Xenomancers wrote: How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.
Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post: How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?
I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.
Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.
Xenomancers wrote: How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.
Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post: How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?
I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.
Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.
That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.
Xenomancers wrote: How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.
Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post: How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?
I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.
Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.
That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.
I think so too. I also don't think it's too much to demand they spend CP to get to a 4++. If anything, having a 4++warlord trait was probably a mistake, so just removing it might be the simplest fix.
It's funny how much harder things are to balance with warlord traits, chapter tactics, and stratagems around.
"you are likely giving up a buff life guide for it (causes you are probably taking yvraine instead of a second farseer or eldrad)"
That is *not* why high-placing Tourny lists feature Yvraine instead of a second Ynnari Farseer or Eldrad. It's because they don't want to get DQed for not following the rules. This isn't some minor corner rule. It's a cornerstone of the Ynnari rules.
"An and you are shooting at bs4+ instead of 3+ or you are out of range because you didn't advance." Advancing on Spears is nice, but 6" means a lot less with their base movement, and the possibility of Quicken. More importantly, if they advanced to shoot, they're now within 12" of the enemy and can't charge. I'm not sure if you know this, but being within 12" of the enemy means no Alaitoc bonus. Also, Spears are less durable per point to shooting than Tac Marines within 12". And then there's the possibility of charging - Spears do worse than Marines in CC vs many things - including Guardsmen - if they don't charge. Even before considering that they will then strike last. Ending within 12" of an enemy and not charging is a *BAD* idea with Spears.
Further, anything big enough to warrent sending a 9-man Spears unit after it is very unlikely to be killed with just one round of Spear shooting. Half their damage is their CC, and they need to leverage both.
The Advance and Charge from Saim-Hann is nice. But I'd rather Alaitoc or Uthwe or Biel Tan (look at their stratagem). Shining Spears aren't Ork Boyz or Gaunts or Genestealers. You don't just try a bunch of long-range charges and get what you get. If you fail the charge, you're toast. And you only get one (possibly 3, if you're foolish enough) unit, so only one attempt to charge. Thus, the reroll from the trait isn't all that useful - a fraction of the time, spending 1 CP to reroll 1 of the charge dice is going to give you all the upsides at relatively minor CP cost (you *really* don't want to be risking those 50/50 charges, even with rerolls). The Advance and Charge is nice, but compared to a psykic power that lets you shoot twice, fight twice, or move twice, no contest.
Nova Lance is really good on the Autarch. He goes from lesser-Captain to lesser-SmashCaptain.
Go ahead and try putting 2 or 3 SHining Spears on the front line turn 1 as Alaitoc. One can get -2 to hit with the stratagem, but the other just has -1 from Alaitoc. You're still worse-than-RG-Tac durability to almost everything. What you're talking about is a bad idea.
The unit is a little undercosted. But you clearly don't understand how or why.
One unit of spears is good because of the various buff leveraging. Two can be okay for the redundancy. 3+ is obviously worse.
There are similarities to Smash captains. One is exceptional. Two is almost as good and the redundancy probably makes it optimal. Five BA captains is crap because you cant boost them all. (Also rule of three but meh).
This is different to say the pre-nerf flying tyrants who were good on their own and didn't need boosting.
Spears or Harlie bikes are good - but point some shooting at them and they start falling over. Plenty of d2 weapons out there.
Bharring wrote: "you are likely giving up a buff life guide for it (causes you are probably taking yvraine instead of a second farseer or eldrad)"
That is *not* why high-placing Tourny lists feature Yvraine instead of a second Ynnari Farseer or Eldrad. It's because they don't want to get DQed for not following the rules. This isn't some minor corner rule. It's a cornerstone of the Ynnari rules.
"An and you are shooting at bs4+ instead of 3+ or you are out of range because you didn't advance." Advancing on Spears is nice, but 6" means a lot less with their base movement, and the possibility of Quicken. More importantly, if they advanced to shoot, they're now within 12" of the enemy and can't charge. I'm not sure if you know this, but being within 12" of the enemy means no Alaitoc bonus. Also, Spears are less durable per point to shooting than Tac Marines within 12". And then there's the possibility of charging - Spears do worse than Marines in CC vs many things - including Guardsmen - if they don't charge. Even before considering that they will then strike last. Ending within 12" of an enemy and not charging is a *BAD* idea with Spears.
Further, anything big enough to warrent sending a 9-man Spears unit after it is very unlikely to be killed with just one round of Spear shooting. Half their damage is their CC, and they need to leverage both.
The Advance and Charge from Saim-Hann is nice. But I'd rather Alaitoc or Uthwe or Biel Tan (look at their stratagem). Shining Spears aren't Ork Boyz or Gaunts or Genestealers. You don't just try a bunch of long-range charges and get what you get. If you fail the charge, you're toast. And you only get one (possibly 3, if you're foolish enough) unit, so only one attempt to charge. Thus, the reroll from the trait isn't all that useful - a fraction of the time, spending 1 CP to reroll 1 of the charge dice is going to give you all the upsides at relatively minor CP cost (you *really* don't want to be risking those 50/50 charges, even with rerolls). The Advance and Charge is nice, but compared to a psykic power that lets you shoot twice, fight twice, or move twice, no contest.
Nova Lance is really good on the Autarch. He goes from lesser-Captain to lesser-SmashCaptain.
Go ahead and try putting 2 or 3 SHining Spears on the front line turn 1 as Alaitoc. One can get -2 to hit with the stratagem, but the other just has -1 from Alaitoc. You're still worse-than-RG-Tac durability to almost everything. What you're talking about is a bad idea.
The unit is a little undercosted. But you clearly don't understand how or why.
LOL at comparing space marines to -1 to hit spears for durability. Even if their durability was similar (it's not vs anything but trash weapons) Spears only do about 5-6 x more damage per point and with -2 they are practically invulnerable.
Why are we even talking about a RG tactical marine? I have never seen one. It's like you don't even play the game making statements like this.
Not to mention - with their insane mobility + quicken - they don't even need to start in LOS (which is typically how I see them played).
The point I am trying to make about CWE vs Ynnari is bs3+ guided spears do similar damage to a ynnari spears unit that advanced and isn't guided but fights twice. I've seen many Ynnari lists that don't include a farseer. Stop going off about ynnari armies needing to take yvraine or ynncarne - I havn't played ynnari in like over a year and I even mentioned a variation in the post that had yvraine in it...
Breng77 wrote: again neither seems to be spammed to win games but rather taken because CP are good, and they are the best way in their respective books to unlock said CP. Let me put it this way, do you think if people could get 5 CP (or even say 3-4 CP) taking a supreme command of smash captains you would be seeing tons of scouts? Personally I don't think you would, you would see 3 Smash Captains. People want the OP units in a book, but they also want CP, so troops get taken.
Infantry might be slightly undercosted, but they are in a tough place due to how low end points work (raising them to 5 points is a 25% increase in cost).
As to tac marines, sure it is a mess, but that is because they suck, not because scouts are OMG amazing OP units. So again unless by OP you mean "better than a tactical marine" then no scouts are not OP. No list is spamming scouts to win games, they are taking them because they must take troops, and scouts are better than tacticals. Being the best choice in a slot in a particular codex does not make a unit OP, it just speaks to poor internal balance. Maybe all the other choices are just bad.
You argument is akin to say if sisters became a top book because Seraphim and Celestine were OP, but people took battle sisters to fill out battalions, and you saying See Battle Sisters are OP...
Infantry are 5 pt models, no question. 25% is the right increase for them to start.
Tac marines are a mess and no scouts aren't OP but they are internally which is stupid. Tac marines need a buff and scouts probably need a small nerf.
Both units win games. Make no mistake. They are the cornerstone of the lists and they win games by taking and holding objectives. Scouts aren't incredible for their points but they are great at holding objectives. Infantry are the best objective holders in the game for reasons previously stated.
Breng77 wrote: again neither seems to be spammed to win games but rather taken because CP are good, and they are the best way in their respective books to unlock said CP. Let me put it this way, do you think if people could get 5 CP (or even say 3-4 CP) taking a supreme command of smash captains you would be seeing tons of scouts? Personally I don't think you would, you would see 3 Smash Captains. People want the OP units in a book, but they also want CP, so troops get taken.
Infantry might be slightly undercosted, but they are in a tough place due to how low end points work (raising them to 5 points is a 25% increase in cost).
As to tac marines, sure it is a mess, but that is because they suck, not because scouts are OMG amazing OP units. So again unless by OP you mean "better than a tactical marine" then no scouts are not OP. No list is spamming scouts to win games, they are taking them because they must take troops, and scouts are better than tacticals. Being the best choice in a slot in a particular codex does not make a unit OP, it just speaks to poor internal balance. Maybe all the other choices are just bad.
You argument is akin to say if sisters became a top book because Seraphim and Celestine were OP, but people took battle sisters to fill out battalions, and you saying See Battle Sisters are OP...
Infantry are 5 pt models, no question. 25% is the right increase for them to start.
Tac marines are a mess and no scouts aren't OP but they are internally which is stupid. Tac marines need a buff and scouts probably need a small nerf.
Both units win games. Make no mistake. They are the cornerstone of the lists and they win games by taking and holding objectives. Scouts aren't incredible for their points but they are great at holding objectives. Infantry are the best objective holders in the game for reasons previously stated.
Scouts are terrible at holding objectives. They aren't fast - they have poor durability per point and they can't repel anything. They are more useless chaff that costs more than other useless chaff. They have a good deployment option that would be great on another unit but is really bad for them. Fact of the mater is - putting bad units anywhere you want on the table sucks. Literally the only reason they are taken is because smash captain is OP as a mofo and 3 smash captains isn't much better than 2 so 4 more starting CP is preferable to a captain smash lite.
Yeah - I've seen some other lists that include scouts too - those lists are garbage.
Breng77 wrote: again neither seems to be spammed to win games but rather taken because CP are good, and they are the best way in their respective books to unlock said CP. Let me put it this way, do you think if people could get 5 CP (or even say 3-4 CP) taking a supreme command of smash captains you would be seeing tons of scouts? Personally I don't think you would, you would see 3 Smash Captains. People want the OP units in a book, but they also want CP, so troops get taken.
Infantry might be slightly undercosted, but they are in a tough place due to how low end points work (raising them to 5 points is a 25% increase in cost).
As to tac marines, sure it is a mess, but that is because they suck, not because scouts are OMG amazing OP units. So again unless by OP you mean "better than a tactical marine" then no scouts are not OP. No list is spamming scouts to win games, they are taking them because they must take troops, and scouts are better than tacticals. Being the best choice in a slot in a particular codex does not make a unit OP, it just speaks to poor internal balance. Maybe all the other choices are just bad.
You argument is akin to say if sisters became a top book because Seraphim and Celestine were OP, but people took battle sisters to fill out battalions, and you saying See Battle Sisters are OP...
