good.
I would much rather see an anti-soup solution that doesn't effect monodex armies. Something along the lines of "strategems from another faction besides your warlord's add +1cp/1cp per faction other than your warlord." It does literally nothing to monodex, but hits literally every flavor of soup. Want Castellans, Loyal 32, and Banana bikes? You are paying +2 for either banana strats or knights strats and you've got to make a choice. You could even undo most of the strategem cost increase nerfs since they would effectively be the same/more for soup.
The problem is you say this...and yet all of it is bloat. A primaris lieutenant does almost nothing. He's not a shooting threat since all he has is a 2 damage boltgun. He's not an assault threat with a few S4 dagger attacks because even if they are accurate he's taking out a couple of chaff a turn or failing to kill a marine.
He has a 2 damage ignore cover save modifiers boltgun.
And sure, he might not be the most terrifying thing in CC...but he's got a CCW as standard and has a rule(Knife Fighter: Unmodified rolls of 6 generate two hits instead of 1) that modifies his 4 attacks into potentially a bit more.
He's a buff bot. He hangs out with your other units, and he buffs them. Assuming you castle up, its worth buffing units to do 7/6 times more damage (and smooth out bad luck, which is harder to quantify) - and he fills up an HQ slot which you have to do.
You're not "castling up" with a Deep Striking Lieutenant. Or if you are, I don't know why you didn't just bring a standard Primaris Lt.
A company commander has no bloat. Okay he has a laspistol. You can buy him a bolter if you want? You don't though because... 1 bolter on a company commander isn't worth any more than that 2 damage magic bolt carbine above.
The difference is that "1 bolter" on the Company Commander is almost as many points as the master-crafted Bolt Carbine that ignores Cover Save modifiers is for the deep striking Lt.
In assault he only has 4 (chainsword) WS3+, S3 hits (or maybe S4, because Catachan master race)? Okay he's crap too - but so? Given he's almost a third of points he's actually a lot more efficient. The thing is though, he's a buff bot. He brings exceptional buffs to the table - and he's an incredibly cheap way of filling in those mandatory HQ slots. You also get a 5++ because... reasons.
You get a "5++" because of the Refractor Field that is baked into his points cost.
He "brings exceptional buffs to the table" for two units at any given time that cannot receive any other buff unless you roll 4+'s with specific Relic/Warlord traits. PS: You have to opt for the Chainsword, it's not part of the standard profile. It's literally just the Laspistol and Frag Grenades to start with on a 4W model.
The reality is that the leuitenant is probably worth about 10~ points more than the Company Commander for his statline. Unless you think rerolling 1s is worth 45 ish more points than having 2 orders, its fairly obvious who has the better deal.
Rerolling 1s, deep striking, having a weapon that ignores cover saves, and exploding 6s turning 1 attack into 2.
Also a 3+ save, T4, S4, and a higher Wound count than the Company Commander.
So sure. Maybe Lieutenants could use a price drop. That doesn't mean that Company Commanders should be sitting at Marine HQ prices. Not unless we're getting Vox-Casters as standard wargear for units and Officers, Officers getting access to longer ranged/specialist weapons, etc etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dkoz wrote: I don't understand this hatred for soup. Yes the rules need some work but for non-competitive games it's no big deal. I'd like to see some of the terrain issues addressed. I understand it's difficult & can be some what subjectively but better definitions & rules for certain types of terrain would be good.
The problem, simply put, is that in anything other than a non-competitive environment where you don't have people trying to replicate tournament filth?
You usually have players self-policing or working off of "themes". When you get outside of that though it becomes blatantly obvious that soup is a large issue. There's a lot of things that can be done to simply tone it down without removing the spirit of the soup lists by making it so that you can't min/max as heavily.
dkoz wrote: I don't understand this hatred for soup. Yes the rules need some work but for non-competitive games it's no big deal. I'd like to see some of the terrain issues addressed. I understand it's difficult & can be some what subjectively but better definitions & rules for certain types of terrain would be good.
I pretty much feel the same about soup. That's why my suggestions are much more delicate than most of the suggestions in this thread. I'm also in support of many of the Cities of Death terrain rules being added into the core game.
See guard plus Custards, see guard plus captain smash it wasn't just knights guard CP was always the problem. Nerfing smash captains just because guard could run 3 didn't actually help marines did it?
Smash never made it super far on their own.
Custodes were never a problem like Castellans - they were a cheap (points to $$) flavor of the month that people figured out how to deal with.
Your proposed system also allows these styles to be easily funded.
dkoz wrote: I don't understand this hatred for soup. Yes the rules need some work but for non-competitive games it's no big deal. I'd like to see some of the terrain issues addressed. I understand it's difficult & can be some what subjectively but better definitions & rules for certain types of terrain would be good.
I pretty much feel the same about soup. That's why my suggestions are much more delicate than most of the suggestions in this thread. I'm also in support of many of the Cities of Death terrain rules being added into the core game.
DKoz, you answered your own question in the second sentence. In casual play its fine, in competitive play its not. Feth, in casual/narrative/open play (Whatever you want to call it today), you can just say "Hey I know the stompa is like 30pts over priced so just take it as a 650pt unit instead of the almost 1,000pts it currently is. Or you can say "Yeah I realize my cool tank commanders are OP as hell, I love the model though so i'll only bring 1".
It boils down to this. In any kind of game play that isn't competitive the rules are rough guidelines that are followed at the users discretion. In competitive play, this is where rules are forged and decided upon as players try to find the most bang for their buck and find ways to maximize their chances of success. Simply put, Competitive game play needs rules, narrative/open whatever does not.
Well, if this thread has shown anything, it's that no matter what GW does or does not do to affect Cp and soup, people here won't be happy. Nobody can agree on anything really.
bullyboy wrote: Well, if this thread has shown anything, it's that no matter what GW does or does not do to affect Cp and soup, people here won't be happy. Nobody can agree on anything really.
That's hardly surprising.
At this point I don't care about what's in the FAQ and what is not, I just wanna see them so that the wait is over.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Wasn't a dig at Guard, but rather the idea that going from a 180pt -> 249pt CP battery was in any way significant
Its absolutely significant if those additional requirements only yield 3CP instead of 5CP.
To answer your earlier question, lets take the old boogeyman from last year..Castellan, guard batt, BA Batt. Currently that yields 3CP base +3CP Castellan and +5CP ea for the battalions for a total of 16 CP.
In my suggestion it would yield 5CP base + 0 for Castellan, +6CP for both battalions for total of 11CP plus the two battalions would need more investment.
So what am I missing?
Your so wrong about that it was 3 battleforged 0 knight CP, +5and +5 for battalions plus the 6 regened by guard.
How on earth does that change the current situation with regen nerf and knight bonus increased?
The knights CP bonus doesn't work in Super heavy aux detachment nerver has, so your in 676 points of knights for 3 CP or 1056 for 6 CP you really think that is where the problem lies, not the 5CP for 180 or 12 for under 1k?
See guard plus Custards, see guard plus captain smash it wasn't just knights guard CP was always the problem. Nerfing smash captains just because guard could run 3 didn't actually help marines did it?
Smash never made it super far on their own.
Custodes were never a problem like Castellans - they were a cheap (points to $$) flavor of the month that people figured out how to deal with.
Your proposed system also allows these styles to be easily funded.
Not sure how you get that idea, when it was a 2 stage plan of change the system then recosting all strategums for said new system.
Redesigning the system to work with current CP costs massively hamstrings the options available, and would undoubtedly have a codex or 2 that's going to be OP or trashed.
One without the other won't actually balance the problem just shift it.
The problem is you say this...and yet all of it is bloat. A primaris lieutenant does almost nothing. He's not a shooting threat since all he has is a 2 damage boltgun. He's not an assault threat with a few S4 dagger attacks because even if they are accurate he's taking out a couple of chaff a turn or failing to kill a marine.
He has a 2 damage ignore cover save modifiers boltgun.
And sure, he might not be the most terrifying thing in CC...but he's got a CCW as standard and has a rule(Knife Fighter: Unmodified rolls of 6 generate two hits instead of 1) that modifies his 4 attacks into potentially a bit more.
He's a buff bot. He hangs out with your other units, and he buffs them. Assuming you castle up, its worth buffing units to do 7/6 times more damage (and smooth out bad luck, which is harder to quantify) - and he fills up an HQ slot which you have to do.
You're not "castling up" with a Deep Striking Lieutenant. Or if you are, I don't know why you didn't just bring a standard Primaris Lt.
A company commander has no bloat. Okay he has a laspistol. You can buy him a bolter if you want? You don't though because... 1 bolter on a company commander isn't worth any more than that 2 damage magic bolt carbine above.
The difference is that "1 bolter" on the Company Commander is almost as many points as the master-crafted Bolt Carbine that ignores Cover Save modifiers is for the deep striking Lt.
In assault he only has 4 (chainsword) WS3+, S3 hits (or maybe S4, because Catachan master race)? Okay he's crap too - but so? Given he's almost a third of points he's actually a lot more efficient. The thing is though, he's a buff bot. He brings exceptional buffs to the table - and he's an incredibly cheap way of filling in those mandatory HQ slots. You also get a 5++ because... reasons.
You get a "5++" because of the Refractor Field that is baked into his points cost.
He "brings exceptional buffs to the table" for two units at any given time that cannot receive any other buff unless you roll 4+'s with specific Relic/Warlord traits. PS: You have to opt for the Chainsword, it's not part of the standard profile. It's literally just the Laspistol and Frag Grenades to start with on a 4W model.
The reality is that the leuitenant is probably worth about 10~ points more than the Company Commander for his statline. Unless you think rerolling 1s is worth 45 ish more points than having 2 orders, its fairly obvious who has the better deal.
Rerolling 1s, deep striking, having a weapon that ignores cover saves, and exploding 6s turning 1 attack into 2.
Also a 3+ save, T4, S4, and a higher Wound count than the Company Commander.
So sure. Maybe Lieutenants could use a price drop. That doesn't mean that Company Commanders should be sitting at Marine HQ prices. Not unless we're getting Vox-Casters as standard wargear for units and Officers, Officers getting access to longer ranged/specialist weapons, etc etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dkoz wrote: I don't understand this hatred for soup. Yes the rules need some work but for non-competitive games it's no big deal. I'd like to see some of the terrain issues addressed. I understand it's difficult & can be some what subjectively but better definitions & rules for certain types of terrain would be good.
The problem, simply put, is that in anything other than a non-competitive environment where you don't have people trying to replicate tournament filth?
You usually have players self-policing or working off of "themes". When you get outside of that though it becomes blatantly obvious that soup is a large issue. There's a lot of things that can be done to simply tone it down without removing the spirit of the soup lists by making it so that you can't min/max as heavily.
Just so I understand, you think FRFSRF and MMM is somehow LESS efficient than Re-roll 1s? Because I'd LOVE for one squad of my weapons to suddenly become RF2 for 35pts, over their ability to re-roll ones. If you think FRSSRF and MMM are validated at 35pts, youre insane.
Not Online!!! wrote: Yeah except that doubling the firerate of lasguns is very much not so bonkers.
It is when both the lasgun platform and the buffing model are undercosted. If lasguns were s2, id agree. But s3 is very dangerous in 8th.