Infantry are 5 pt models, no question. 25% is the right increase for them to start.
Tac marines are a mess and no scouts aren't OP but they are internally which is stupid. Tac marines need a buff and scouts probably need a small nerf.
Both units win games. Make no mistake. They are the cornerstone of the lists and they win games by taking and holding objectives. Scouts aren't incredible for their points but they are great at holding objectives. Infantry are the best objective holders in the game for reasons previously stated.
Scouts are terrible at holding objectives. They aren't fast - they have poor durability per point and they can't repel anything. They are more useless chaff that costs more than other useless chaff. They have a good deployment option that would be great on another unit but is really bad for them. Fact of the mater is - putting bad units anywhere you want on the table sucks. Literally the only reason they are taken is because smash captain is OP as a mofo and 3 smash captains isn't much better than 2 so 4 more starting CP is preferable to a captain smash lite.
Yeah - I've seen some other lists that include scouts too - those lists are garbage.
I would suggest that a unit that can be placed anywhere on the board has excellent mobility.
Per point they aren't too durable but they're always in cover and can become a pain to shift. Their damage output is meagre.
They feature in each and every top list that has space marines in it. The ability to scout deploy is really, really strong and makes them a great screen (though admittedly this is less useful in the current meta where turn 1 DS isn't a thing anymore). Of course tacs sucking is part of that equation too.
This is so far removed from everyone's local meta anyway. Talking about these lists is kind of pointless anyway. We all know Knights are good, we all know Guard is good, nothing to see here, move along.
"Stop going off about ynnari armies needing to take yvraine or ynncarne"
Then stop suggesting it. It's not a valid tactic any more than bringing loaded dice. Sure, an honest mistake. So please stop making it and/or (preferably and) stop pretending you're some expert on Eldar.
"Even if their durability was similar (it's not vs anything but trash weapons)"
Trash weapons like:
-Plasma
-Lasguns
-Bolt (yeah, trash)
-Smashfether
-Knights
-Mortal Wounds
-Splinter
-Dissies
... What else was in the top 10 again?
Yes, they are glass cannon. So they shouldn't be more durable than Tacs. Still means your suggestion of putting them on the front lines in the open doesn't mean they'll survive automagically just because they're Alaitoc.
Spears are actually *insanely* similar to Marines in durability/pt. T4 2W for more than 2x the cost, with a 3+/4++. So it's the same for anything with D1 or AP-1 or less, worse for anything D-morethanone, and better for anything AP-2 or better but D1. I know you claim that only the AP-tons D1 weapons are what matter when talking about Spears, but funny that it's always all those AP0/-1 or D2 weapons everywhere when talking Primaris or Termies.
I only compared Alaitoc spears to RG spears. I compared Spears in general to Marines in general - some have -1-to-hit, some have 6++, some have neither. I get that Spears are too cheap for their durability, but they aren't what you think they are.
You keep seeing any disagreement with your specific claims as full-throated support of the status quo. Pointing out Spears are about as durable as Marines in no way forwards the position that Spears aren't OP or that Marines are weak. Stop reading it that way.
Please try to understand the point being made when reading a post. Please stop seeing strawmen shouting what you want to hear where you should be seeing letters and words that say things.
When did they go from BS/WS4 to BS/WS3? Was that the launch of 8th? Or was it the final 7th Ed Codex?
I feel like that change has sold a lot of those crappy old models but did not have a great benefit to the game.
Maybe they should be BS4 but with +1 to hit if they didn't move that turn or something. Or if they have no other friendly units within 6" to show how they are forward operators.
They moved away from many of the split BS within armies. While there are still some, Guardians had the same change (Guardian squads and vehicles went from WS/BS3 to WS/BS4).
But you really don't take scouts for their dakka - at least not their boltguns. You take Scouts for board presence. Same concept of Rangers - "chaff" in an elite army with placement shenanigans but no real firepower. Rangers (Alaitoc at least) are harder to shoot but easier to chop than Scouts, worse deployment options, and cost +1ppm - but they both function largely the same.
Bharring wrote: "Stop going off about ynnari armies needing to take yvraine or ynncarne"
Then stop suggesting it. It's not a valid tactic any more than bringing loaded dice. Sure, an honest mistake. So please stop making it and/or (preferably and) stop pretending you're some expert on Eldar.
"Even if their durability was similar (it's not vs anything but trash weapons)"
Trash weapons like:
-Plasma
-Lasguns
-Bolt (yeah, trash)
-Smashfether
-Knights
-Mortal Wounds
-Splinter
-Dissies
... What else was in the top 10 again?
Yes, they are glass cannon. So they shouldn't be more durable than Tacs. Still means your suggestion of putting them on the front lines in the open doesn't mean they'll survive automagically just because they're Alaitoc.
Spears are actually *insanely* similar to Marines in durability/pt. T4 2W for more than 2x the cost, with a 3+/4++. So it's the same for anything with D1 or AP-1 or less, worse for anything D-morethanone, and better for anything AP-2 or better but D1. I know you claim that only the AP-tons D1 weapons are what matter when talking about Spears, but funny that it's always all those AP0/-1 or D2 weapons everywhere when talking Primaris or Termies.
I only compared Alaitoc spears to RG spears. I compared Spears in general to Marines in general - some have -1-to-hit, some have 6++, some have neither. I get that Spears are too cheap for their durability, but they aren't what you think they are.
You keep seeing any disagreement with your specific claims as full-throated support of the status quo. Pointing out Spears are about as durable as Marines in no way forwards the position that Spears aren't OP or that Marines are weak. Stop reading it that way.
Please try to understand the point being made when reading a post. Please stop seeing strawmen shouting what you want to hear where you should be seeing letters and words that say things.
Okay - now you are just being dumb.
We are talking about turn 1. Half those things wont even be able to touch you because they have no rapid fire and if you are alitotoc you have -1 to hit. So no plasma overcharge or you are doing more damage to yourself than the spears. Smite? Okay - Your average eldar army has like 5+ denies so good luck getting more than 2 off. Plus it's not like you aren't bringing chaff to block. My list suggested had 30 khabs or 15 rangers. Smite isn't touching you basically turn 1 - nor is captain smash. Dessie is about the only legit threat that you can't just laugh off - you win the reward for the day here - I think you figured out dessie cannons are the best weapon in the game.
A whole batallion of gaurdsmen using FRFSRF kills a whole 1 shinning spear (without even factoring a reroll for the spears) turn 1. And this is with eldar failing the roll to go first which they have about a 60% chance to go first against an batallion of gaurd.
Really dude - it's got to get old being wrong all the time. Try not just arguing for arguments sake. SS have a proven track record of tournament dominance. The "best player" in the game decided to bring a unit. The are also demonstrably under costed by comparing them to similar units.
When did they go from BS/WS4 to BS/WS3? Was that the launch of 8th? Or was it the final 7th Ed Codex?
I feel like that change has sold a lot of those crappy old models but did not have a great benefit to the game.
Maybe they should be BS4 but with +1 to hit if they didn't move that turn or something. Or if they have no other friendly units within 6" to show how they are forward operators.
They always had the equivalent of BS3+ outside two codices. So them having it continued as such.
Guardians were always BS4+ until the last two codices because Phil Kelly decided that his precious Eldar needed to be even better.
"Okay - now you are just being dumb."
Not at all. Please reread the conversation a couple more times. I'll try to clear it up.
"We are talking about turn 1"
Where, in a list of weapons brought up to refute a direct quote from you about Spear durability not being similar to Marines vs any non-trash weapon, are you reading "talking about turn 1"? The part where it said "turn 1"? Because I don't see that part.
"Half those things wont even be able to touch you because they have no rapid fire and if you are alitotoc you have -1 to hit."
Funny, things like Lasguns and Boltguns do more damage/pt to Spears than Marines even outside Rapidfire, but you're always so bullish about how they just wipe Marines out in a single round (they don't). So they're good enough to wipe out Marines quickly, and wipe out Spears faster per point, but Marines are less durable per point to them? What gives?
"So no plasma overcharge or you are doing more damage to yourself than the spears."
I, too, would suggest only overcharging Plas if you can gimmick the Gets Hot when shooting at RG/AL/Alaitoc. That said, you typically want to get Plas within Rapidfire. And Alaitoc has no bonus within Rapidfire. This weapon is a little more points efficient vs Marines assuming RG/Alaitoc, outside 12", and not rapidfiring. Any of those change, and it's much more efficient vs Spears.
"Smite? Okay - Your average eldar army has like 5+ denies so good luck getting more than 2 off." Fair enough. Smite is *slightly* more deadly to Marines than Shining Spears sitting in the CWE's deployment zone vs Smite. Of all the things listed, yes, this one I was mistaken.
"My list suggested had 30 khabs or 15 rangers."
Your suggested list as last posted was illegal. I get the general gist of what you're trying to do there, but have no reason to think even a corrected version would be on the same level as the top-tier players' lists.
"Smite isn't touching you basically turn 1 - nor is captain smash." Neither are they touching Marines turn 1. So even if we were talking only about turn 1, still seems reasonably equivelant?
"A whole batallion of gaurdsmen using FRFSRF kills a whole 1 shinning spear (without even factoring a reroll for the spears) turn 1"
Fair enough. You wind up with 30/9 wounds, or 3+1/3 wounds, or the better part of 2 spears. However, that's more points than the 3+1/3 Marines they kill instead. Yes, it's not a lot. But again, Spears and Marines are similar here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Really dude - it's got to get old being wrong all the time."
I'm wrong often enough. But not nearly as often as you seem to believe.
"Try not just arguing for arguments sake."
Try actually understanding the words others' use instead of substituting your own meaning.
"SS have a proven track record of tournament dominance. The "best player" in the game decided to bring a unit."
Certainly. They are OP. But they are almost always brought as *one* unit, and almost always as Ynnari, and almost always not used as frontline troops. Which is very much in line with my understanding of them.
"The are also demonstrably under costed by comparing them to similar units."
And who, in this thread, has been refuting that? Only the strawmen you've been inventing.
Perhaps the reason you think I'm wrong every post is because you don't even read what I write?
Ugh Bharring you don't need to constantly defend all things Eldar.
Ynarri have been top tier for a while now. Even post Soul burst nerf.
CWE and DE have some of the most powerful units in the game that contribute towards this, both armies are more than able to win as a primary army rather than going Ynarri too.
Shining Spears are one of the strongest units CWE can field. They probably need a nerf when compared to *any other biker unit in the game* (maybe excluding Praetoris or whatever the Custard JBs are).
However the CWE codex in particular has some of the worst internal balance I have ever seen and certain units are trash tier. The trash tier units need a significant buff.
I'd agree with everything you said except the last line. And maybe the first, based on some of the other posts I see.
I really need to set up a sig that says "CWE are OP, Tac Marines need help." Because I feel like that's in an absurdly large number of my posts, and people still think I'm claiming the opposite.