Oh pls, autoguns are the same and the only think making autoguns dangerous was VotLW on top off doubling the rate, IG doesn't have that so no lasguns ain't half as Deadly as many claim.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.
That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.
I think both are, especially after the cultist changes. Look at grots and cultists. There is no conceivable justification for guardsmen other than GW doesn't do external balance.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.
That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.
I think both are, especially after the cultist changes. Look at grots and cultists. There is no conceivable justification for guardsmen other than GW doesn't do external balance.
Well very cynically there could be one other reason, make a pay to win army, as the 1k battalion of guard from the soup list isn't exactly cheap £$€ whike being available for model's per point in game.
Just so I understand, you think FRFSRF and MMM is somehow LESS efficient than Re-roll 1s? Because I'd LOVE for one squad of my weapons to suddenly become RF2 for 35pts, over their ability to re-roll ones. If you think FRSSRF and MMM are validated at 35pts, youre insane.
And if you think an Officer is validated at anything over 30 points, you don't actually understand what they are.
Company Commanders are T3 with 4W, a 5+/5++ and a 6" aura for two units at a time. Park a Command Squad with a Vox-Caster(or any squad with a vox-caster) within 3" of the Officer and that range is extended to 18"...if the unit being Ordered also has a Vox-Caster.
And really, "reroll 1s" for units that are BS3+ natively is not really something to sneeze at now is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.
That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.
And I think, again, that you need to step back and realize that while the buffs provided are certainly significant--killing the Guard units is just as significant as killing the Officers themselves. They become wasted points if they don't have anyone to Order.
And I also think you need to understand that, again, these Officers aren't actually really contributing jack to the army outside of their Orders. I get dirt cheap buffbots because they really can't do anything else.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.
That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.
The most unlikely thing I've ever seen happen was an Astropath firing his (BS6, because he's a blind guy) laspistol, hitting, wounding, and killing the Changeling, a model that one week earlier by the Index rules would have had a -1 to hit ability that would have made hitting the shot actually impossible.
gak happens, and you remember it. Balance decisions should instead be made based on average performance and stat comparisons.
Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.
I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.
Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.
Index was Conscripts primarily, not Infantry Squads.
I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.
To me, it indicates that the benefit they provide to non-Guard armies needs to be addressed.
The Cultist nerf likely would have been enough by removing the Legion trait, same as Raw Recruits or the Commissar change would have been enough to reduce the appeal of Conscripts(who realistically need to be dropped to a 6+ save and lose the <Regiment> tags).
The same, IMO, applies to Gretchin.
In general, HQ points costs need a lot more "Who cares?" applied to them. Space Marine characters might hit on a 2+ but if their only use at present is to buff a gunline then you shouldn't really bill them for a fluffy statline.
Officers do have another invaluable use: use the inpenetrable wall of the character rule to hold an objective. There is inherent value in being a character.
Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.
Index was Conscripts primarily, not Infantry Squads.
I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.
To me, it indicates that the benefit they provide to non-Guard armies needs to be addressed.
The Cultist nerf likely would have been enough by removing the Legion trait, same as Raw Recruits or the Commissar change would have been enough to reduce the appeal of Conscripts(who realistically need to be dropped to a 6+ save and lose the <Regiment> tags).
The same, IMO, applies to Gretchin.
You think Gretchin should be dropped (raised) to a 6+ save and lose the <clan> trait that they have a rule stating they don't benefit from?
I disagree that the Raw Recruits rule would be enough to make conscripts less appealing. Look at what they compete with:
Gretchin. Toughness 2, strength 2, gun is a laspistol, no save at all, no subfaction trait, the only buffs they have access to are reroll 1s to hit in the fight phase and a commissar that kills D3 models instead of 1 and doesn't have the "use my leadership" part of the rule.
Brimstone horrors. Save 6++, strength (iirc) 2, no gun at all, only buffs available are +1S and a 6+++ fnp aura.
Just so I understand, you think FRFSRF and MMM is somehow LESS efficient than Re-roll 1s? Because I'd LOVE for one squad of my weapons to suddenly become RF2 for 35pts, over their ability to re-roll ones. If you think FRSSRF and MMM are validated at 35pts, youre insane.
And if you think an Officer is validated at anything over 30 points, you don't actually understand what they are.
Company Commanders are T3 with 4W, a 5+/5++ and a 6" aura for two units at a time. Park a Command Squad with a Vox-Caster(or any squad with a vox-caster) within 3" of the Officer and that range is extended to 18"...if the unit being Ordered also has a Vox-Caster.
And really, "reroll 1s" for units that are BS3+ natively is not really something to sneeze at now is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.
That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.
And I think, again, that you need to step back and realize that while the buffs provided are certainly significant--killing the Guard units is just as significant as killing the Officers themselves. They become wasted points if they don't have anyone to Order.
And I also think you need to understand that, again, these Officers aren't actually really contributing jack to the army outside of their Orders. I get dirt cheap buffbots because they really can't do anything else.
the stat line is pointless since they are protected by being characters and only exist for the buffs they gave.
MMM literally wins you games by getting models on objectives that are otherwise out of range.
FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a unit basic unit.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?
Not at all. I think Character is one of the most undercosted traits in the whole game. If I were designing an algorithm for costing Character protection, it'd apply a percentage increase to the base points value, then afterwards add a flat points fee to the cost.
Currently, characters in the 75-120 points value are almost universally overcosted/underwhelming, and characters in the 250+ range and <40 zone are almost universally undercosted.
I mean protected characters when I say characters, the character keyword is much less impactful when you don't have the protection.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?
I think this is one of the big problems with trying to cost HQs. They're generally either nigh-untouchable (or touchable only with Mortal Wounds - which ignore defences anyway), or else they can be freely targeted.
In other words, character defences don't matter . . . right up until they do.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?
I think this is one of the big problems with trying to cost HQs. They're generally either nigh-untouchable (or touchable only with Mortal Wounds - which ignore defences anyway), or else they can be freely targeted.
In other words, character defences don't matter . . . right up until they do.
Personally I think an algorithmic method (that I'm sure GW is using) is the root many of the price fudges. The body of a Company Commander is just as practically relevant as a Necron Overlord - i.e. not relevant at all because if your gunline just got shredded into mist, your HQ is about to die horribly, invulns and T(whatever) be damned.
vipoid wrote: I think this is one of the big problems with trying to cost HQs. They're generally either nigh-untouchable (or touchable only with Mortal Wounds - which ignore defences anyway), or else they can be freely targeted.
In other words, character defences don't matter . . . right up until they do.
Maybe the game is just ment to be played with 7-8k pts per side. Then the resiliance of a single character just won't matter much with very few expetions.
Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.
Index was Conscripts primarily, not Infantry Squads.
I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.
To me, it indicates that the benefit they provide to non-Guard armies needs to be addressed.
The Cultist nerf likely would have been enough by removing the Legion trait, same as Raw Recruits or the Commissar change would have been enough to reduce the appeal of Conscripts(who realistically need to be dropped to a 6+ save and lose the <Regiment> tags).
The same, IMO, applies to Gretchin.
You think Gretchin should be dropped (raised) to a 6+ save and lose the <clan> trait that they have a rule stating they don't benefit from?
Sorry, there was meant to be another line there about the points hike being unnecessary on Cultists with the drop of the Legion trait, same as how I felt the points hike on Conscripts was unnecessary with Raw Recruits introduced and/or if the Commissar change had actually been in the codex.
"The same, IMO applies to Gretchin" is meant to reference that their points should be lower--same as Cultists.
And as I've said, multiple times now, I'm absolutely on board with a Conscript rework. I don't think they should be anywhere near what they are currently.
I disagree that the Raw Recruits rule would be enough to make conscripts less appealing.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The fact that it consumes the Order issued while potentially not having it actually apply makes me feel like we would have seen them still make appearances but mostly with a Commissar babysitter.
Look at what they compete with:
Gretchin. Toughness 2, strength 2, gun is a laspistol, no save at all, no subfaction trait, the only buffs they have access to are reroll 1s to hit in the fight phase and a commissar that kills D3 models instead of 1 and doesn't have the "use my leadership" part of the rule.
Sure, and they also have access to a Stratagem that lets them act as a buffer for the heavier Ork units IIRC.
Brimstone horrors. Save 6++, strength (iirc) 2, no gun at all, only buffs available are +1S and a 6+++ fnp aura.
Frankly, Daemons are a hard thing to balance around IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: the stat line is pointless since they are protected by being characters and only exist for the buffs they gave.
They give two buffs a turn, modifiable by Warlord Traits or Stratagems or a few Relics that give some wonkiness.
MMM literally wins you games by getting models on objectives that are otherwise out of range.
Then kill the units that can receive the Order. Because it's just <Regiment> Infantry.
FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a unit basic unit.
A unit's basic gun.
It doesn't apply to any upgrades or even the Sergeant's weapon.
Martel732 wrote: We don't need even cheaper units. Its just a dodge around the fact that guardsmen deliver more than 4 pts of value.
Yeah 5ppm Guardsmen would have significant changes to the overall meta (for the better). 11-12ppm Marines/CSM would be the next needed step. -1ppm for both Necron Troops would be good too. Eldar Troops are probably fine overall, but Kabalites could do with +1ppm Troop cost has much wider implications than just the value of the model itself. And will continue to affect games so long as CPs are generated disproportionately through 5CP Battalions.
Any army having access to Troops less than 5ppm, while other armies can't get anything less than 10ppm, especially when those factions are Imperium, Choas or Eldar, creates imbalance in the game. You either HAVE to take a cheapo Battalion even if you dont' want too, or you outright cannot take allies at all. Necrons are a good example of a faction that is suffering wildly from this. They don't even show up at most tourneys, although admittedly they have other issues too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- I also kinda like one of the earlier proposals that Battalions should require more than just Troops and HQs, although I'd personally like that to just be your choice of 1 Ellite, Fast OR Heavy, rather than 1 of each. It wouldn't do too much to "balance" anything, but at least it puts a bit more cost associated with taking a Battalion and makes that group of Allies make a bit more sense fluffy-wise. Why wouldn't they bring along some kind of specialist unit?
And from GW's pov, this would help sell more models. Most, if not all Start Collecting boxes are 1 HQ, 1 Troop and 1 "special" unit If Battalions suddenly required at least 1 special units, SC boxes are much more appealing for quick Allie-pickups
Bharring wrote: Well, maybe if they added a few more HP to Gman and Catlady, people would complain about them less!
(#notaserioussuggestion)
And yet 1 more wound to Rowboat would be a nerf not a buff. Since it would mean he is no longer protected by the Character keyword, so yes people might complain less? :p
The 8.5/9th edition fix is to generate CP from points values (and your warlord being alive, for spice), or Knight-style detachments for every codex. For now, I like the idea that a Battalion needs "more", but I really think it should be points costs and not units, because cheap units are still cheap (and in respect of their codex, normally should be cheap).
I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The 8.5/9th edition fix is to generate CP from points values (and your warlord being alive, for spice), or Knight-style detachments for every codex. For now, I like the idea that a Battalion needs "more", but I really think it should be points costs and not units, because cheap units are still cheap (and in respect of their codex, normally should be cheap).
GW wouldn't even need to update editions. They aren't shy about changing the core rules through FAQ (that's how we got 5CP Battalions in the first place)
GW could easily drop all Command benefits from Detachments and grant them through Points/Power levels instead. The concept of "detachments" granting bonuses is a more recent thing anyway (7E/8E). When I first started playing (4E) the Force Organization Chart was how you rostered your units and nothing more.
The Detachments need to be that only: a way to bring your models in a structured way. CPs can be something like 3 per 500pts/25PL. Maybe, MAYBE the heavier detachments could grant just a bit more. Battalions could grant just 1-2CPs only and Brigades 4-5 or so, but not have a huge number above what is granted for game size. A combo of both game size and more structure (but heavier on the game size) could do a lot to even out how many CPs any faction or combo of factions can generate.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
Martel732 wrote: We don't need even cheaper units. Its just a dodge around the fact that guardsmen deliver more than 4 pts of value.
Yeah 5ppm Guardsmen would have significant changes to the overall meta (for the better). 11-12ppm Marines/CSM would be the next needed step. -1ppm for both Necron Troops would be good too. Eldar Troops are probably fine overall, but Kabalites could do with +1ppm
Troop cost has much wider implications than just the value of the model itself. And will continue to affect games so long as CPs are generated disproportionately through 5CP Battalions.
Any army having access to Troops less than 5ppm, while other armies can't get anything less than 10ppm, especially when those factions are Imperium, Choas or Eldar, creates imbalance in the game. You either HAVE to take a cheapo Battalion even if you dont' want too, or you outright cannot take allies at all. Necrons are a good example of a faction that is suffering wildly from this. They don't even show up at most tourneys, although admittedly they have other issues too.
-
I think Necrons are in a better place post-CA than they have been all edition. The issue is a lack of synergy in the book on top of having a lot of units which don't work at all. I think Lychguard, Praetorians, Flayed Ones, Deathmarks, Annihilation Barges (the list goes on) are just objectively bad or have major problems. You can however have a reasonable army composed of (overpriced) buffing characters, Tesla Immortals, Destroyers and DDAs (maybe Wraiths, not 100% convinced though). Its not very flexible, but it works.
I think Guardsmen should be 5 points and company commanders at least 45-50. Marines/CSM should be 11-12 points. I don't think Eldar troops are the issue, the issue is Ynnari and -1 to hit stacking. Making it so you can't stack -1 to hit would be a good thing for the game, and if it requires some rebalancing (muh Harlequins) you can do that later. Or give them an exception. I think its the easiest way to nerf Eldar Flyers, although it might not be enough.
Martel732 wrote: We don't need even cheaper units. Its just a dodge around the fact that guardsmen deliver more than 4 pts of value.
Yeah 5ppm Guardsmen would have significant changes to the overall meta (for the better). 11-12ppm Marines/CSM would be the next needed step. -1ppm for both Necron Troops would be good too. Eldar Troops are probably fine overall, but Kabalites could do with +1ppm
Troop cost has much wider implications than just the value of the model itself. And will continue to affect games so long as CPs are generated disproportionately through 5CP Battalions.
Any army having access to Troops less than 5ppm, while other armies can't get anything less than 10ppm, especially when those factions are Imperium, Choas or Eldar, creates imbalance in the game. You either HAVE to take a cheapo Battalion even if you dont' want too, or you outright cannot take allies at all. Necrons are a good example of a faction that is suffering wildly from this. They don't even show up at most tourneys, although admittedly they have other issues too.
-
I think Necrons are in a better place post-CA than they have been all edition. The issue is a lack of synergy in the book on top of having a lot of units which don't work at all. I think Lychguard, Praetorians, Flayed Ones, Deathmarks, Annihilation Barges (the list goes on) are just objectively bad or have major problems. You can however have a reasonable army composed of (overpriced) buffing characters, Tesla Immortals, Destroyers and DDAs (maybe Wraiths, not 100% convinced though). Its not very flexible, but it works.
I think Guardsmen should be 5 points and company commanders at least 45-50. Marines/CSM should be 11-12 points. I don't think Eldar troops are the issue, the issue is Ynnari and -1 to hit stacking. Making it so you can't stack -1 to hit would be a good thing for the game, and if it requires some rebalancing (muh Harlequins) you can do that later. Or give them an exception. I think its the easiest way to nerf Eldar Flyers, although it might not be enough.
Tyel wrote: I think Necrons are in a better place post-CA than they have been all edition. The issue is a lack of synergy in the book on top of having a lot of units which don't work at all. I think Lychguard, Praetorians, Flayed Ones, Deathmarks, Annihilation Barges (the list goes on) are just objectively bad or have major problems. You can however have a reasonable army composed of (overpriced) buffing characters, Tesla Immortals, Destroyers and DDAs (maybe Wraiths, not 100% convinced though). Its not very flexible, but it works.
The TL;DR of the Necron Tactica post CA 2018 is indeed something like this. I'll add Scarabs which are also good (because they are cheap). Wraith are very playable imho. C'tan can work and make nasty surprises but are not cheap. Tomb Blades are no way a bad unit.
But i don't think in all these units there is something reallly unique that everybody would want in another army. We have no double movement, no double shoot. The double fight is gated behind the Novokh trait and difficulty to engage. It's difficult to farm CP too (9 for a bataillon + spearhead/vanguard/outrider is usually the best you can have).
I'll don't say that Necron are bad, but they are one of the fairest army i think. Their special rule (RP) has a counterplay for the opponent, and they don't "cheat" with other basic rules of the game.
Of course RP will sometime trigger and i can be very strong, but more often that not, it's useless (last game : 0 RP rolls).
I actually refrained from bringing up Necrons specifically (other than as examples for costings) because RP in 8th edition is a win-more mechanic and most of the data sheets need a re-write at this point. But hey, I'll take points reductions on the garbage units for now. And for the Triarch's sake give the Monolith an invuln.
Don't seem to be meta relevant, so at best average, possibly bad.
Going to go out on a limb here - Tempestor Primes are not great. Or at least given the fact you are paying 10 points over a company commander in order to give in your 5++ and ability to order a second units (unless you take the rod for more points). In exchange you get a 4+ regular save and a hot-shot laspistol - the most efficient 6" S3 gun in the galaxy, which is surely almost as potent as a boltgun that ignores cover saves.
You do get to deep strike, which is sort of nice I guess, but so many things seem to get deep strike for free its hard to consider it a great value.
Basic scions are kind of average. Defensively you have fire warrior stats. Offensively you have nothing in close combat, shooting is okay if you are in 9". Which you won't be immediately after deep striking. You are a good advert for why people don't typically take Dire Avengers - but really, you are over twice the points of a guardsman and only have a 4+ save to his 5+ save.
So thats nice.
But
Marine shooting Guardsman:
2*2/3*2/3*2/3*4/13=18.23%
Marine shooting scion:
2*2/3*2/3*1/2*9/13=30.7%.
This is very crude, but doing 18% more damage but taking nearly 70% back isn't a good trade. You can mess around with plasma, and regimental doctines and so on, but really this is why we don't see mono-scions. They just die.
Taurox Primes are in a similar boat. They are not terrible - and if you play with them they can do fine. But they are not "good" if that makes sense. You can't just look at them and go "yeah, its too cheap".
Necrons aren't necessarily a terrible army. Their current issue is that they don't stand out from the other factions. They don't really excel at anything in particular that would make a player choose them over another faction as it stands.
Yeah but they are ONLY taken b.c they are cheap, and you only see 15 of them ina list, Kabalites are honestly terrible, they do next to no damage,, poison is a double edge sword, sure it works on T5+, but it doesnt work on T3, how many MC's do you see in game? I rather have more Guardians than Kabals and i won 80+ Kabals, i love my DE, but i hate playing with Kabals.
Every game, you know what my kabals do? Die, they get in the way to die.... yeah so fun. and so good. If Kabals go up, then guardsmen should go up too, and Fire warriors, and etc... (I personally think a large number of units needs to go up 1-2pts, but thats a different topic).
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
Glad I wasn't the only one wondering why he jumped to DW intercessors, not even normal marine intercessors which are definitely better than a vanilla tac marine vrs Guard comparison.
But about the Best in Faction stuff if the best in faction for say 4 factions are averaging double the score of the best in faction for another faction especially it might just highlight some of the power imbalances. Also the more people taking prue lists the more data there is to actually analyse.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Scions are GW tricking Guard players into spending more money on units they don't need.
For a more comprehensive list of these types of units, see:
EVERYTHING NOT A LEHMAN RUSS BATTLE TANK.
I like you.
I would love to see more armoured columns, less giant stompy robots. Not that giant stompy robots aren't super cool. But tanks are cooler
I feel like they should have given all tanks a unique keyword for that vehicle type that comes with a version of steel behemoth that allows them to fire sponson and hull mounted weapons at units within 1'', fire turret mounted weapons at anybody except units within 1'', and fall back but still shoot/charge. I feel like a tank in 40k should be a vehicle that crashes into infantry lines to break a stalemate. It shouldn't just provide distant fire support. Their mobility should matter more than just re-positioning for line of sight, and it's downright disappointing that a single model getting into combat with them somehow silences the bloody thing.
With those benefits, you have more defensive options for keeping your tanks alive, effective, and contributing to the fight even without having to give them ridiculous weapons, pinpoint accuracy, or some kind of invuln save. One of the most powerful things for protecting a unit is putting it into combat, but that requires a commitment from the player and is the epitome of risk reward.
This is what I would love to see as a beta rule in an FAQ. Some way to make Vehicles more viable. Specifically those Vehicles that aren't Knights and don't have Fly.
Yeah but they are ONLY taken b.c they are cheap, and you only see 15 of them ina list, Kabalites are honestly terrible, they do next to no damage,, poison is a double edge sword, sure it works on T5+, but it doesnt work on T3, how many MC's do you see in game? I rather have more Guardians than Kabals and i won 80+ Kabals, i love my DE, but i hate playing with Kabals.
Every game, you know what my kabals do? Die, they get in the way to die.... yeah so fun. and so good. If Kabals go up, then guardsmen should go up too, and Fire warriors, and etc... (I personally think a large number of units needs to go up 1-2pts, but thats a different topic).
Wait so the idea of a good eldar unit is one that is cheap, kills stuff a lot and doesn't die? I guess it is a way of thinking about balance. Does it have to be fast moving too?
Turn One
Kill 7 turn one. Guard player can choose to spend a CP, but probably not worth it.
Guard player MMM's the three remaining squads from 30" to 11". No shooting
Turn Two
Raven Guard player moves up 6", shoots the furthest squad, kills another seven. Charges the closest squad and piles into the second closest squad. .31 wounds expected on overwatch. Kills 6 guardsmen in the charged squad. Takes one wound in CC from the remaining catachan infantry.
Guard player falls back and used GBitF. Finally kills an Intercessor, maybe two.
Turn Three
RG kills 6 in the healthy squad, charges the rest.
Being less aggressive and using Armageddon to stay out of charge range while still getting rapid fire:
Turn One
RG kills 7 guardsmen. They're not Catachan, so there's good odds of losing 1 or 2 even with Fight to the Death. Probably not worth 2 CP to save three guardsmen.