They moved away from many of the split BS within armies. While there are still some, Guardians had the same change (Guardian squads and vehicles went from WS/BS3 to WS/BS4).
But you really don't take scouts for their dakka - at least not their boltguns. You take Scouts for board presence. Same concept of Rangers - "chaff" in an elite army with placement shenanigans but no real firepower. Rangers (Alaitoc at least) are harder to shoot but easier to chop than Scouts, worse deployment options, and cost +1ppm - but they both function largely the same.
Yeah I know why they are taken. With BS4+ you at least had a payoff [of cheaper and with a scout move] but statistically worse
Now they are so close to tac marines they have eliminated the need for tactical marines completely.
Bharring wrote: I'd agree with everything you said except the last line. And maybe the first, based on some of the other posts I see.
I really need to set up a sig that says "CWE are OP, Tac Marines need help." Because I feel like that's in an absurdly large number of my posts, and people still think I'm claiming the opposite.
Well to be fair to those people, you have spent a lot of time in this thread math-hammering a defence of a unit that is widely considered awesome. Don't waste your time and energy on campaigning for the units GW is no doubt going to "fix".
Banshees (and to a lesser extent all Aspect Warriors excluding Dark Reapers and Dire Avengers), Warlocks, Jetbikes, Wraith Knight are all units that deserve love. Yet I see no threads from Eldar players about them?
Then I haven't been clear. I've been claiming things like:
-Vs most weapons, Spears and Marines are equally durable. Not that they should be - and even claimed that Spears should be less durable per point than Marines quite directly. I thought that would make it clear that I thought Spears were OP.
-That 3x9man Spear lists aren't inherently better than 1x9man Spear lists, for a variety of reasons. Not that lists with Spears were bad.
-That you can't take two Farseers in a Ynnari detatchment.
And other such claims I saw clear flaws on.
Things like there being no non-trash weapons in the game that aren't better at killing Marines than Spears. That being untrue does not mean Spears aren't OP.
Xenomancers wrote: How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.
Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post: How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?
I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.
Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.
That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.
I think so too. I also don't think it's too much to demand they spend CP to get to a 4++. If anything, having a 4++warlord trait was probably a mistake, so just removing it might be the simplest fix.
It's funny how much harder things are to balance with warlord traits, chapter tactics, and stratagems around.
The 4++ warlord trait isn't a mistake, because pure knights can NOT afford the CP to keep a dominus class knight under rotate ion shields.
Unlimited CP from Guard shenanigans being pumped inti 1 knight is an problem.
Castellans are undercosted thats fair.
Knights don't have any in codex CP regenerate options, how can something they don't have be removed?
Xenomancers wrote: How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.
Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post: How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?
I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.
Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.
That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.
I think so too. I also don't think it's too much to demand they spend CP to get to a 4++. If anything, having a 4++warlord trait was probably a mistake, so just removing it might be the simplest fix.
It's funny how much harder things are to balance with warlord traits, chapter tactics, and stratagems around.
The 4++ warlord trait isn't a mistake, because pure knights can NOT afford the CP to keep a dominus class knight under rotate ion shields.
Unlimited CP from Guard shenanigans being pumped inti 1 knight is an problem.
Castellans are undercosted thats fair.
Knights don't have any in codex CP regenerate options, how can something they don't have be removed?
Sorry I meant the IG and IG and BACP regen. There are no incentives to run pure knights so they aren't really a thing right now. I see your point about the 4++ in a pure knight army though. Requiring a full Lance to unlock strategems then is probably a good idea.
I honestly thought that you needed a full superheavy detachement, not an auxiliary to unlock knight stratagems.
It really should as several have mentioned.
1. In a lance you can only rotate one knight, so the enemy can still concentrate fire on another and blow one knight a turn easy.
2. With rotate you can at least pick which knight gets blown up (can either have 1 at 3++, or 2 at 4++, leaving 2 or 3 at 5++ to get blown up)
3. With only 5++ and 4-5 models, the knight you need on a given turn is the one that get blown up if you can't obtain 1or 2 4++
Ps cawls wrath is auto include and need a slight nerf, without it Castilian aren't that great ( well Castilian that do not have infinite cp, to reroll 1s and have a 3++ ... Which you cannot do if you take a full lance).
Bharring wrote: Then I haven't been clear. I've been claiming things like:
-Vs most weapons, Spears and Marines are equally durable. Not that they should be - and even claimed that Spears should be less durable per point than Marines quite directly. I thought that would make it clear that I thought Spears were OP.
I think you tried to make the accurate point that Spears are quite soft, can't take a punch and die under fire.
This is why you don't see 27 on competitive tables, not because people can't find the models.
The odds of going first with the +1 are only 56%. In a 5 game tournament you are probably going second twice. Good luck against the Imperial list in those circumstances.
Bharring wrote: Then I haven't been clear. I've been claiming things like:
-Vs most weapons, Spears and Marines are equally durable. Not that they should be - and even claimed that Spears should be less durable per point than Marines quite directly. I thought that would make it clear that I thought Spears were OP.
I think you tried to make the accurate point that Spears are quite soft, can't take a punch and die under fire.
This is why you don't see 27 on competitive tables, not because people can't find the models.
The odds of going first with the +1 are only 56%. In a 5 game tournament you are probably going second twice. Good luck against the Imperial list in those circumstances.
Also b.c they are not very good without 300pts of powers backing them up, otherwise they are just tougher Windriders with a 2D power sword.
Jidmah wrote: Maybe just take something that wasn't an S4 AP5 template in 7th?
Heavy flamers of all variants kill guardsmen just fine. As do hurricane bolters, assault cannons, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, avenger gatling cannons... and pretty much everything else that's has a decent amount of shots and at least AP-1.
S4 AP5 was the standard light infantry killing line in 7th, wounding on 3 and ignoring armour - it makes sense to be the starting point of the comparison between editions.
Most of your suggestions were heavier AP4 weapons used against medium infantry in 7th, and even light anti-tank weapons in the case of the S6 stuff.
And they aren't even all that good at killing guard in 8th - a heavy flamer kills a whole extra half guy in the same scenario and costs twice as much while the heavy bolter fired at BS3+ doesn't even do as much damage as the flamer.
What, whatever. So because flamers suck, guardsmen are overpowered? Awesome reasoning.
Also note that "light anti-tank" was not design, but a major flaw of the game since at least 5th edition. None of those weapons were ever meant to blow up tanks. 8th finally cleared up that flaw and forces people to take actual anti-tank to kill tanks once more.
Those guns are heavy anti-infantry weapons. If you want to kill a bunch of infantry in cover, use those.
I also love how you claim that a 36" range heavy bolter kills less than a 8" flamer. No need to bludgeon those guardsman with that heavy bolter.
In January I ran Craftworld Eldar at a 6 game Major in the UK. I didn’t include Dark Reapers because I hated the spam, and I didn’t run Ynnari because I wanted to prove a point at the time.
My list included 1 unit of 9 Spears, and 1 unit of 3 spears acting as a bodyguard for my Autarch Warlord. I ran them as Saim-Hann.
The Spears were good, in most games, but certainly not game breaking at the time (this was when you could deep strike turn 1 and then Quicken for 22” move and then charge). The times the Spears were excellent were the times that I got +1 to hit in combat, +1 to wound in combat, -1 to hit, +1 saves power cast on unit and then Doom cast on the target. Which, by the way…. Requires 1 Farseer Jetbike, 2 Warlock Jetbikes AND 2 Spiritseers. I also had a couple of Hemlocks for Jinx if needed. That, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, is a lot of point, power and CP investment to ensure everything lines up correctly. (686 points, 896 if you include 1 hemlock – then 1 CP for farseer/warlock stratagem. 1 CP for advance and charge and re-roll 1’s to hit in combat stratagem. Then, 2 cp for -1 to hit, maybe 1 CP for deepstriking)
Throughout the event, I discovered that deepstriking 20 Guardians and a Farseer was more optimal than deepstriking the Spears, so that led me to just deploying the Spears. However, in 1 game vs Chaos, my 9-man Spear unit was reduced to 4 models on turn 1, after a unit of 40 Alpha Legion cultists came in and shot them twice. (which, by the way, costs 160 points). After that they were severely neutered and got nowhere close to making back their points investment.
In other games, where I only got 1 or 2 powers off on them, they were ok. For anything with T7+, they needed Doom to be cast on the target, otherwise they really struggled to put out effective damage.
However, in the one game vs 13 Guard Tanks with infantry screening, they got the full buffs, and his entire shooting phase only killed 3 Spears.
But, that was 1 game out of 6.
The moment they don’t kill their target in combat, or if they can get counter charged, then, they suck. And they die quickly. Doesn’t matter if the weapon is -4AP and 2 damage a time if they are hitting on 3’s and only str 3 and they will only have a 2+ save with protect or a 3+ save without it.
When we look at things now, they have to start on the table due to the deepstrike nerf, preferably out of LoS. They can’t advance and charge unless you run them as Saim-Hann. They still die to weight of dice unless you pump in hundreds of points worth of protection and CP. They still die in combat. And, when all that is done and considered, they still only have a 6” and a 12” range on their weapons. Sure, it gives their Shuriken Catapults a 28”-34” threat range, but we all know how good 36 bolter shots are (even if 4 of them wound with -3ap).
Spears are good when you pile points into them, which gets amplified by the ability to get a bonus fight or shooting phase via Ynnari. But, when they don’t have their support in place, or get charged themselves, they really struggle.
If Ynnari didn’t exist, Spears would still be taken because they are a good unit out of a selection of many bad ones. But, taking more than 1 big squad of them is, imo, just a waste of points. 1 unit will get buffed and be pretty resilient and killy, the other 2 units will just be waiting for unit 1 to die, so they can get the buffs to start making their points back.
If you are taking Shining Spears for anti-infantry alone, I’d say stop and just swap the 281 points for 2 triple cannon Wave Serpents. Sure, it’s half the shots, but, the Serpent is going to benefit more from Alaitocs trait, has higher str shots, double the range AND is more resilient/effective after losing some wounds. Also, it then allows you to drop a lot of the supporting powers, which will likely free up space for a 3rd Wave Serpent.
As for counters, pick any common 2 damage weapons. A 3 dissie cannon Ravager (125 points) can reasonably expect to kill 2 Spears a turn, when they aren’t -2 to hit and have a 3++. 3 Ravagers therefore ruin a squad. (Ravagers also have the advantage of always making the first move vs Spears). At -2 to hit and a 3++, sure they will struggle to kill 1 each, but that is to be expected.
2 Guard squads using FRFSRF will kill 3 Spears. 40 points, or 50 points, it doesn’t matter.
2 AssCan Razorbacks will kill 3.5 Spears when re-rolling 1’s to hit and wound.
A turn 1 charging Daemon Prince with Warptime will kill 3 Spears then easily survive them falling back and shooting him.
8 Dark Reapers (cheaper than 9 Spears) will shoot 4 Spears off the table a turn.
I’m not saying Spears are bad. Not by a long long stretch, but spamming them won’t win you tournaments – especially against the current soup lists.
Spears require a lot of moving parts to be fully effective. The moment you miss 1 or 2 of those parts, then they really start to struggle.
If you want to balance Spears, then you HAVE to do it from a Craftworlds ONLY point of view. You CANNOT balance a Craftworlds unit around an ability from a different codex. If that ability is what is causing the imbalance, then you target the ability first. Nerfing 1 unit, because of an ability in a different codex just unnecessarily nerfs the unit when used for its original purpose. At that point you are hurting Craftworlds to spite Ynnari, rather than just hurt Ynnari.
I’d wager that the 14 Grotesques, 20 Guardians and the Yncarne in Nick Nanavati’s list had more impact on the games than 9 Spears using 4CP a turn to re-roll hits of 1 in combat and potentially fighting twice vs a Doomed target.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.
The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.
Haha, thanks. I try. If it changes the opinion of 1 person or helps them think a bit more, then I’m happy.
In January I ran Craftworld Eldar at a 6 game Major in the UK. I didn’t include Dark Reapers because I hated the spam, and I didn’t run Ynnari because I wanted to prove a point at the time.
My list included 1 unit of 9 Spears, and 1 unit of 3 spears acting as a bodyguard for my Autarch Warlord. I ran them as Saim-Hann.
The Spears were good, in most games, but certainly not game breaking at the time (this was when you could deep strike turn 1 and then Quicken for 22” move and then charge). The times the Spears were excellent were the times that I got +1 to hit in combat, +1 to wound in combat, -1 to hit, +1 saves power cast on unit and then Doom cast on the target. Which, by the way…. Requires 1 Farseer Jetbike, 2 Warlock Jetbikes AND 2 Spiritseers. I also had a couple of Hemlocks for Jinx if needed. That, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, is a lot of point, power and CP investment to ensure everything lines up correctly. (686 points, 896 if you include 1 hemlock – then 1 CP for farseer/warlock stratagem. 1 CP for advance and charge and re-roll 1’s to hit in combat stratagem. Then, 2 cp for -1 to hit, maybe 1 CP for deepstriking)
Throughout the event, I discovered that deepstriking 20 Guardians and a Farseer was more optimal than deepstriking the Spears, so that led me to just deploying the Spears. However, in 1 game vs Chaos, my 9-man Spear unit was reduced to 4 models on turn 1, after a unit of 40 Alpha Legion cultists came in and shot them twice. (which, by the way, costs 160 points). After that they were severely neutered and got nowhere close to making back their points investment.
In other games, where I only got 1 or 2 powers off on them, they were ok. For anything with T7+, they needed Doom to be cast on the target, otherwise they really struggled to put out effective damage.
However, in the one game vs 13 Guard Tanks with infantry screening, they got the full buffs, and his entire shooting phase only killed 3 Spears.
But, that was 1 game out of 6.
The moment they don’t kill their target in combat, or if they can get counter charged, then, they suck. And they die quickly. Doesn’t matter if the weapon is -4AP and 2 damage a time if they are hitting on 3’s and only str 3 and they will only have a 2+ save with protect or a 3+ save without it.
When we look at things now, they have to start on the table due to the deepstrike nerf, preferably out of LoS. They can’t advance and charge unless you run them as Saim-Hann. They still die to weight of dice unless you pump in hundreds of points worth of protection and CP. They still die in combat. And, when all that is done and considered, they still only have a 6” and a 12” range on their weapons. Sure, it gives their Shuriken Catapults a 28”-34” threat range, but we all know how good 36 bolter shots are (even if 4 of them wound with -3ap).
Spears are good when you pile points into them, which gets amplified by the ability to get a bonus fight or shooting phase via Ynnari. But, when they don’t have their support in place, or get charged themselves, they really struggle.
If Ynnari didn’t exist, Spears would still be taken because they are a good unit out of a selection of many bad ones. But, taking more than 1 big squad of them is, imo, just a waste of points. 1 unit will get buffed and be pretty resilient and killy, the other 2 units will just be waiting for unit 1 to die, so they can get the buffs to start making their points back.
If you are taking Shining Spears for anti-infantry alone, I’d say stop and just swap the 281 points for 2 triple cannon Wave Serpents. Sure, it’s half the shots, but, the Serpent is going to benefit more from Alaitocs trait, has higher str shots, double the range AND is more resilient/effective after losing some wounds. Also, it then allows you to drop a lot of the supporting powers, which will likely free up space for a 3rd Wave Serpent.
As for counters, pick any common 2 damage weapons. A 3 dissie cannon Ravager (125 points) can reasonably expect to kill 2 Spears a turn, when they aren’t -2 to hit and have a 3++. 3 Ravagers therefore ruin a squad. (Ravagers also have the advantage of always making the first move vs Spears). At -2 to hit and a 3++, sure they will struggle to kill 1 each, but that is to be expected.
2 Guard squads using FRFSRF will kill 3 Spears. 40 points, or 50 points, it doesn’t matter.
2 AssCan Razorbacks will kill 3.5 Spears when re-rolling 1’s to hit and wound.
A turn 1 charging Daemon Prince with Warptime will kill 3 Spears then easily survive them falling back and shooting him.
8 Dark Reapers (cheaper than 9 Spears) will shoot 4 Spears off the table a turn.
I’m not saying Spears are bad. Not by a long long stretch, but spamming them won’t win you tournaments – especially against the current soup lists.
Spears require a lot of moving parts to be fully effective. The moment you miss 1 or 2 of those parts, then they really start to struggle.
If you want to balance Spears, then you HAVE to do it from a Craftworlds ONLY point of view. You CANNOT balance a Craftworlds unit around an ability from a different codex. If that ability is what is causing the imbalance, then you target the ability first. Nerfing 1 unit, because of an ability in a different codex just unnecessarily nerfs the unit when used for its original purpose. At that point you are hurting Craftworlds to spite Ynnari, rather than just hurt Ynnari.
I’d wager that the 14 Grotesques, 20 Guardians and the Yncarne in Nick Nanavati’s list had more impact on the games than 9 Spears using 4CP a turn to re-roll hits of 1 in combat and potentially fighting twice vs a Doomed target.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.
The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.
Haha, thanks. I try. If it changes the opinion of 1 person or helps them think a bit more, then I’m happy.
Either that or I’m becoming masochistic lol!
Exalted. Great post and good reasoning. This exactly matches my experience with shining spears, just from the other side of the table. A good deny roll in the wrong moment (Doom or Protect) and the glass cannon simply breaks apart.
Bharring wrote: Then I haven't been clear. I've been claiming things like:
-Vs most weapons, Spears and Marines are equally durable. Not that they should be - and even claimed that Spears should be less durable per point than Marines quite directly. I thought that would make it clear that I thought Spears were OP.
I think you tried to make the accurate point that Spears are quite soft, can't take a punch and die under fire.
This is why you don't see 27 on competitive tables, not because people can't find the models.
The odds of going first with the +1 are only 56%. In a 5 game tournament you are probably going second twice. Good luck against the Imperial list in those circumstances.
In January I ran Craftworld Eldar at a 6 game Major in the UK. I didn’t include Dark Reapers because I hated the spam, and I didn’t run Ynnari because I wanted to prove a point at the time.
My list included 1 unit of 9 Spears, and 1 unit of 3 spears acting as a bodyguard for my Autarch Warlord. I ran them as Saim-Hann.
The Spears were good, in most games, but certainly not game breaking at the time (this was when you could deep strike turn 1 and then Quicken for 22” move and then charge). The times the Spears were excellent were the times that I got +1 to hit in combat, +1 to wound in combat, -1 to hit, +1 saves power cast on unit and then Doom cast on the target. Which, by the way…. Requires 1 Farseer Jetbike, 2 Warlock Jetbikes AND 2 Spiritseers. I also had a couple of Hemlocks for Jinx if needed. That, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, is a lot of point, power and CP investment to ensure everything lines up correctly. (686 points, 896 if you include 1 hemlock – then 1 CP for farseer/warlock stratagem. 1 CP for advance and charge and re-roll 1’s to hit in combat stratagem. Then, 2 cp for -1 to hit, maybe 1 CP for deepstriking)
Throughout the event, I discovered that deepstriking 20 Guardians and a Farseer was more optimal than deepstriking the Spears, so that led me to just deploying the Spears. However, in 1 game vs Chaos, my 9-man Spear unit was reduced to 4 models on turn 1, after a unit of 40 Alpha Legion cultists came in and shot them twice. (which, by the way, costs 160 points). After that they were severely neutered and got nowhere close to making back their points investment.
In other games, where I only got 1 or 2 powers off on them, they were ok. For anything with T7+, they needed Doom to be cast on the target, otherwise they really struggled to put out effective damage.
However, in the one game vs 13 Guard Tanks with infantry screening, they got the full buffs, and his entire shooting phase only killed 3 Spears.
But, that was 1 game out of 6.
The moment they don’t kill their target in combat, or if they can get counter charged, then, they suck. And they die quickly. Doesn’t matter if the weapon is -4AP and 2 damage a time if they are hitting on 3’s and only str 3 and they will only have a 2+ save with protect or a 3+ save without it.
When we look at things now, they have to start on the table due to the deepstrike nerf, preferably out of LoS. They can’t advance and charge unless you run them as Saim-Hann. They still die to weight of dice unless you pump in hundreds of points worth of protection and CP. They still die in combat. And, when all that is done and considered, they still only have a 6” and a 12” range on their weapons. Sure, it gives their Shuriken Catapults a 28”-34” threat range, but we all know how good 36 bolter shots are (even if 4 of them wound with -3ap).
Spears are good when you pile points into them, which gets amplified by the ability to get a bonus fight or shooting phase via Ynnari. But, when they don’t have their support in place, or get charged themselves, they really struggle.
If Ynnari didn’t exist, Spears would still be taken because they are a good unit out of a selection of many bad ones. But, taking more than 1 big squad of them is, imo, just a waste of points. 1 unit will get buffed and be pretty resilient and killy, the other 2 units will just be waiting for unit 1 to die, so they can get the buffs to start making their points back.
If you are taking Shining Spears for anti-infantry alone, I’d say stop and just swap the 281 points for 2 triple cannon Wave Serpents. Sure, it’s half the shots, but, the Serpent is going to benefit more from Alaitocs trait, has higher str shots, double the range AND is more resilient/effective after losing some wounds. Also, it then allows you to drop a lot of the supporting powers, which will likely free up space for a 3rd Wave Serpent.
As for counters, pick any common 2 damage weapons. A 3 dissie cannon Ravager (125 points) can reasonably expect to kill 2 Spears a turn, when they aren’t -2 to hit and have a 3++. 3 Ravagers therefore ruin a squad. (Ravagers also have the advantage of always making the first move vs Spears). At -2 to hit and a 3++, sure they will struggle to kill 1 each, but that is to be expected.