Guard player moves to 24", FRFSRF with three remaining squads. 54 shots, one wound gets through if in cover, two if out. -1 is a bitch. We'll say one dead intercessor either way though.
Turn Two
RG kills 6 more guardsmen. You're still losing minimum 1 even with FttD. But we'll say three lasgun guardsmen stick around from this squad after spending 1 CP.
Guard player moves to 18". FRFSRF on everyone for 84 shots this time! 1.5 wounds in cover, but 3 if no cover.
Turn Three
RG Kills 6 more guardsmen if they've been in cover this whole time, 5 if not. Guard player spends another CP to keep the other squad in the fight.
Guard player moves to 12". FRFSRF on whoever is left (1 full strength, two 3 man squads). 60 shots. 1.6 wounds in cover, 3 if no cover. At this point, we should have 7-8 intercessors left if they've been in cover this whole time, 6 if not.
Turn Four
RG player moves up, splits fire, killing five guardsmen in the two remnant squads, charges the full health one. Kills four in close combat. Takes .32 wounds back in CC from the guardsmen
The six man squad falls back, GBitF, does one wound.
Turn Five
RG shoots/charges the remaining six to death.
It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
I mean, despite its hilariously low hype to actual results ratio.
It's the free deepstrike and marine level BS for 9 pts. Basically, they are marines with all the crap cut away.
So they're kind of like the Dick Genie version of marines?
"SPACE MARIIIINE, you have freed me from my prison, what dost thou wish?"
"I'd like you to give those Primaris marines terrible rules!"
"DONE! Second wish?"
"you know I'd really like to cut all the crap out of my statline! Maybe I could keep my ballistic skill and you could get rid of my leadership, ATSKNF, 3+ armor, S4, T4, and give me a hip new chaff-y point value for 8th edition?"
"Done and done! Well chosen milord, surely you will be the meta now! and for your final wish?"
"Deep strike! They made drop pods so terrible! I'd love to be able to drop in and engage enemies from 9" away!"
"Oh but of course....hheheheheheh....huahahahahahaaaaa...and to take that wish extremely literally, I shall give you deep strike AND a NINE INCH RAPID FIRE RANGE!"
"wait, but, that divides my firepower in half! Wait, I take it back!"
Yeah but they are ONLY taken b.c they are cheap, and you only see 15 of them ina list, Kabalites are honestly terrible, they do next to no damage,, poison is a double edge sword, sure it works on T5+, but it doesnt work on T3, how many MC's do you see in game? I rather have more Guardians than Kabals and i won 80+ Kabals, i love my DE, but i hate playing with Kabals.
Every game, you know what my kabals do? Die, they get in the way to die.... yeah so fun. and so good. If Kabals go up, then guardsmen should go up too, and Fire warriors, and etc... (I personally think a large number of units needs to go up 1-2pts, but thats a different topic).
"This 6 point model doesn't do enough damage" is a point that I really have trouble wrapping my head around in these discussions. Taking up board space, capturing objectives and filling detachment slots is still enough utility to get value out of such a cheap unit - even ignoring that poison weaponry mostly works out to be equivalent to any other bog standard S3 or 4 basic infantry weapon in the game.
Whether Guardsmen should go up in value also feels like part of the same topic to me, but YMMV.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.
Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.
I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.
Martel732 wrote: It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
If we're playing that game, then Raven guard have Imperial Knights or something that murderizes and ties up the nearest guard squad?
Like, compare apples to apples buddy. If it's the same pts vs the same pts, then the problem is the is it's whatever bombarding the Raven Guard with mutliple damage weapons.
Martel732 wrote: It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
If we're playing that game, then Raven guard have Imperial Knights or something that murderizes and ties up the nearest guard squad?
Okay, let's say that's true. What does tying up or even killing a guard squad even do for you? In the LVO winner, there are 80 of these guys between you and the Castellan. They just provide more than 4 points of value. End of story to me. Until they don't provide so much value, or are increased to a point that is more reflective of their actual value, they are an autotake.
All the FRFSRF and MMM stuff is icing on the cake. They can do 80% of their job with no guns. That just makes the damage they do cause even more aggravating.
"then the problem is the is it's whatever bombarding the Raven Guard with mutliple damage weapons."
Maybe, until you realize the IG players is paying almost nothing to keep all enemy units far, far away from the artillery units. Or, in the LVO list, a Castellan. So what's the real problem? The shooting units? Or the units making sure nothing bad can ever happen to said units that require almost no investment?
Yeah but they are ONLY taken b.c they are cheap, and you only see 15 of them ina list, Kabalites are honestly terrible, they do next to no damage,, poison is a double edge sword, sure it works on T5+, but it doesnt work on T3, how many MC's do you see in game? I rather have more Guardians than Kabals and i won 80+ Kabals, i love my DE, but i hate playing with Kabals.
Every game, you know what my kabals do? Die, they get in the way to die.... yeah so fun. and so good. If Kabals go up, then guardsmen should go up too, and Fire warriors, and etc... (I personally think a large number of units needs to go up 1-2pts, but thats a different topic).
"This 6 point model doesn't do enough damage" is a point that I really have trouble wrapping my head around in these discussions. Taking up board space, capturing objectives and filling detachment slots is still enough utility to get value out of such a cheap unit - even ignoring that poison weaponry mostly works out to be equivalent to any other bog standard S3 or 4 basic infantry weapon in the game.
Whether Guardsmen should go up in value also feels like part of the same topic to me, but YMMV.
If the points go up players will still take them b.c of CP and it wont effect lists much at all, if at any. Its only 15pts.
Im saying they dont do anything other than CP spam, nerfing a unit b.c of CP when they are a bad unit already is a stupid idea. Fix how CP is gain, not units spammed for CP, especially when its NOT going to change the game in anyway at all.
Other units are better for the points, if Ravagers wasnt good you wouldnt see Kabals at all, it would be Wyches or Coven. At which point, those troupes are leaps and bounds better in almost every way, Coven stays on objectives better and takes up more space (can CP to regain bodies, can teleport, etc.., 4++ is good).
Martel732 wrote: It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
If we're playing that game, then Raven guard have Imperial Knights or something that murderizes and ties up the nearest guard squad?
Okay, let's say that's true. What does tying up or even killing a guard squad even do for you? In the LVO winner, there are 80 of these guys between you and the Castellan. They just provide more than 4 points of value. End of story to me. Until they don't provide so much value, or are increased to a point that is more reflective of their actual value, they are an autotake.
All the FRFSRF and MMM stuff is icing on the cake. They can do 80% of their job with no guns. That just makes the damage they do cause even more aggravating.
"then the problem is the is it's whatever bombarding the Raven Guard with mutliple damage weapons."
Maybe, until you realize the IG players is paying almost nothing to keep all enemy units far, far away from the artillery units. Or, in the LVO list, a Castellan. So what's the real problem? The shooting units? Or the units making sure nothing bad can ever happen to said units that require almost no investment?
I don't agree with martel often, but I definitely have to here.
Something like a basilisk or a leman russ is NOOOOOT a balance problem without a screen. I play with multiple people who run pretty much pure armored lists with negligible infantry presence, and the fact that anything touching the tank basically turns it off forever makes it ridiculously brittle when it doesn't have an impenetrable screen allowing it to keep shooting for 3-4 turns.
In reality, guardsmen do not really need to kill anything. A much more realistic scenario is
"Here's your 10 intercessors in cover, shooting at guardsmen in cover. They declare their CT against infantry so their Dreadnoughts don't get to reroll wounds against the guard tanks, and use 2+ to wound ammo.
The guard player uses Take Cover with one of their 24 command points.
Martel732 wrote: It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
If we're playing that game, then Raven guard have Imperial Knights or something that murderizes and ties up the nearest guard squad?
Okay, let's say that's true. What does tying up or even killing a guard squad even do for you? In the LVO winner, there are 80 of these guys between you and the Castellan. They just provide more than 4 points of value. End of story to me. Until they don't provide so much value, or are increased to a point that is more reflective of their actual value, they are an autotake.
All the FRFSRF and MMM stuff is icing on the cake. They can do 80% of their job with no guns. That just makes the damage they do cause even more aggravating.
"then the problem is the is it's whatever bombarding the Raven Guard with mutliple damage weapons."
Maybe, until you realize the IG players is paying almost nothing to keep all enemy units far, far away from the artillery units. Or, in the LVO list, a Castellan. So what's the real problem? The shooting units? Or the units making sure nothing bad can ever happen to said units that require almost no investment?
I don't agree with martel often, but I definitely have to here.
Something like a basilisk or a leman russ is NOOOOOT a balance problem without a screen. I play with multiple people who run pretty much pure armored lists with negligible infantry presence, and the fact that anything touching the tank basically turns it off forever makes it ridiculously brittle when it doesn't have an impenetrable screen allowing it to keep shooting for 3-4 turns.
In reality, guardsmen do not really need to kill anything. A much more realistic scenario is
"Here's your 10 intercessors in cover, shooting at guardsmen in cover. They declare their CT against infantry so their Dreadnoughts don't get to reroll wounds against the guard tanks, and use 2+ to wound ammo.
The guard player uses Take Cover with one of their 24 command points.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.
Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.
I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.
I have never seen a player in game make the choice to send intercessor squads after entrenched guard squads holding objectives. I wonder why.
Yeah but they are ONLY taken b.c they are cheap, and you only see 15 of them ina list, Kabalites are honestly terrible, they do next to no damage,, poison is a double edge sword, sure it works on T5+, but it doesnt work on T3, how many MC's do you see in game? I rather have more Guardians than Kabals and i won 80+ Kabals, i love my DE, but i hate playing with Kabals.
Every game, you know what my kabals do? Die, they get in the way to die.... yeah so fun. and so good. If Kabals go up, then guardsmen should go up too, and Fire warriors, and etc... (I personally think a large number of units needs to go up 1-2pts, but thats a different topic).
"This 6 point model doesn't do enough damage" is a point that I really have trouble wrapping my head around in these discussions. Taking up board space, capturing objectives and filling detachment slots is still enough utility to get value out of such a cheap unit - even ignoring that poison weaponry mostly works out to be equivalent to any other bog standard S3 or 4 basic infantry weapon in the game.
Whether Guardsmen should go up in value also feels like part of the same topic to me, but YMMV.
If the points go up players will still take them b.c of CP and it wont effect lists much at all, if at any. Its only 15pts.
Im saying they dont do anything other than CP spam, nerfing a unit b.c of CP when they are a bad unit already is a stupid idea. Fix how CP is gain, not units spammed for CP, especially when its NOT going to change the game in anyway at all.
Other units are better for the points, if Ravagers wasnt good you wouldnt see Kabals at all, it would be Wyches or Coven. At which point, those troupes are leaps and bounds better in almost every way, Coven stays on objectives better and takes up more space (can CP to regain bodies, can teleport, etc.., 4++ is good).
While I cannot agree that 1ppm increases/decreases would not matter, I do see your point. When CPs stop being dependent on who can field the cheapest Troop, most of the discussion around 4ppm Guardsman being OP and 13ppm Marine being garbage largely disappears.
But since CPs are likely to remain generated by detachments, the best chance we have for balance is slight tweaks in points.