2 Guard squads using FRFSRF will kill 3 Spears. 40 points, or 50 points, it doesn’t matter.
2 AssCan Razorbacks will kill 3.5 Spears when re-rolling 1’s to hit and wound.
A turn 1 charging Daemon Prince with Warptime will kill 3 Spears then easily survive them falling back and shooting him.
8 Dark Reapers (cheaper than 9 Spears) will shoot 4 Spears off the table a turn.
I’m not saying Spears are bad. Not by a long long stretch, but spamming them won’t win you tournaments – especially against the current soup lists.
Spears require a lot of moving parts to be fully effective. The moment you miss 1 or 2 of those parts, then they really start to struggle.
If you want to balance Spears, then you HAVE to do it from a Craftworlds ONLY point of view. You CANNOT balance a Craftworlds unit around an ability from a different codex. If that ability is what is causing the imbalance, then you target the ability first. Nerfing 1 unit, because of an ability in a different codex just unnecessarily nerfs the unit when used for its original purpose. At that point you are hurting Craftworlds to spite Ynnari, rather than just hurt Ynnari.
I’d wager that the 14 Grotesques, 20 Guardians and the Yncarne in Nick Nanavati’s list had more impact on the games than 9 Spears using 4CP a turn to re-roll hits of 1 in combat and potentially fighting twice vs a Doomed target.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.
The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.
Haha, thanks. I try. If it changes the opinion of 1 person or helps them think a bit more, then I’m happy.
Either that or I’m becoming masochistic lol!
Exalted. Great post and good reasoning. This exactly matches my experience with shining spears, just from the other side of the table. A good deny roll in the wrong moment (Doom or Protect) and the glass cannon simply breaks apart.
The post is also BS.
Talking about +1 to hit +1 to wounds spells than no one freaking uses. And how deepstriking 20 gardians is actaully better than spears...LOL. The gak people say to keep their stuff from getting nerfed is laughable. All you need is guide and doom - You are hitting on 3's and you have str 6 in CC - it is more than enough to deal with even t8 targets - as I have pointed out with math shown. "Spears aren't game breaking" Quote of the day man.
Spirit seers take protect and quicken. That is all they will ever take if you have 2 warlocks or seers (you likely wont have more). Deep striking 20 gardians is good. I do it all the time. That might nuke 1 target - spears nuke 1 or 2 targets then tie up a ton of stuff and are indestructible - that is a big difference for only 100 more points and no required deep strike stratagem to get into position.
When I see people talking about how really "bad" and hard to use are units like Shinning spears, Infantry Squads, Custodes, BA captains and how they really aren't that powerfull...
And I'm here, with my 90 point 5 man squad of DA Company Veterans with Stormbolters+Chainswords, thinking "Woah man, what a great anti-horde unit they are"... how playing with only the most OP stuff warps your perception of whats powerfull and whats not.
Galas wrote: When I see people talking about how really "bad" and hard to use are units like Shinning spears, Infantry Squads, Custodes, BA captains and how they really aren't that powerfull...
And I'm here, with my 90 point 5 man squad of DA Company Veterans with Stormbolters+Chainswords, thinking "Woah man, what a great anti-horde unit they are"... how playing with only the most OP stuff warps your perception of whats powerfull and whats not.
Next to smash captain dumping 7 CP....they aren't game breakingly OP. LOL. What does smash captain do? "oh he 1 shots 600 point titans and costs 130 points".
In January I ran Craftworld Eldar at a 6 game Major in the UK. I didn’t include Dark Reapers because I hated the spam, and I didn’t run Ynnari because I wanted to prove a point at the time.
My list included 1 unit of 9 Spears, and 1 unit of 3 spears acting as a bodyguard for my Autarch Warlord. I ran them as Saim-Hann.
The Spears were good, in most games, but certainly not game breaking at the time (this was when you could deep strike turn 1 and then Quicken for 22” move and then charge). The times the Spears were excellent were the times that I got +1 to hit in combat, +1 to wound in combat, -1 to hit, +1 saves power cast on unit and then Doom cast on the target. Which, by the way…. Requires 1 Farseer Jetbike, 2 Warlock Jetbikes AND 2 Spiritseers. I also had a couple of Hemlocks for Jinx if needed. That, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, is a lot of point, power and CP investment to ensure everything lines up correctly. (686 points, 896 if you include 1 hemlock – then 1 CP for farseer/warlock stratagem. 1 CP for advance and charge and re-roll 1’s to hit in combat stratagem. Then, 2 cp for -1 to hit, maybe 1 CP for deepstriking)
Throughout the event, I discovered that deepstriking 20 Guardians and a Farseer was more optimal than deepstriking the Spears, so that led me to just deploying the Spears. However, in 1 game vs Chaos, my 9-man Spear unit was reduced to 4 models on turn 1, after a unit of 40 Alpha Legion cultists came in and shot them twice. (which, by the way, costs 160 points). After that they were severely neutered and got nowhere close to making back their points investment.
In other games, where I only got 1 or 2 powers off on them, they were ok. For anything with T7+, they needed Doom to be cast on the target, otherwise they really struggled to put out effective damage.
However, in the one game vs 13 Guard Tanks with infantry screening, they got the full buffs, and his entire shooting phase only killed 3 Spears.
But, that was 1 game out of 6.
The moment they don’t kill their target in combat, or if they can get counter charged, then, they suck. And they die quickly. Doesn’t matter if the weapon is -4AP and 2 damage a time if they are hitting on 3’s and only str 3 and they will only have a 2+ save with protect or a 3+ save without it.
When we look at things now, they have to start on the table due to the deepstrike nerf, preferably out of LoS. They can’t advance and charge unless you run them as Saim-Hann. They still die to weight of dice unless you pump in hundreds of points worth of protection and CP. They still die in combat. And, when all that is done and considered, they still only have a 6” and a 12” range on their weapons. Sure, it gives their Shuriken Catapults a 28”-34” threat range, but we all know how good 36 bolter shots are (even if 4 of them wound with -3ap).
Spears are good when you pile points into them, which gets amplified by the ability to get a bonus fight or shooting phase via Ynnari. But, when they don’t have their support in place, or get charged themselves, they really struggle.
If Ynnari didn’t exist, Spears would still be taken because they are a good unit out of a selection of many bad ones. But, taking more than 1 big squad of them is, imo, just a waste of points. 1 unit will get buffed and be pretty resilient and killy, the other 2 units will just be waiting for unit 1 to die, so they can get the buffs to start making their points back.
If you are taking Shining Spears for anti-infantry alone, I’d say stop and just swap the 281 points for 2 triple cannon Wave Serpents. Sure, it’s half the shots, but, the Serpent is going to benefit more from Alaitocs trait, has higher str shots, double the range AND is more resilient/effective after losing some wounds. Also, it then allows you to drop a lot of the supporting powers, which will likely free up space for a 3rd Wave Serpent.
As for counters, pick any common 2 damage weapons. A 3 dissie cannon Ravager (125 points) can reasonably expect to kill 2 Spears a turn, when they aren’t -2 to hit and have a 3++. 3 Ravagers therefore ruin a squad. (Ravagers also have the advantage of always making the first move vs Spears). At -2 to hit and a 3++, sure they will struggle to kill 1 each, but that is to be expected.
2 Guard squads using FRFSRF will kill 3 Spears. 40 points, or 50 points, it doesn’t matter.
2 AssCan Razorbacks will kill 3.5 Spears when re-rolling 1’s to hit and wound.
A turn 1 charging Daemon Prince with Warptime will kill 3 Spears then easily survive them falling back and shooting him.
8 Dark Reapers (cheaper than 9 Spears) will shoot 4 Spears off the table a turn.
I’m not saying Spears are bad. Not by a long long stretch, but spamming them won’t win you tournaments – especially against the current soup lists.
Spears require a lot of moving parts to be fully effective. The moment you miss 1 or 2 of those parts, then they really start to struggle.
If you want to balance Spears, then you HAVE to do it from a Craftworlds ONLY point of view. You CANNOT balance a Craftworlds unit around an ability from a different codex. If that ability is what is causing the imbalance, then you target the ability first. Nerfing 1 unit, because of an ability in a different codex just unnecessarily nerfs the unit when used for its original purpose. At that point you are hurting Craftworlds to spite Ynnari, rather than just hurt Ynnari.
I’d wager that the 14 Grotesques, 20 Guardians and the Yncarne in Nick Nanavati’s list had more impact on the games than 9 Spears using 4CP a turn to re-roll hits of 1 in combat and potentially fighting twice vs a Doomed target.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.
The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.
Haha, thanks. I try. If it changes the opinion of 1 person or helps them think a bit more, then I’m happy.
Either that or I’m becoming masochistic lol!
Exalted. Great post and good reasoning. This exactly matches my experience with shining spears, just from the other side of the table. A good deny roll in the wrong moment (Doom or Protect) and the glass cannon simply breaks apart.
The post is also BS.
Talking about +1 to hit +1 to wounds spells than no one freaking uses. And how deepstriking 20 gardians is actaully better than spears...LOL. The gak people say to keep their stuff from getting nerfed is laughable. All you need is guide and doom - You are hitting on 3's and you have str 6 in CC - it is more than enough to deal with even t8 targets - as I have pointed out with math shown. "Spears aren't game breaking" Quote of the day man.
Spirit seers take protect and quicken. That is all they will ever take if you have 2 warlocks or seers (you likely wont have more). Deep striking 20 gardians is good. I do it all the time. That might nuke 1 target - spears nuke 1 or 2 targets then tie up a ton of stuff and are indestructible - that is a big difference for only 100 more points and no required deep strike stratagem to get into position.
The cool thing about guardians, they can have a 3++ on a 20man unit.
DS > Protect >Shoot > enemy targets to shoots them > spend 1CP to gain 4+ (Protect gain 3++, sure its just shooting phase, but that could be a fully wasted shooting unit against them. And with FIre and Fade you can stay out of Melee for the most part (or force them to move where they dont want too).
Also, people saying that Smash Captain is fine in pure BA... I remember you how before Deepstrike nerf, BA where winning top tables.
Smash Captain is OP no matter how you look at it. That does not mean BA don't need buffs. Just like Shining Spears, Dissi cannons or Infantry Squads being OP does not mean others units in their codex don't need buffs.
In January I ran Craftworld Eldar at a 6 game Major in the UK. I didn’t include Dark Reapers because I hated the spam, and I didn’t run Ynnari because I wanted to prove a point at the time.
My list included 1 unit of 9 Spears, and 1 unit of 3 spears acting as a bodyguard for my Autarch Warlord. I ran them as Saim-Hann.
The Spears were good, in most games, but certainly not game breaking at the time (this was when you could deep strike turn 1 and then Quicken for 22” move and then charge). The times the Spears were excellent were the times that I got +1 to hit in combat, +1 to wound in combat, -1 to hit, +1 saves power cast on unit and then Doom cast on the target. Which, by the way…. Requires 1 Farseer Jetbike, 2 Warlock Jetbikes AND 2 Spiritseers. I also had a couple of Hemlocks for Jinx if needed. That, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, is a lot of point, power and CP investment to ensure everything lines up correctly. (686 points, 896 if you include 1 hemlock – then 1 CP for farseer/warlock stratagem. 1 CP for advance and charge and re-roll 1’s to hit in combat stratagem. Then, 2 cp for -1 to hit, maybe 1 CP for deepstriking)
Throughout the event, I discovered that deepstriking 20 Guardians and a Farseer was more optimal than deepstriking the Spears, so that led me to just deploying the Spears. However, in 1 game vs Chaos, my 9-man Spear unit was reduced to 4 models on turn 1, after a unit of 40 Alpha Legion cultists came in and shot them twice. (which, by the way, costs 160 points). After that they were severely neutered and got nowhere close to making back their points investment.
In other games, where I only got 1 or 2 powers off on them, they were ok. For anything with T7+, they needed Doom to be cast on the target, otherwise they really struggled to put out effective damage.
However, in the one game vs 13 Guard Tanks with infantry screening, they got the full buffs, and his entire shooting phase only killed 3 Spears.
But, that was 1 game out of 6.
The moment they don’t kill their target in combat, or if they can get counter charged, then, they suck. And they die quickly. Doesn’t matter if the weapon is -4AP and 2 damage a time if they are hitting on 3’s and only str 3 and they will only have a 2+ save with protect or a 3+ save without it.
When we look at things now, they have to start on the table due to the deepstrike nerf, preferably out of LoS. They can’t advance and charge unless you run them as Saim-Hann. They still die to weight of dice unless you pump in hundreds of points worth of protection and CP. They still die in combat. And, when all that is done and considered, they still only have a 6” and a 12” range on their weapons. Sure, it gives their Shuriken Catapults a 28”-34” threat range, but we all know how good 36 bolter shots are (even if 4 of them wound with -3ap).
Spears are good when you pile points into them, which gets amplified by the ability to get a bonus fight or shooting phase via Ynnari. But, when they don’t have their support in place, or get charged themselves, they really struggle.
If Ynnari didn’t exist, Spears would still be taken because they are a good unit out of a selection of many bad ones. But, taking more than 1 big squad of them is, imo, just a waste of points. 1 unit will get buffed and be pretty resilient and killy, the other 2 units will just be waiting for unit 1 to die, so they can get the buffs to start making their points back.
If you are taking Shining Spears for anti-infantry alone, I’d say stop and just swap the 281 points for 2 triple cannon Wave Serpents. Sure, it’s half the shots, but, the Serpent is going to benefit more from Alaitocs trait, has higher str shots, double the range AND is more resilient/effective after losing some wounds. Also, it then allows you to drop a lot of the supporting powers, which will likely free up space for a 3rd Wave Serpent.
As for counters, pick any common 2 damage weapons. A 3 dissie cannon Ravager (125 points) can reasonably expect to kill 2 Spears a turn, when they aren’t -2 to hit and have a 3++. 3 Ravagers therefore ruin a squad. (Ravagers also have the advantage of always making the first move vs Spears). At -2 to hit and a 3++, sure they will struggle to kill 1 each, but that is to be expected.
2 Guard squads using FRFSRF will kill 3 Spears. 40 points, or 50 points, it doesn’t matter.
2 AssCan Razorbacks will kill 3.5 Spears when re-rolling 1’s to hit and wound.
A turn 1 charging Daemon Prince with Warptime will kill 3 Spears then easily survive them falling back and shooting him.
8 Dark Reapers (cheaper than 9 Spears) will shoot 4 Spears off the table a turn.
I’m not saying Spears are bad. Not by a long long stretch, but spamming them won’t win you tournaments – especially against the current soup lists.
Spears require a lot of moving parts to be fully effective. The moment you miss 1 or 2 of those parts, then they really start to struggle.
If you want to balance Spears, then you HAVE to do it from a Craftworlds ONLY point of view. You CANNOT balance a Craftworlds unit around an ability from a different codex. If that ability is what is causing the imbalance, then you target the ability first. Nerfing 1 unit, because of an ability in a different codex just unnecessarily nerfs the unit when used for its original purpose. At that point you are hurting Craftworlds to spite Ynnari, rather than just hurt Ynnari.
I’d wager that the 14 Grotesques, 20 Guardians and the Yncarne in Nick Nanavati’s list had more impact on the games than 9 Spears using 4CP a turn to re-roll hits of 1 in combat and potentially fighting twice vs a Doomed target.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.
The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.
Haha, thanks. I try. If it changes the opinion of 1 person or helps them think a bit more, then I’m happy.
Either that or I’m becoming masochistic lol!
Exalted. Great post and good reasoning. This exactly matches my experience with shining spears, just from the other side of the table. A good deny roll in the wrong moment (Doom or Protect) and the glass cannon simply breaks apart.
The post is also BS.
Talking about +1 to hit +1 to wounds spells than no one freaking uses. And how deepstriking 20 gardians is actaully better than spears...LOL. The gak people say to keep their stuff from getting nerfed is laughable. All you need is guide and doom - You are hitting on 3's and you have str 6 in CC - it is more than enough to deal with even t8 targets - as I have pointed out with math shown. "Spears aren't game breaking" Quote of the day man.
Spirit seers take protect and quicken. That is all they will ever take if you have 2 warlocks or seers (you likely wont have more). Deep striking 20 gardians is good. I do it all the time. That might nuke 1 target - spears nuke 1 or 2 targets then tie up a ton of stuff and are indestructible - that is a big difference for only 100 more points and no required deep strike stratagem to get into position.
The cool thing about guardians, they can have a 3++ on a 20man unit.
DS > Protect >Shoot > enemy targets to shoots them > spend 1CP to gain 4+ (Protect gain 3++, sure its just shooting phase, but that could be a fully wasted shooting unit against them. And with FIre and Fade you can stay out of Melee for the most part (or force them to move where they dont want too).
Yeah I do that - because I don't use spears. You will always buff spears over gardians though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Also, people saying that Smash Captain is fine in pure BA... I remember you how before Deepstrike nerf, BA where winning top tables.
Smash Captain is OP no matter how you look at it. That does not mean BA don't need buffs. Just like Shining Spears, Dissi cannons or Infantry Squads being OP does not mean others units in their codex don't need buffs.
Yeah - honestly I think he is the most broken part of the game right now. Too many attacks.
I think we can all agree that the next CA will be very interesting, and if done in an aggressive manner, will properly show what was overpowered or not. Nothing to do but to look forward to whatever changes are in store for us.
Galas wrote: Also, people saying that Smash Captain is fine in pure BA... I remember you how before Deepstrike nerf, BA where winning top tables.
Smash Captain is OP no matter how you look at it. That does not mean BA don't need buffs. Just like Shining Spears, Dissi cannons or Infantry Squads being OP does not mean others units in their codex don't need buffs.
Honestly, Blood Angels getting a more durable HQ than either Salamanders or Iron Hands is a total slap in the face to those armies.
Eldarsif wrote: I think we can all agree that the next CA will be very interesting, and if done in an aggressive manner, will properly show what was overpowered or not. Nothing to do but to look forward to whatever changes are in store for us.
I can't wait for us Orks to have something broken in our codex but it's too late because CA is already printed and nothing can be done until the next CA. MwahahaWAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
Then again I'll still play Evil Sunz properly (all mechanised, all bikes) so likely my army will remain third rate!
Seriously you're right though, I really hope they are aggressive with their changes to really shake up the meta. Remember, no matter how awful your favourite unit is now, if you wait long enough, eventually it'll become OP against a certain meta.
Eldarsif wrote: I think we can all agree that the next CA will be very interesting, and if done in an aggressive manner, will properly show what was overpowered or not. Nothing to do but to look forward to whatever changes are in store for us.
I have no faith in them when it comes to 40k and changes regarding tournaments. I don't know why they talk with the tournament players rather than just do data analysis. It's probably just going to be another round of half-assed Guard nerfs instead of focusing on the issue of soup.
We never should have seen the Commissar and Conscript nerfs we did. We should have seen Conscripts get "Auxilia" as a keyword(preventing them from being able to receive Orders instead of the half-assed "Raw Recruits" rule) instead of <Regiment>. We should have seen Commissars remain as they were--since we've seen multiple books since then with the same damn ability as a trait rather than requiring a single specific character.
Galas wrote: Also, people saying that Smash Captain is fine in pure BA... I remember you how before Deepstrike nerf, BA where winning top tables.
Smash Captain is OP no matter how you look at it. That does not mean BA don't need buffs. Just like Shining Spears, Dissi cannons or Infantry Squads being OP does not mean others units in their codex don't need buffs.
Honestly, Blood Angels getting a more durable HQ than either Salamanders or Iron Hands is a total slap in the face to those armies.
I'm still waiting for actual proof that Infantry Squads are overpowered to the same extent as Captain Smashfeth. They're cheap and they fill a role in enabling overpowered lists via filling Troop choices in Brigades/Battalions...but I've yet to see actual proof of the squads themselves being OP.
Eldarsif wrote: I think we can all agree that the next CA will be very interesting, and if done in an aggressive manner, will properly show what was overpowered or not. Nothing to do but to look forward to whatever changes are in store for us.
I have no faith in them when it comes to 40k and changes regarding tournaments. I don't know why they talk with the tournament players rather than just do data analysis. It's probably just going to be another round of half-assed Guard nerfs instead of focusing on the issue of soup.
We never should have seen the Commissar and Conscript nerfs we did. We should have seen Conscripts get "Auxilia" as a keyword(preventing them from being able to receive Orders instead of the half-assed "Raw Recruits" rule) instead of <Regiment>. We should have seen Commissars remain as they were--since we've seen multiple books since then with the same damn ability as a trait rather than requiring a single specific character.
Galas wrote: Also, people saying that Smash Captain is fine in pure BA... I remember you how before Deepstrike nerf, BA where winning top tables.
Smash Captain is OP no matter how you look at it. That does not mean BA don't need buffs. Just like Shining Spears, Dissi cannons or Infantry Squads being OP does not mean others units in their codex don't need buffs.
Honestly, Blood Angels getting a more durable HQ than either Salamanders or Iron Hands is a total slap in the face to those armies.
I'm still waiting for actual proof that Infantry Squads are overpowered to the same extent as Captain Smashfeth. They're cheap and they fill a role in enabling overpowered lists via filling Troop choices in Brigades/Battalions...but I've yet to see actual proof of the squads themselves being OP.
They aren't as OP as smash feth. I am convinced right now he is probably the most OP unit+combo in the game right now. Funny thing is without those stratagems/ relics hes not that good. So I'd deal with both units differently - Say - a unit can only use 1 stratagem per turn or something - that would fix smash feth. Increase guardsmen +1 point - and CC to 10 - that fixes guard and soup at the same time.