I like to look at it by proportion, rather than actual points. For example:
A Marine is currently a point more than 3 Guardsman, yet the minimum of either (3x 5 and 3x 10 respectively) means the Marines are not only investing more per model, but disproportionately more. 195 for 15 Marines, 120 for 30 Guardsman. So the Marine pay 3x per model, but require 1/2 the models (instead of 1/3)
If Guardsmen became 5ppm, and Marines 11ppm, the ratios for points and required minimums becomes roughly the same.
You spend 150pts for 30 Guard, and 165 for 15 Marines. The Marines are still paying more for half the models, but spending close to the same for the minimum 3 Troops, which is far closer to fair than currently.
The CP is also icing on the cake almost. The physical barrier to access and cheap objective control is the real issue. I guess Castellans are reliant upon the CP, as well. That's why I said almost.
Martel732 wrote: It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
If we're playing that game, then Raven guard have Imperial Knights or something that murderizes and ties up the nearest guard squad?
Okay, let's say that's true. What does tying up or even killing a guard squad even do for you? In the LVO winner, there are 80 of these guys between you and the Castellan. They just provide more than 4 points of value. End of story to me. Until they don't provide so much value, or are increased to a point that is more reflective of their actual value, they are an autotake.
All the FRFSRF and MMM stuff is icing on the cake. They can do 80% of their job with no guns. That just makes the damage they do cause even more aggravating.
"then the problem is the is it's whatever bombarding the Raven Guard with mutliple damage weapons."
Maybe, until you realize the IG players is paying almost nothing to keep all enemy units far, far away from the artillery units. Or, in the LVO list, a Castellan. So what's the real problem? The shooting units? Or the units making sure nothing bad can ever happen to said units that require almost no investment?
I don't agree with martel often, but I definitely have to here.
Something like a basilisk or a leman russ is NOOOOOT a balance problem without a screen. I play with multiple people who run pretty much pure armored lists with negligible infantry presence, and the fact that anything touching the tank basically turns it off forever makes it ridiculously brittle when it doesn't have an impenetrable screen allowing it to keep shooting for 3-4 turns.
In reality, guardsmen do not really need to kill anything. A much more realistic scenario is
"Here's your 10 intercessors in cover, shooting at guardsmen in cover. They declare their CT against infantry so their Dreadnoughts don't get to reroll wounds against the guard tanks, and use 2+ to wound ammo.
The guard player uses Take Cover with one of their 24 command points.
4 guardsmen die.
1 catachan basilisk returns fire.
2.7 intercessors die."
The Castellan returns fire.
2 Basilisks die.
So if both sides have a Castellan, who runs out of screens first? Not the side with 80 models for 320 points.
Martel732 wrote: It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
If we're playing that game, then Raven guard have Imperial Knights or something that murderizes and ties up the nearest guard squad?
Okay, let's say that's true. What does tying up or even killing a guard squad even do for you? In the LVO winner, there are 80 of these guys between you and the Castellan. They just provide more than 4 points of value. End of story to me. Until they don't provide so much value, or are increased to a point that is more reflective of their actual value, they are an autotake.
All the FRFSRF and MMM stuff is icing on the cake. They can do 80% of their job with no guns. That just makes the damage they do cause even more aggravating.
"then the problem is the is it's whatever bombarding the Raven Guard with mutliple damage weapons."
Maybe, until you realize the IG players is paying almost nothing to keep all enemy units far, far away from the artillery units. Or, in the LVO list, a Castellan. So what's the real problem? The shooting units? Or the units making sure nothing bad can ever happen to said units that require almost no investment?
I don't agree with martel often, but I definitely have to here.
Something like a basilisk or a leman russ is NOOOOOT a balance problem without a screen. I play with multiple people who run pretty much pure armored lists with negligible infantry presence, and the fact that anything touching the tank basically turns it off forever makes it ridiculously brittle when it doesn't have an impenetrable screen allowing it to keep shooting for 3-4 turns.
In reality, guardsmen do not really need to kill anything. A much more realistic scenario is
"Here's your 10 intercessors in cover, shooting at guardsmen in cover. They declare their CT against infantry so their Dreadnoughts don't get to reroll wounds against the guard tanks, and use 2+ to wound ammo.
The guard player uses Take Cover with one of their 24 command points.
4 guardsmen die.
1 catachan basilisk returns fire.
2.7 intercessors die."
The Castellan returns fire.
2 Basilisks die.
The Helhammer returns fire, the entire Spacemarines Chapter is wiped out. While we are pulling imaginary things out of our butts, The Morkanaut around the corner comes over for a propa good thumpin, and gets mulched by Farsight, who was hiding in the trees.
dan2026 wrote: Greater Daemons need a massive rework in my opinion.
They already had a big points drop but it isn't enough.
They just dont work as is.
There is a fine line between being OP and obsolete with melee units. You want them to work you need redundancy because the only reason they aren't auto win units is because you usually get a chance to shoot them up before they start 1 shotting things in close combat. Also - the LOC is really good. Blood thrister is also devastating. Mortarian being as OP as he is really makes you wonder why you'd take anything else though.
dan2026 wrote: Greater Daemons need a massive rework in my opinion.
They already had a big points drop but it isn't enough.
They just dont work as is.
Don't work how? What is the exact role of a Greater Daemon? Line breaker, meat shield, dakkabot, I honestly don't know.
Thats the problem I don't know what they are supposed to do either and neither does GW.
At the moment they don't do a lot and then get dakkaed to death. That can't be right.
Supposedly they work better in AOS, so maybe we should look there.
Yeah but they are ONLY taken b.c they are cheap, and you only see 15 of them ina list, Kabalites are honestly terrible, they do next to no damage,, poison is a double edge sword, sure it works on T5+, but it doesnt work on T3, how many MC's do you see in game? I rather have more Guardians than Kabals and i won 80+ Kabals, i love my DE, but i hate playing with Kabals.
Every game, you know what my kabals do? Die, they get in the way to die.... yeah so fun. and so good. If Kabals go up, then guardsmen should go up too, and Fire warriors, and etc... (I personally think a large number of units needs to go up 1-2pts, but thats a different topic).
"This 6 point model doesn't do enough damage" is a point that I really have trouble wrapping my head around in these discussions. Taking up board space, capturing objectives and filling detachment slots is still enough utility to get value out of such a cheap unit - even ignoring that poison weaponry mostly works out to be equivalent to any other bog standard S3 or 4 basic infantry weapon in the game.
Whether Guardsmen should go up in value also feels like part of the same topic to me, but YMMV.
If the points go up players will still take them b.c of CP and it wont effect lists much at all, if at any. Its only 15pts.
Im saying they dont do anything other than CP spam, nerfing a unit b.c of CP when they are a bad unit already is a stupid idea. Fix how CP is gain, not units spammed for CP, especially when its NOT going to change the game in anyway at all.
Other units are better for the points, if Ravagers wasnt good you wouldnt see Kabals at all, it would be Wyches or Coven. At which point, those troupes are leaps and bounds better in almost every way, Coven stays on objectives better and takes up more space (can CP to regain bodies, can teleport, etc.., 4++ is good).
While I cannot agree that 1ppm increases/decreases would not matter, I do see your point. When CPs stop being dependent on who can field the cheapest Troop, most of the discussion around 4ppm Guardsman being OP and 13ppm Marine being garbage largely disappears.
But since CPs are likely to remain generated by detachments, the best chance we have for balance is slight tweaks in points.
I like to look at it by proportion, rather than actual points. For example:
A Marine is currently a point more than 3 Guardsman, yet the minimum of either (3x 5 and 3x 10 respectively) means the Marines are not only investing more per model, but disproportionately more. 195 for 15 Marines, 120 for 30 Guardsman. So the Marine pay 3x per model, but require 1/2 the models (instead of 1/3)
If Guardsmen became 5ppm, and Marines 11ppm, the ratios for points and required minimums becomes roughly the same.
You spend 150pts for 30 Guard, and 165 for 15 Marines. The Marines are still paying more for half the models, but spending close to the same for the minimum 3 Troops, which is far closer to fair than currently.
-
I personally want all (its something like 20+ units) cheap troops to go up in points by 2-3 each. But nerfing 1 for the sake of it being popular by a minor margin isnt enough to make other units more viable (unless you are taking 30-40+, but i mean MSU of them, 3x5mans, thats only 15pts difference).
dan2026 wrote: Greater Daemons need a massive rework in my opinion.
They already had a big points drop but it isn't enough.
They just dont work as is.
Don't work how? What is the exact role of a Greater Daemon? Line breaker, meat shield, dakkabot, I honestly don't know.
They are linebreakers and typically delete anything they touch. They do that if you play them well or you get lucky with a deep strike charge.
Ok, just looked at their statline. So what can't be accomplished with this thing? I wish I had flyers with that attack line. You can delete a tank a turn, or if you are lucky, a Castellan in a single turn. If you don't make your points back, you're choosing the wrong target.
dan2026 wrote: Greater Daemons need a massive rework in my opinion.
They already had a big points drop but it isn't enough.
They just dont work as is.
Don't work how? What is the exact role of a Greater Daemon? Line breaker, meat shield, dakkabot, I honestly don't know.
They are linebreakers and typically delete anything they touch. They do that if you play them well or you get lucky with a deep strike charge.
Ok, just looked at their statline. So what can't be accomplished with this thing? I wish I had flyers with that attack line. You can delete a tank a turn, or if you are lucky, a Castellan in a single turn. If you don't make your points back, you're choosing the wrong target.
Did you also look at how fragile they are? Lists that are geared up to shoot Knights to death just swat Greater Daemons away like nothing.
Martel732 wrote: The CP is also icing on the cake almost. The physical barrier to access and cheap objective control is the real issue. I guess Castellans are reliant upon the CP, as well. That's why I said almost.
Martel732 wrote: It would be nice if games really went like that. But IG are bombarding you with multi-damage shots and the guardsmen are preventing anything from getting close to the source. Their cost is certainly more fair in your scenario. But that's never the scenario.
If we're playing that game, then Raven guard have Imperial Knights or something that murderizes and ties up the nearest guard squad?
Okay, let's say that's true. What does tying up or even killing a guard squad even do for you? In the LVO winner, there are 80 of these guys between you and the Castellan. They just provide more than 4 points of value. End of story to me. Until they don't provide so much value, or are increased to a point that is more reflective of their actual value, they are an autotake.
All the FRFSRF and MMM stuff is icing on the cake. They can do 80% of their job with no guns. That just makes the damage they do cause even more aggravating.
"then the problem is the is it's whatever bombarding the Raven Guard with mutliple damage weapons."
Maybe, until you realize the IG players is paying almost nothing to keep all enemy units far, far away from the artillery units. Or, in the LVO list, a Castellan. So what's the real problem? The shooting units? Or the units making sure nothing bad can ever happen to said units that require almost no investment?
I don't agree with martel often, but I definitely have to here.
Something like a basilisk or a leman russ is NOOOOOT a balance problem without a screen. I play with multiple people who run pretty much pure armored lists with negligible infantry presence, and the fact that anything touching the tank basically turns it off forever makes it ridiculously brittle when it doesn't have an impenetrable screen allowing it to keep shooting for 3-4 turns.