Smash captain is too strong. But he's not even close to the most OP unit in the game.
Units that are pretty much fine, that draw a lot of hate here:
1. Shining Spears - these are totally fine in the context of pure CWE. Only once you add Ynarri into the mix do they become OP (46" charge + Soulburst is dumb, but without Soulburst it's like eating a Gallant to the face).
2. Disintigrator Cannons - nothing about these is OP, they just work well in the context of an Eldar soup list. They are outpaced in a lot of common scenarios by assault cannons, and don't have easy access to rerolls like SM do. In a pure DE army, these are solid but not OP.
3. Smash Captain - Strong, but easily killed. A T4, 3++ model is durable, and he is killy, but what do you expect, this is one of the few viable marine units right now. I have no problems with it, especially in the context of a marines list.
Units that are absolutely not fine and should be adjusted:
1. Grotesques - They are far too durable.
2. Hemlock Wraithfighters - These are absolutely disgusting
3. Imperial Knights, Superheavies in general - A shadowsword, a Castellan, it's all too strong.
4. Custode Bikes, Captains and Otherwise - These are bonkers and absolutely should not be FLY. A hurricane bolter on each? Get out.
General things to change:
1. CP farming - Detachments earn command points to be spent on that faction only. Or, you only produce CP from the detachment with your warlord, or a detachment that shares his keyword.
2. Ynarri - These guys are broken strong, believe it or not, their win percentage is over 70% across BCP data. A simple change would be that Ynnari units lose their other faction. For instance, no more Sam Hein Ynnari or Alaitoc Ynnari. It's just Ynnari. This would also further impact Cp generation with suggestion #1, deeply hampering Eldar soup without nerfing CWE or DE, which are both fine on their own.
My main army is Tyranids, which are performing right now similar to marines. For those seeking the typical ad hominem, now you know what army to reference in your reply.
They aren't as OP as smash feth. I am convinced right now he is probably the most OP unit+combo in the game right now. Funny thing is without those stratagems/ relics hes not that good. So I'd deal with both units differently - Say - a unit can only use 1 stratagem per turn or something - that would fix smash feth. Increase guardsmen +1 point - and CC to 10 - that fixes guard and soup at the same time.
Why do we need to go to 1 strategum per unit per turn that breaks a lot of other things that are fine as is.
Keep the changes as simple as possible if you have to creat lots of collateral damage or weird exclusions, it's probably not the correct fix for the problem.
Slamguinius is built on stacking massive amounts of CP in strategums to build a monster, if the results excessive one or two of those strategums is probably undercosted. Add a CP or two and it's a 1 off all your CP trick.
(Or it would be if Guard hadn't broken CP)
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's no longer allowed to be selected for matched play.
(Soup is still stronger than mono codex and has no downside)
Wait no-one has infinite CP, The Battle forged CP is common to everyone?
If your army is battle forged and is not linked by Imperium, Choas or Aeldari Keyword you get +3* CP.
*The additional advantage is if soup is still overpowering mono we can adjust the battle forged CP bonus up or down as required.
Marmatag wrote: 2. Disintigrator Cannons - nothing about these is OP, they just work well in the context of an Eldar soup list. They are outpaced in a lot of common scenarios by assault cannons, and don't have easy access to rerolls like SM do. In a pure DE army, these are solid but not OP.
My main army is Tyranids, which are performing right now similar to marines. For those seeking the typical ad hominem, now you know what army to reference in your reply.
My main army is DE and ravagers are almost always going to be rerolling 1s to hit and wound, boosting their mathematical effectiveness by about a third, and making them extremely reliable and efficient versus almost any target but Guardsmen. Doom etc is a great help for mowing down T6+ targets - but then this isn't free.
Disies will go up 5 points. If they go back up 10 they will be bad.
Prophets of Flesh needs to be changed to rerolling 1s or something, not a flat 4++.
DE in a way are quite simple and the power, and eventual nerfs, were obvious from when the codex was first leaked.
Someone uoset might make Kabalites 7 points, but mass Kabs remains not a thing.
Eldarsif wrote: I think we can all agree that the next CA will be very interesting, and if done in an aggressive manner, will properly show what was overpowered or not. Nothing to do but to look forward to whatever changes are in store for us.
I have no faith in them when it comes to 40k and changes regarding tournaments. I don't know why they talk with the tournament players rather than just do data analysis. It's probably just going to be another round of half-assed Guard nerfs instead of focusing on the issue of soup.
We never should have seen the Commissar and Conscript nerfs we did. We should have seen Conscripts get "Auxilia" as a keyword(preventing them from being able to receive Orders instead of the half-assed "Raw Recruits" rule) instead of <Regiment>. We should have seen Commissars remain as they were--since we've seen multiple books since then with the same damn ability as a trait rather than requiring a single specific character.
Galas wrote: Also, people saying that Smash Captain is fine in pure BA... I remember you how before Deepstrike nerf, BA where winning top tables.
Smash Captain is OP no matter how you look at it. That does not mean BA don't need buffs. Just like Shining Spears, Dissi cannons or Infantry Squads being OP does not mean others units in their codex don't need buffs.
Honestly, Blood Angels getting a more durable HQ than either Salamanders or Iron Hands is a total slap in the face to those armies.
I'm still waiting for actual proof that Infantry Squads are overpowered to the same extent as Captain Smashfeth. They're cheap and they fill a role in enabling overpowered lists via filling Troop choices in Brigades/Battalions...but I've yet to see actual proof of the squads themselves being OP.
Based on the fact they were proven mathematically superior to a lot of other units and still keep showing up?
You remind me exactly of certain Scatterbikes defenders who kept saying that the Riptide Wings allied in or the Wraithknights were the issue.
Don't ignore the original issue by trying to distract us with something else that needs to be hit.
Based on the fact they were proven mathematically superior to a lot of other units and still keep showing up?
What other unit options are there for bulking out a Brigade to get your CP spam on? Skitarii Rangers? Vanguard? Kataphron? Tactical Marines? Conscripts? Scions?
You keep pointing at the math while ignoring that if we remove the ability to bring a Brigade of the frigging things and neuter the Command Point spam, it won't be as big of an issue. You keep pointing at the math while ignoring that if we remove the ability for a Company Commander to be the Warlord, Grand Strategist ceases to be an issue. You keep pointing at the math while ignoring that if we remove Mortars from Infantry Squads, the threat radius goes down.
Math is great and all but it doesn't actually give the whole picture in every circumstance.
You remind me exactly of certain Scatterbikes defenders who kept saying that the Riptide Wings allied in or the Wraithknights were the issue.
Don't ignore the original issue by trying to distract us with something else that needs to be hit.
Until I see actual attempts to address soup, I don't give a crap about your complaints about Guard. I want soup hit. My book already took a nerf, whether I used the models or not, because of whining about soup.
Until I see actual attempts to address soup, I don't give a crap about your complaints about Guard. I want soup hit. My book already took a nerf, whether I used the models or not, because of whining about soup.
Back at you. I don't want my already questionable imperial mess to be nerfed because people keep bringing utterly broken gak from Guard dex.
Until I see actual attempts to address soup, I don't give a crap about your complaints about Guard. I want soup hit. My book already took a nerf, whether I used the models or not, because of whining about soup.
Back at you. I don't want my already questionable imperial mess to be nerfed because people keep bringing utterly broken gak from Guard dex.
And you still haven't actually proven what you're bringing couldn't be done without a Brigade or Battalion.
Post up.
Because quite frankly? Your soup's viability doesn't trump my codex's. You don't get to nerf my book because you want soup.
Kanluwen wrote: Because quite frankly? Your soup's viability doesn't trump my codex's. You don't get to nerf my book because you want soup.
That's for GW to decide. And it is not like these nerfs are of similar magnitude, people want to get rid of CP regen*, a thing that you and many guard other players have said mono guard doesn't even need, and maybe bump the guardsmen cost by one point**. You on the other hand basically want to ban any allied army that draws roughly equally from several codices.
(*And at least I mean all CP regen, not just guard. Or if you want to be less sever, make it so that a battleforged army can ever have only one source of CP regen.)
(** It probably should be paired with point drops for under performing guard units.)
They aren't as OP as smash feth. I am convinced right now he is probably the most OP unit+combo in the game right now. Funny thing is without those stratagems/ relics hes not that good. So I'd deal with both units differently - Say - a unit can only use 1 stratagem per turn or something - that would fix smash feth. Increase guardsmen +1 point - and CC to 10 - that fixes guard and soup at the same time.
Why do we need to go to 1 strategum per unit per turn that breaks a lot of other things that are fine as is.
Keep the changes as simple as possible if you have to creat lots of collateral damage or weird exclusions, it's probably not the correct fix for the problem.
Slamguinius is built on stacking massive amounts of CP in strategums to build a monster, if the results excessive one or two of those strategums is probably undercosted. Add a CP or two and it's a 1 off all your CP trick.
(Or it would be if Guard hadn't broken CP)
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's no longer allowed to be selected for matched play.
(Soup is still stronger than mono codex and has no downside)
Wait no-one has infinite CP, The Battle forged CP is common to everyone?
If your army is battle forged and is not linked by Imperium, Choas or Aeldari Keyword you get +3* CP.
*The additional advantage is if soup is still overpowering mono we can adjust the battle forged CP bonus up or down as required.
"Slamguinius is built on stacking massive amounts of CP in strategums to build a monster"
Why? There are almost no other situations I can think of where you have a unit playing 3-4 offensive stratagems a turn. It's usually 1 offensive and MAYBE one defensive if you get targeted and sometimes 2. If he is this strong why aren't all other marine captains this strong if he is "fine" LOL. Give me a break man. He is insanely broken and it mostly because he has stratagem that no one else does.
The only unit this would really affect is smash fether. Who really gets most of his power out of stacking stratagems.
Think about these game decisions you have to make now. Wouldn't that be an interesting feature against knights?Sure you can use the fight at full power stratagem for your castellan- but then you aren't using reroll ones and you aren't rerolling a crucial miss later in that turn. I think it's an elegant fix. Smash fether will still be stronger than regular captains because his +1 to wound base stat and 4 damage hammer will set him apart. Hell just stop being a cruise missile (which he was never intended to be anyways - judging by his reroll 1's aura) Like everyone other captain. He still will have access to the same stratagems - he just needs to pick one of them.
Limiting units to one stratagem per turn would probably mostly be fine, though it would add an another thing to remember and keep track of. It is pretty easy to forget that you used a re-roll on some unit in an earlier phase.
Marmatag wrote: 2. Disintigrator Cannons - nothing about these is OP, they just work well in the context of an Eldar soup list. They are outpaced in a lot of common scenarios by assault cannons, and don't have easy access to rerolls like SM do. In a pure DE army, these are solid but not OP.