In reality, guardsmen do not really need to kill anything. A much more realistic scenario is
"Here's your 10 intercessors in cover, shooting at guardsmen in cover. They declare their CT against infantry so their Dreadnoughts don't get to reroll wounds against the guard tanks, and use 2+ to wound ammo.
The guard player uses Take Cover with one of their 24 command points.
4 guardsmen die.
1 catachan basilisk returns fire.
2.7 intercessors die."
The Castellan returns fire.
2 Basilisks die.
So if both sides have a Castellan, who runs out of screens first? Not the side with 80 models for 320 points.
We were talking about infantry v infantry. Someone brought in Basilisks to win the fight with the Intercessors. But, let's zoom out a little. Three intercessor squads are going to pick up (DW) or cripple (everybody else) three squads of guardsmen a turn, that's a really big hole in the screen across a 6' front even with 80 guardsmen.
If the Basilisks are shooting intercessors, they're not shooting the Castellan.
Also, not getting 2.7 dead intercessors a turn from one Catachan Basilisk.
6 shots, 3 hit, 2.52 wound, 2.11 past a non cover save. Average of 2D. Which is about two dead. But actually picking up two intercessors off of two wounds after saves using 2D3 D is 4/9 [(2,2) (2,3) (3,2) (3,3)]. The other 5 combinations on 2D3 will Overkill the first or Underkill the second one. So really, you're firing a 108 point model to probably kill a single 18 point model and wound another. I think your screen will survive just fine in that scenario unless they're taking a whole lotta bassies and completely ignoring your Castellan/Leviathan/whatever AT you brought.
Guard don't spam plasma in ITC since scions are points pinatas, nobody is taking Autocannons, and Artemia hellhounds have likewise gone out of style when they got their much deserved Nerf.
dan2026 wrote: Greater Daemons need a massive rework in my opinion.
They already had a big points drop but it isn't enough.
They just dont work as is.
Don't work how? What is the exact role of a Greater Daemon? Line breaker, meat shield, dakkabot, I honestly don't know.
They are linebreakers and typically delete anything they touch. They do that if you play them well or you get lucky with a deep strike charge.
Ok, just looked at their statline. So what can't be accomplished with this thing? I wish I had flyers with that attack line. You can delete a tank a turn, or if you are lucky, a Castellan in a single turn. If you don't make your points back, you're choosing the wrong target.
Did you also look at how fragile they are? Lists that are geared up to shoot Knights to death just swat Greater Daemons away like nothing.
This is what I mean. Most of the time they can't survive to do their job.
So I think they need a new job. Or be made much, much more resilient.
They mostly only have a 5++ to protect them.
Greater Daemons also provide "character" aura buffs, unlike Knights. So in addition to being far easier to kill than a Knight, you lose a LOT more.
Impressive melee statline is irrelevant if you can never make it to melee. They could have Str20 with 100Atks and it would mean nothing if they fail a 9" charge from deepstrike
Galef wrote: Greater Daemons also provide "character" aura buffs, unlike Knights. So in addition to being far easier to kill than a Knight, you lose a LOT more.
Impressive melee statline is irrelevant if you can never make it to melee. They could have Str20 with 100Atks and it would mean nothing if they fail a 9" charge from deepstrike
They give a crap morale buff thats it.
Heralds give a much better S buff.
But like you say their problem isn't their power, its their resiliance.
Like I said in my opinion they just don't work with their current rules even after their big points drop.
I never see them used in ANY competitive list ever.
I did have an idea that maybe lesser Daemons should be able to take wounds for Greater Daemons bodyguard style. But this may be completely broken I don't know.
Is it me, or have we actually reached double digit pages since someone actually mentioned what they want to see form the FAQ besides the endless debates on CP and the "proper" point cost of IG Infantry Squads and Company Commanders?
Here's what I'd like to see:
Finalize the Matched Play "Deep Strike" rule with necessary Codex Erratas.
An actual answer to the Tempestus Scion & Auxiliary and Advisor rules question.
A newer better version of the Bolter Discipline rule that is best for Tactical Squads instead of Bikes, Terminators and Vehicles.
A solution to the Imperial Knights problems that nerf them just enough to let people use vehicles again.
I personally want all (its something like 20+ units) cheap troops to go up in points by 2-3 each. But nerfing 1 for the sake of it being popular by a minor margin isnt enough to make other units more viable (unless you are taking 30-40+, but i mean MSU of them, 3x5mans, thats only 15pts difference).
My suggestion would be to double the points of every unit in the game.
It would give a lot more breathing space in terms of tweaking point costs.
A thought I had, and I'm sure it has been mentioned, but it feels as though the new wounding table doesn't have enough granularity and variance as other editions. I think the new wounding table is hurting this edition.
alextroy wrote: Is it me, or have we actually reached double digit pages since someone actually mentioned what they want to see form the FAQ besides the endless debates on CP and the "proper" point cost of IG Infantry Squads and Company Commanders?
Here's what I'd like to see:
Finalize the Matched Play "Deep Strike" rule with necessary Codex Erratas.
An actual answer to the Tempestus Scion & Auxiliary and Advisor rules question.
A newer better version of the Bolter Discipline rule that is best for Tactical Squads instead of Bikes, Terminators and Vehicles.
A solution to the Imperial Knights problems that nerf them just enough to let people use vehicles again.
I personally want all (its something like 20+ units) cheap troops to go up in points by 2-3 each. But nerfing 1 for the sake of it being popular by a minor margin isnt enough to make other units more viable (unless you are taking 30-40+, but i mean MSU of them, 3x5mans, thats only 15pts difference).
My suggestion would be to double the points of every unit in the game.
It would give a lot more breathing space in terms of tweaking point costs.
This is something I can get behind. Frankly, I wish the game would move to D10's or higher. D6's don't offer enough granularity.
I personally want all (its something like 20+ units) cheap troops to go up in points by 2-3 each. But nerfing 1 for the sake of it being popular by a minor margin isnt enough to make other units more viable (unless you are taking 30-40+, but i mean MSU of them, 3x5mans, thats only 15pts difference).
My suggestion would be to double the points of every unit in the game.
It would give a lot more breathing space in terms of tweaking point costs.
This is something I can get behind. Frankly, I wish the game would move to D10's or higher. D6's don't offer enough granularity.
Martel732 wrote:Agreed.
I dont often agree with you but yes I wholeheartedly agree.
GW needs to sprinkle in some d10 & d12 to add in a little more chance & randomization.
My suggestion would be to double the points of every unit in the game.
It would give a lot more breathing space in terms of tweaking point costs.
But won't that mean that everyone would just be playing with 4000pts armies. It doesn't really matter if my GK are 20-40pts or 2-4pts, or even 200-400pts per model, if everything is scaled up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 773741 10411944 wrote:
This is something I can get behind. Frankly, I wish the game would move to D10's or higher. D6's don't offer enough granularity.
Martel732 wrote:Agreed.
I dont often agree with you but yes I wholeheartedly agree.
GW needs to sprinkle in some d10 & d12 to add in a little more chance & randomization.
it seems to work for Titanicus
how is bigger randomization is going to help anyone. All it would do is that the options that are least random would be prefared, along side of factions, rules and untis that limit the random factor, because you want a reliable flat result from your stuff, so you can plan things. And not hope that this time my d12D lasscannon is going to roll 11 and not 1.
My suggestion would be to double the points of every unit in the game.
It would give a lot more breathing space in terms of tweaking point costs.
But won't that mean that everyone would just be playing with 4000pts armies. It doesn't really matter if my GK are 20-40pts or 2-4pts, or even 200-400pts per model, if everything is scaled up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 773741 10411944 wrote:
This is something I can get behind. Frankly, I wish the game would move to D10's or higher. D6's don't offer enough granularity.
Martel732 wrote:Agreed.
I dont often agree with you but yes I wholeheartedly agree.
GW needs to sprinkle in some d10 & d12 to add in a little more chance & randomization.
it seems to work for Titanicus
how is bigger randomization is going to help anyone. All it would do is that the options that are least random would be prefared, along side of factions, rules and untis that limit the random factor, because you want a reliable flat result from your stuff, so you can plan things. And not hope that this time my d12D lasscannon is going to roll 11 and not 1.
They meant scale up and then do the tweaking. Just to have some more wiggle room.
Leman Russ shooting twice should cost 2 CP like it does for everyone else.
Leman Russ can shoot twice for free if moving less than 5". If they move 10" and part of a special detachment costing 1CP, they pay 1CP to shoot twice. Seems fair and not broken. Have you been hurt by tank fire to feel this way?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.
Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.
I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.
I have never seen a player in game make the choice to send intercessor squads after entrenched guard squads holding objectives. I wonder why.
Because they can sit at 30" and kill a squad per turn without receiving any return fire?
They meant scale up and then do the tweaking. Just to have some more wiggle room.
BS3 on a D6 is the same as BS5 on a D12
that does make more sense. Although if they can't get the stats to rules to point costs with d6 based system am not sure if a larger range is going to make it possible for them to get it right. And I stay with my view on randomness, the less random and flat result options are in general better then random ones. If a plasma gun went to d4 and lascannon was d12, the plasma would stay a better anti tank weapon.
Bigger points really only matters for the smaller units; like, just as an example let's say the absolute ideal cost for a unit was between a grot and a guardsman, assuming for the sake of this argument that both of these models are currently priced correctly.
Under the current points cost, this model should be 3.5 points, right? But GW can't/won't do that, so the model will inevitably be either slightly under or slightly overcosted. For such a low cost model being "slightly" off in tuning can make for some massive differences in power. If points costs on everything was doubled then this model can instead cost 7 points so nobody has to worry about decimals.
Leman Russ shooting twice should cost 2 CP like it does for everyone else.
Leman Russ can shoot twice for free if moving less than 5". If they move 10" and part of a special detachment costing 1CP, they pay 1CP to shoot twice. Seems fair and not broken. Have you been hurt by tank fire to feel this way?
It was an ironic response to people saying Ynnari Dark Reapers should pay CP to shoot twice (instead of foregoing their chapter tactics, free relic, a useable warlord, etc... , etc..). But I guess people have been butt hurt by Ynnari too much.
Either way, different armies, different rules for double-activation. I'd actually hate to lose the diversity.
They meant scale up and then do the tweaking. Just to have some more wiggle room.
BS3 on a D6 is the same as BS5 on a D12
that does make more sense. Although if they can't get the stats to rules to point costs with d6 based system am not sure if a larger range is going to make it possible for them to get it right. And I stay with my view on randomness, the less random and flat result options are in general better then random ones. If a plasma gun went to d4 and lascannon was d12, the plasma would stay a better anti tank weapon.
Oh I agree, it's a tall order. But look at it this way, if they got better at balancing the game within the D6 system and current point scale, to the point were a lot of people were happier, which in many ways is the success criterion as things stand, then they likely are capable of scaling it up, eg to D12, and doubling the points (or just the points and leave the dice), and now making it even better.
A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.
The other advantages of a D12 over a D6 System is it more than halfs the impact of -1 and +1 to roll effects.
It allows for more flavour variations like vets can hit on 1 better than troops etc.
Also a lasgub goes from wounding a baneblade 8% of the time to 4% of the time, much more reasonable.
torblind wrote: A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.
Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.
They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.
My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.
Ice_can wrote: The other advantages of a D12 over a D6 System is it more than halfs the impact of -1 and +1 to roll effects.
It allows for more flavour variations like vets can hit on 1 better than troops etc.
Also a lasgub goes from wounding a baneblade 8% of the time to 4% of the time, much more reasonable.
I have feeling, and this is no a weak argument I know, that as soon as we moved to a d10 or d12, we would be seeing -2 or maybe even -3 to rolls.
Oh I agree, it's a tall order. But look at it this way, if they got better at balancing the game within the D6 system and current point scale, to the point were a lot of people were happier, which in many ways is the success criterion as things stand, then they likely are capable of scaling it up, eg to D12, and doubling the points (or just the points and leave the dice), and now making it even better.
Could be, am hardly an expert on w40k rules design. I have my own views, but they don't have to be correct. What I think is true though, is that no matter if we roll with a d4 or d20, GW always does weird stuff with their point costing. A pred is costed as if one person wrote its point costs and decided that it should be costed as if people roll +5 on theid damage, same with stuff like termintors or stuff with +5 or +6 inv. On the other hand some other units are costed by a different dude, and he points units on avarges and under values flat damage of 2-3. A lot of problems are, IMO, coming from such unit cost design.
Ice_can wrote: The other advantages of a D12 over a D6 System is it more than halfs the impact of -1 and +1 to roll effects.
It allows for more flavour variations like vets can hit on 1 better than troops etc.
Also a lasgub goes from wounding a baneblade 8% of the time to 4% of the time, much more reasonable.
I have feeling, and this is no a weak argument I know, that as soon as we moved to a d10 or d12, we would be seeing -2 or maybe even -3 to rolls.
Oh I agree, it's a tall order. But look at it this way, if they got better at balancing the game within the D6 system and current point scale, to the point were a lot of people were happier, which in many ways is the success criterion as things stand, then they likely are capable of scaling it up, eg to D12, and doubling the points (or just the points and leave the dice), and now making it even better.
Could be, am hardly an expert on w40k rules design. I have my own views, but they don't have to be correct. What I think is true though, is that no matter if we roll with a d4 or d20, GW always does weird stuff with their point costing. A pred is costed as if one person wrote its point costs and decided that it should be costed as if people roll +5 on theid damage, same with stuff like termintors or stuff with +5 or +6 inv. On the other hand some other units are costed by a different dude, and he points units on avarges and under values flat damage of 2-3. A lot of problems are, IMO, coming from such unit cost design.
Sure. If they're quakjobs at the current point scale with D6, they'll be quackjobs at double the points with D12. The premises of something like that coming together, is that they are able. Finer granularity is what it is. nothing more, nothing less.
torblind wrote: A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.
Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.
They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.
My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.
The difference is a D12 would allow the to wound chart to be rewritten so middle strength weapons arn't the go too
torblind wrote: A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.
Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.
They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.
My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.
The difference is a D12 would allow the to wound chart to be rewritten so middle strength weapons arn't the go too
But won't that mean that everyone would just be playing with 4000pts armies. It doesn't really matter if my GK are 20-40pts or 2-4pts, or even 200-400pts per model, if everything is scaled up.
I actually said that it should be scaled up and then tweaked from there.
You might ask what the difference is, and the answer is that it gives far more design space.
As it stands, you've got a load of cheap models all clustered together. Gretchin are 3pts (IIRC), Conscripts, Guardsmen and Gaunts are 4pts, Veterans and Cultists are 5pts, Kabalites are 6pts. Fire Warriors are 7pts. The first issue here is that even a single point makes a big difference. A 1pt increase on Guardsmen is 25% of their cost. The second issue is the knock-on effect. If guardsmen go up then Veterans have to go up. If Veterans go up then people expect Kabalites to go up, and then Fire Warriors would need to go up etc.
However, if you double the costs, then we have Gretchin at 6pts, Conscripts, Guardsmen and Gaunts at 8pts, Veterans and Cultists at 10pts, Kabalites at 12pts, Fire Warriors at 14pts etc. Now adding or removing a point is less of an increase (12.5% for guardsmen). What's more, you can increase or decrease costs without immediately treading on the toes of other units. If you add a point to guardsmen, they're still cheaper than veterans. If you remove a point from Conscripts, they're still more expensive than Gretchin.
BUILDINGS to actually matter, with supported rules and to actually be used on the table top.
Standard Detachments should gain fortification slots so you don't have to WASTE a detach on it.
Mby destructible terrain if possible.
Honestly, I don't mind switching dice, because as a D&D player I have buckets of different types. My concern becomes when I am throwing them on the table. 40 d6 die can be easily contained and don't generally make a mess. 40 d12s will knock over models, terrain, and possibly damage someone's Celestine.
Unless we do something to limit the amount of die being used, this may result in slowing down the game or having a seperate rolling areas. Neither of these are major concerns, merely inconveniences.
That being said, I would much rather do D20s, and redo the way shots work.
Instead of rolling individual shots, roll a D20 to see how many shots were "effective hits" or something like that. That would seriously speed things up if you only had to roll one die.
But then, you'll get ork and guard players in here say "Muh buckets of die!!!"
A lot of the stuff mentioned aren't really FAQ material.. as much as I'd like to see them change the dice, that's a new edition. They probably should go with 2d6 like Warmahordes does, model to model instead of unit to unit, but the scale of the game would have to drastically come down (I don't think that would be a bad thing).
Honestly, I am not very hopeful for GW to fix issues. Their FAQs are always 6 months out of date based on the "meta"
So GW came out and publicly stated FAQ will not be making any large changes from now on.
Here's something they can FAQ out. Kellermorphs need to be removed from the game, entirely. Or at least made show they can't pop in out of nowhere, delete a character or two. Oh and you can have 3 of them. Nononononononononono.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So GW came out and publicly stated FAQ will not be making any large changes from now on.
Here's something they can FAQ out. Kellermorphs need to be removed from the game, entirely. Or at least made show they can't pop in out of nowhere, delete a character or two. Oh and you can have 3 of them. Nononononononononono.
PFT, the kellermorph is probably the least evil of those charachters, the new vindicare summoning makes that one even more annoying.
torblind wrote: A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.
Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.
They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.
My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.
The difference is a D12 would allow the to wound chart to be rewritten so middle strength weapons arn't the go too
What do you classify as middlestrength?
S5-6 mainly and some S7, things like plasma shouldn't be S7-8 it should be S6-7 it's for anti heavy infantry not tank busting, that's why melta exsist in the lore
Basically do S+6-T is what you have to roll on a D12 to wound with 1 and 12 being the auto fail/success though I'm not a huge fan of the auto success.
S & T might need doubled to make it work better maybe it's just too complicated for modern GW. But right now the system scales wierdly IMHO , it's easy to doubleout Low strength but S5-7 doesn't even against Titans
ThatMG wrote: BUILDINGS to actually matter, with supported rules and to actually be used on the table top.
Standard Detachments should gain fortification slots so you don't have to WASTE a detach on it.
Mby destructible terrain if possible.
A-friggin-men to that. Although I'd doubt this being FAQ'd. GW just needs to release a 8E version of Stronghold Assault with all the datasheets for Fortifications and terrain that works, including an amended Battalion with a Fort slot.
I'd love to be able to actually put my own models on my own Landing Pad, but currently it's technically illegal, which is complete bunk
I'd be ok with SOME D10s/12s in the game for 1-dice-needed rolls. But I am adamantly opposed to the whole system getting uprooted and D6s removed entirely. D6s are just far too convenience and I shudder to think of rolling a handful of D12s for anything.
What I think is a missed opportunity that GW has all but abandoned is the d6+x, d3+x, 2d3, etc rolls. So, so many weapons would be so much better if their Damage or # of Shots were D3+1 or 2d3, etc Why does everything with a random number have to be a boring d6 or d3 only? Imagine Flamers with 2d3 hits, or Lascannons with d3+2 Damage? They would be FAR more reliable weapons
Martel732 wrote: I've rolled 16 colored d10s for bab5 wars. Its fine.
I can get over the inconvenience of rolling big honking d10s/12s, and maybe even the annoyance of reading them once rolled (because it's easy to see the other numbers on the sides opposed to those at a 90 degree angle of a cube).
But what I could never get over, unless GW sell them cheaply (as-if), is how much more it would cost to buy 20+ non-d6s.
There's also something satisfying about storing all your d6s in a nice neat block, instead of the sheer chaos of multiple non-cubed shaped dice in a bag.
In short, d6s need to remain the bulk of the necessary dice for most rolls, but the occasional one-off d10/12 roll would be fine.
But I still think d3+2, d6+1, 2d3 rolls need to make a comeback in 40K
D10s and D12's don't need to be that big. They can be just as big as D6's.
Given the huge amount of dice some units can pump out nowadays however, using apps becomes more and more attractive, even if it does rely on pRNG (not that real dice are truly random anyway, initial conditions and whatnot).
Sigh, some of us like to go into an actual store a buy stuff as opposed to ordering online and waiting. I realized I am in the minority on that particular issue, but my overall point is that there are SEVERAL inconveniences with rolling non-d6s en masse. Regardless of how a d12 system would benefit the balance of the game (which is debatable since the rules around it can always be just as imbalanced/unfair), it wouldn't be as fun/convenient as rolling d6s.
But I think we've derailed the discussion enough, so to get back on topic: I also expect the Big FAQ to coincide with several Codex FAQs and hopefully we see some of the bigger issued addressed. I'd like to be able to use my Webway Gate, but since it cannot even be legally deployed in most games, I just can't get the inspiration to finish painting it.
I think the move to D10/D12/D20 would require a change of granularity.
At the moment, each model makes its own attacks, so 10 model units will always throw at least 10 dice for every attack. If units were instead treated as a single thing that can attack, and you only had like 2 attacks for a 10 model units, then it would be much easier to use big dice (and the number of wounds generated could be a difference between attack dice and defense dice, or something). But that would be a game quite different from 40K.
The main issue is really that 40K games have too many models for a ruleset that works on a per-model basis. Over the years the game size (in terms of # of models) has increased a lot, and 8th ed. made it even worse by handing rerolls like free candy.
That's also why I dislike 2,000pts game, and prefer smaller games.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So GW came out and publicly stated FAQ will not be making any large changes from now on.
Here's something they can FAQ out. Kellermorphs need to be removed from the game, entirely. Or at least made show they can't pop in out of nowhere, delete a character or two. Oh and you can have 3 of them. Nononononononononono.
Over simplifing a unit or faction in to unuse does not seem to be something that can stop GW from acting. I do doubt something like that would happen to the kellermorph, but if they wanted they can blast any army in to oblivion. BA were good for what 2-3 months, before they got the ax?
Karol wrote: Over simplifing a unit or faction in to unuse does not seem to be something that can stop GW from acting. I do doubt something like that would happen to the kellermorph, but if they wanted they can blast any army in to oblivion. BA were good for what 2-3 months, before they got the ax?
BA was never "good" as far as marines are perceived. It was smash captains and only smash captains that got somewhat nerfed. Nothing else in their codex was harmed.
It's hard for that to temper my expectations because I don't know if I have a good grasp of what GW would consider a seismic change. Doom getting FAQed to only work with Asuryani units would feel like a huge change for Aeldari lists but is technically only a small tweak. The same could be said for most Command Point change suggestions.
Karol wrote: Over simplifing a unit or faction in to unuse does not seem to be something that can stop GW from acting. I do doubt something like that would happen to the kellermorph, but if they wanted they can blast any army in to oblivion. BA were good for what 2-3 months, before they got the ax?
BA was never "good" as far as marines are perceived. It was smash captains and only smash captains that got somewhat nerfed. Nothing else in their codex was harmed.
Which means again 2-3 months of being good, and then getting nerfed hard. Before the deep strike nerf BA players who wanted play something else then cpts and scouts could at least have had hope that DC or something may end up fixed. After the change it doesn't matter, it would require a codex rewrite, and I doubt GW is going to be doing any loyalist books that won't be focused on chad marines in the near future.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.
Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.
I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.
I have never seen a player in game make the choice to send intercessor squads after entrenched guard squads holding objectives. I wonder why.
Because they can sit at 30" and kill a squad per turn without receiving any return fire?
Where I play it's the other way round, with the guard squads sitting at 48" and the Marines eating Autocannon fire for at least two turns before they can retaliate at all.
To get back on topic:
I'll add another +1 to the call for Beta Bolters to get adjusted so it doesn't do the most good for the units that need it the least.
I'll also restate that Beta Bolter needs to do something for Autobolters, Stalkers, and other 'Bolter' weapons that are not Rapid fire.
Reivers still really need some CC options for their Sergeants.
Primaris transport segregation hasn't gotten any less stupid. And I say that as someone who absolutely favors the Repulsors.
Custodian Guard Storm Shields and power swords are both blatently overpriced. I'm not sure they can be fixed with just a price change (Custodes are too expensive to kit out with less than the best gear), but it makes zero sense for the sword-and-shield combo to be more expensive that the Guardian Spear and Misocondria while also being much worse.
Karol wrote: Over simplifing a unit or faction in to unuse does not seem to be something that can stop GW from acting. I do doubt something like that would happen to the kellermorph, but if they wanted they can blast any army in to oblivion. BA were good for what 2-3 months, before they got the ax?
BA was never "good" as far as marines are perceived. It was smash captains and only smash captains that got somewhat nerfed. Nothing else in their codex was harmed.
Which means again 2-3 months of being good, and then getting nerfed hard. Before the deep strike nerf BA players who wanted play something else then cpts and scouts could at least have had hope that DC or something may end up fixed. After the change it doesn't matter, it would require a codex rewrite, and I doubt GW is going to be doing any loyalist books that won't be focused on chad marines in the near future.
If you think one unit taking a moderate nerf counts as nerfing a whole army hard I have no idea what to tell you. BA wasn't the only army to be affected by that change. And, no, it doesn't require a codex rewrite.
Where I play it's the other way round, with the guard squads sitting at 48" and the Marines eating Autocannon fire for at least two turns before they can retaliate at all.
So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
as the continued popularity of the ITC ruleset has made abundantly clear, units in 40k can't really be balanced around a particular ruleset, even all the particular rulesets released by GW. Some popular tournament organizer might just go ahead and say "hey you know that style of objective that doesn't exist at all anymore in GWs official missions? All our missions are going to have that as a possible secondary objective, because it favors the kind of armies we like to see."
GW has pretty much totally abandoned kill points in favor of the (IMO) far better compromise between total granularity and gameplay expediency which is "kill X power level worth of enemy units".
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
Then I'm sorry to say that your points just aren't even relevant to any discussion about balance.
as the continued popularity of the ITC ruleset has made abundantly clear, units in 40k can't really be balanced around a particular ruleset, even all the particular rulesets released by GW. Some popular tournament organizer might just go ahead and say "hey you know that style of objective that doesn't exist at all anymore in GWs official missions? All our missions are going to have that as a possible secondary objective, because it favors the kind of armies we like to see."
GW has pretty much totally abandoned kill points in favor of the (IMO) far better compromise between total granularity and gameplay expediency which is "kill X power level worth of enemy units".
by doing that they more or less killed any elite army, that has not super above avarge kill power, in the game. Plus what is wrong with multi unit armies being punished for having hordes of units? They already have a ton of stuff going in their favour, starting from army foot print, through objective claiming, to being favoured by random generators of the game. Kill count being important seems like a logical way to limit those horde armies. Otherwise you either play horde, or you need to break the game rules in a legal way, like armies build around flyer stands do.
If you think one unit taking a moderate nerf counts as nerfing a whole army hard I have no idea what to tell you. BA wasn't the only army to be affected by that change. And, no, it doesn't require a codex rewrite.
If an army consits of two types of models and one gets nerfed, then it is a 50% nerf to an army. I can give a better example, the nerf to BA captins and how they deployed and moved around, nerfed the entire GK army. So you can even have zero units nerfed, but get a 100% nerf to the entire army.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
Then I'm sorry to say that your points just aren't even relevant to any discussion about balance.
By that logic anyone who isn't playing with atleast 32 guardsmen in their list just isn't relevant to any discussion about balance.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
Then I'm sorry to say that your points just aren't even relevant to any discussion about balance.
By that logic anyone who isn't playing with atleast 32 guardsmen in their list just isn't relevant to any discussion about balance.
So we're balancing around bigger tables or playing half points on a standard sized table?
No.
Why don't we balance for a 10'x10' table? I bet IG artillery would really enjoy that!
as the continued popularity of the ITC ruleset has made abundantly clear, units in 40k can't really be balanced around a particular ruleset, even all the particular rulesets released by GW. Some popular tournament organizer might just go ahead and say "hey you know that style of objective that doesn't exist at all anymore in GWs official missions? All our missions are going to have that as a possible secondary objective, because it favors the kind of armies we like to see."
GW has pretty much totally abandoned kill points in favor of the (IMO) far better compromise between total granularity and gameplay expediency which is "kill X power level worth of enemy units".
by doing that they more or less killed any elite army, that has not super above avarge kill power, in the game. Plus what is wrong with multi unit armies being punished for having hordes of units? They already have a ton of stuff going in their favour, starting from army foot print, through objective claiming, to being favoured by random generators of the game. Kill count being important seems like a logical way to limit those horde armies. Otherwise you either play horde, or you need to break the game rules in a legal way, like armies build around flyer stands do.
If you think one unit taking a moderate nerf counts as nerfing a whole army hard I have no idea what to tell you. BA wasn't the only army to be affected by that change. And, no, it doesn't require a codex rewrite.
If an army consits of two types of models and one gets nerfed, then it is a 50% nerf to an army. I can give a better example, the nerf to BA captins and how they deployed and moved around, nerfed the entire GK army. So you can even have zero units nerfed, but get a 100% nerf to the entire army.
Right like that most unviable and highly elite of armies, the Imperial Knights.
2k of imperial knights definitely DOES NOT have the same killing power as almost any other shooting-oriented 2k point army, even if you do go entirely Castellans/Crusaders/Helverins.They also don't have very good objective control. somehow they manage to work fine, and when you move away from ITC rules, you start to see armies with multiple knights taken in top armies instead of being locked into one specific meta setup.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
Then I'm sorry to say that your points just aren't even relevant to any discussion about balance.
By that logic anyone who isn't playing with atleast 32 guardsmen in their list just isn't relevant to any discussion about balance.
So we're balancing around bigger tables or playing half points on a standard sized table?
No.
Why don't we balance for a 10'x10' table? I bet IG artillery would really enjoy that!
Oh right, nothing outside of tournament standard rules is relevant. Right. Forgot where I was for a minute there.
Also, try taking an all-Primaris list into an guard list that maxed out on infantry squads and heavy weapon squads with ACs even under normal deployment rules and see how you do. Here's a hint, you won't get to take a second turn.
Back on topic, why the heck is a Hurricane Bolter 10 points? Twin-linked weapons are usually cheaper and the Hurricane is just three linked Storm Bolters. If anything it should be like 5 points.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
Oh right, nothing outside of tournament standard rules is relevant. Right. Forgot where I was for a minute there.
Also, try taking an all-Primaris list into an guard list that maxed out on infantry squads with ACs even under normal deployment rules and see how you do. Here's a hint, you won't get to take a second turn.
I'm sorry, but it's just absurd to try and balance every configuration that 1% of the player base uses. That's like asking Starcraft to balance around custom maps.
30 autocannons kills 3 primaris in cover, so, yes I would get a second turn.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.
Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.
I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.
I have never seen a player in game make the choice to send intercessor squads after entrenched guard squads holding objectives. I wonder why.
Because they can sit at 30" and kill a squad per turn without receiving any return fire?
Here is a guard player trying to defend 4ppm guardsmen before, because you apparentlyhaven't seen this argument that is already over a year old.
GW has given up and is now bringing other troops down to the bottom floor of ppm which is crowned by Guard.
Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.
???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.
And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...
Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).
Vs Marines.
2 squads of Guard vs 1 squad of 6 Marines (80 points v 78)
If Guard go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 4 with only 17.26% Casualties.
If Marines go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 6. 29.23% Casualties.
Guard win.
Vs T’au
2 squads of Guard vs 11 Fire warriors (80 points v 77)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 37.55% Casualties vs 91.83%
If T’au go first, Guard win. 65.55% Casulaties vs 62.72%.
Advantage to Guard. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Nids
2 squads of Guard vs 3 Warriors with Deathspitters (not even going to bother with it being vs 10 Termagants with devourers) (80 points v 75)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 55.56% Casualties vs 66.67%.
If Nids go first, Nids win. 33.33% Casualties vs 77.78%.
Draw over 6 turns, with slight advantage to Nids. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Thousand Sons
6 squads of Guard vs 11 Rubrics (one with Soulreaper and killing off Sorcerer first) (240 points v 240)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 35.5% Casualties vs 59.92%
If Sons go first, Guard win. 44.34% Casualties vs 47.1%.
Guard win, though, it is pretty close if Sons go first. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.
Vs Necrons
3 squads of Guard vs 1 unit of Warriors
If Guard go first, Necrons win. 33.61% Casualties to 50.5%.
If Necrons go first, then Necrons win. 41.09% Casualties vs 57.28%.
Necrons win over 6 turns. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Admech (Rangers)
1 squad v 1 squad (40 points each)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Admech tabled turn 6. 27.8% Guard Casualties.
If Admech go first, Guard win. 51.9% Casualties vs 80.06%.
Guard win.
So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.
Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.
Oh right, nothing outside of tournament standard rules is relevant. Right. Forgot where I was for a minute there.
Also, try taking an all-Primaris list into an guard list that maxed out on infantry squads with ACs even under normal deployment rules and see how you do. Here's a hint, you won't get to take a second turn.
I'm sorry, but it's just absurd to try and balance every configuration that 1% of the player base uses. That's like asking Starcraft to balance around custom maps.
30 autocannons kills 3 primaris in cover, so, yes I would get a second turn.
I've played that matchup a dozen times and never made it to my second turn with more than 7 Marines left on the table. I suppose I should have said "a second turn that was worth bothering with."
Edit: I also recognize that those results might be statistically unusual now that I think about it.