My main army is Tyranids, which are performing right now similar to marines. For those seeking the typical ad hominem, now you know what army to reference in your reply.
My main army is DE and ravagers are almost always going to be rerolling 1s to hit and wound, boosting their mathematical effectiveness by about a third, and making them extremely reliable and efficient versus almost any target but Guardsmen. Doom etc is a great help for mowing down T6+ targets - but then this isn't free.
Disies will go up 5 points. If they go back up 10 they will be bad. Prophets of Flesh needs to be changed to rerolling 1s or something, not a flat 4++.
DE in a way are quite simple and the power, and eventual nerfs, were obvious from when the codex was first leaked.
Someone uoset might make Kabalites 7 points, but mass Kabs remains not a thing.
I understand what you're saying, but you've already started talking about adding in Doom - which is a soup based addon. Archons can provide rerolls, but then you're talking about a sizable investment, because rule of 3 limits you greatly. That would be the entirety of your HQ pool in your Kabal, and these guys die really, really fast once that 2+ falls.
Prophets of Flesh is strong. I agree that there should be a change here.
Kabalites costing 7 points would be ridiculous. A battle sister is 9 points and has a 3+ armor save. Are we going to really say that 2 points should take you from a 5+ to a 3+? That's absurd.
Smash captain is too strong. But he's not even close to the most OP unit in the game.
Units that are pretty much fine, that draw a lot of hate here:
1. Shining Spears - these are totally fine in the context of pure CWE. Only once you add Ynarri into the mix do they become OP (46" charge + Soulburst is dumb, but without Soulburst it's like eating a Gallant to the face).
2. Disintigrator Cannons - nothing about these is OP, they just work well in the context of an Eldar soup list. They are outpaced in a lot of common scenarios by assault cannons, and don't have easy access to rerolls like SM do. In a pure DE army, these are solid but not OP.
3. Smash Captain - Strong, but easily killed. A T4, 3++ model is durable, and he is killy, but what do you expect, this is one of the few viable marine units right now. I have no problems with it, especially in the context of a marines list.
Units that are absolutely not fine and should be adjusted:
1. Grotesques - They are far too durable.
2. Hemlock Wraithfighters - These are absolutely disgusting
3. Imperial Knights, Superheavies in general - A shadowsword, a Castellan, it's all too strong.
4. Custode Bikes, Captains and Otherwise - These are bonkers and absolutely should not be FLY. A hurricane bolter on each? Get out.
General things to change:
1. CP farming - Detachments earn command points to be spent on that faction only. Or, you only produce CP from the detachment with your warlord, or a detachment that shares his keyword.
2. Ynarri - These guys are broken strong, believe it or not, their win percentage is over 70% across BCP data. A simple change would be that Ynnari units lose their other faction. For instance, no more Sam Hein Ynnari or Alaitoc Ynnari. It's just Ynnari. This would also further impact Cp generation with suggestion #1, deeply hampering Eldar soup without nerfing CWE or DE, which are both fine on their own.
My main army is Tyranids, which are performing right now similar to marines. For those seeking the typical ad hominem, now you know what army to reference in your reply.
It's funny how the things in your above list are actually much bigger problems than the bottom list. I will agree though - castellans and shadow-swords are too much.
Marmatag wrote: 2. Disintigrator Cannons - nothing about these is OP, they just work well in the context of an Eldar soup list. They are outpaced in a lot of common scenarios by assault cannons, and don't have easy access to rerolls like SM do. In a pure DE army, these are solid but not OP.
My main army is Tyranids, which are performing right now similar to marines. For those seeking the typical ad hominem, now you know what army to reference in your reply.
My main army is DE and ravagers are almost always going to be rerolling 1s to hit and wound, boosting their mathematical effectiveness by about a third, and making them extremely reliable and efficient versus almost any target but Guardsmen. Doom etc is a great help for mowing down T6+ targets - but then this isn't free.
Disies will go up 5 points. If they go back up 10 they will be bad.
Prophets of Flesh needs to be changed to rerolling 1s or something, not a flat 4++.
DE in a way are quite simple and the power, and eventual nerfs, were obvious from when the codex was first leaked.
Someone uoset might make Kabalites 7 points, but mass Kabs remains not a thing.
I understand what you're saying, but you've already started talking about adding in Doom - which is a soup based addon. Archons can provide rerolls, but then you're talking about a sizable investment, because rule of 3 limits you greatly. That would be the entirety of your HQ pool in your Kabal, and these guys die really, really fast once that 2+ falls.
Prophets of Flesh is strong. I agree that there should be a change here.
Kabalites costing 7 points would be ridiculous. A battle sister is 9 points and has a 3+ armor save. Are we going to really say that 2 points should take you from a 5+ to a 3+? That's absurd.
What? Archon only dies if you want him to. Character protection and fast as nutts transport make that pretty easy to do. Then dang...hes only got a 2++ save to protect him.
Marmatag wrote: If you think Smash Captain is as problematic for game balance as Custode Bikes or Hemlocks i don't know what to tell you.
Explain your case then - the hemlock costs almost double smash captain. Does About 1/4 of his damage. Yet is more broken? The bird averages 4 shots man - thats is not great. Crimson hunter is superior to it even and you aren't even mentioning it.
I don't have any problem with the regular custode bikes - 4++ save is tough to deal with but they are 90 points. Their stratagem is pretty brutal but its the only good stratagem in their whole codex. You have to shoot them - That isn't hard to do - if you can kill a hive tyrant you can kill 3 custode bikes...it's actually easier to do with most weapons and you get MORE points efficiency out of the deal. Bike captains are a bit more problematic. (at least hes not fighting twice...and does only d3 damage and not flat 3-4) and at least his threat range isn't the whole table - at least he can fail a charge - at least hes not rerolling wounds if you charge him. Smash captain is automatic kills after failed invos and hes fighting twice with almost double the attacks doing double the damage...
-2 to hit Moves anywhere on the board with ease Guaranteed hits at 16", strength what, 14? flat 2 It doesn't average 4 shots, it averages 4 hits. That's like 6 shots at BS3, or 8 shots at BS4. Can cast and deny psychic powers
This might not be a problem for you, but a lot of us struggle with these. Marines are better equipped to solve these problems than Tyranids, Necrons, Orks, Tau, Guard...
When 3 of these leap down your throat and start annihilating key targets on the board (since, you really can't stop them from going where they want), it's entirely different. Smash captains need to charge to do any damage. This just needs to use its ridiculous movespeed and find a spot to land. It's also funny when they cast 3 full smites a turn.
Marines can get long range shooting on a 2+ BS with rerolls. Also you can double-flakk to hit these bad boys on 3s (+1 signum, +1 strat) with full rerolls. Show me another codex that can do this.
In January I ran Craftworld Eldar at a 6 game Major in the UK. I didn’t include Dark Reapers because I hated the spam, and I didn’t run Ynnari because I wanted to prove a point at the time.
My list included 1 unit of 9 Spears, and 1 unit of 3 spears acting as a bodyguard for my Autarch Warlord. I ran them as Saim-Hann.
The Spears were good, in most games, but certainly not game breaking at the time (this was when you could deep strike turn 1 and then Quicken for 22” move and then charge). The times the Spears were excellent were the times that I got +1 to hit in combat, +1 to wound in combat, -1 to hit, +1 saves power cast on unit and then Doom cast on the target. Which, by the way…. Requires 1 Farseer Jetbike, 2 Warlock Jetbikes AND 2 Spiritseers. I also had a couple of Hemlocks for Jinx if needed. That, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, is a lot of point, power and CP investment to ensure everything lines up correctly. (686 points, 896 if you include 1 hemlock – then 1 CP for farseer/warlock stratagem. 1 CP for advance and charge and re-roll 1’s to hit in combat stratagem. Then, 2 cp for -1 to hit, maybe 1 CP for deepstriking)
Throughout the event, I discovered that deepstriking 20 Guardians and a Farseer was more optimal than deepstriking the Spears, so that led me to just deploying the Spears. However, in 1 game vs Chaos, my 9-man Spear unit was reduced to 4 models on turn 1, after a unit of 40 Alpha Legion cultists came in and shot them twice. (which, by the way, costs 160 points). After that they were severely neutered and got nowhere close to making back their points investment.
In other games, where I only got 1 or 2 powers off on them, they were ok. For anything with T7+, they needed Doom to be cast on the target, otherwise they really struggled to put out effective damage.
However, in the one game vs 13 Guard Tanks with infantry screening, they got the full buffs, and his entire shooting phase only killed 3 Spears.
But, that was 1 game out of 6.
The moment they don’t kill their target in combat, or if they can get counter charged, then, they suck. And they die quickly. Doesn’t matter if the weapon is -4AP and 2 damage a time if they are hitting on 3’s and only str 3 and they will only have a 2+ save with protect or a 3+ save without it.
When we look at things now, they have to start on the table due to the deepstrike nerf, preferably out of LoS. They can’t advance and charge unless you run them as Saim-Hann. They still die to weight of dice unless you pump in hundreds of points worth of protection and CP. They still die in combat. And, when all that is done and considered, they still only have a 6” and a 12” range on their weapons. Sure, it gives their Shuriken Catapults a 28”-34” threat range, but we all know how good 36 bolter shots are (even if 4 of them wound with -3ap).
Spears are good when you pile points into them, which gets amplified by the ability to get a bonus fight or shooting phase via Ynnari. But, when they don’t have their support in place, or get charged themselves, they really struggle.
If Ynnari didn’t exist, Spears would still be taken because they are a good unit out of a selection of many bad ones. But, taking more than 1 big squad of them is, imo, just a waste of points. 1 unit will get buffed and be pretty resilient and killy, the other 2 units will just be waiting for unit 1 to die, so they can get the buffs to start making their points back.
If you are taking Shining Spears for anti-infantry alone, I’d say stop and just swap the 281 points for 2 triple cannon Wave Serpents. Sure, it’s half the shots, but, the Serpent is going to benefit more from Alaitocs trait, has higher str shots, double the range AND is more resilient/effective after losing some wounds. Also, it then allows you to drop a lot of the supporting powers, which will likely free up space for a 3rd Wave Serpent.
As for counters, pick any common 2 damage weapons. A 3 dissie cannon Ravager (125 points) can reasonably expect to kill 2 Spears a turn, when they aren’t -2 to hit and have a 3++. 3 Ravagers therefore ruin a squad. (Ravagers also have the advantage of always making the first move vs Spears). At -2 to hit and a 3++, sure they will struggle to kill 1 each, but that is to be expected.
2 Guard squads using FRFSRF will kill 3 Spears. 40 points, or 50 points, it doesn’t matter.
2 AssCan Razorbacks will kill 3.5 Spears when re-rolling 1’s to hit and wound.
A turn 1 charging Daemon Prince with Warptime will kill 3 Spears then easily survive them falling back and shooting him.
8 Dark Reapers (cheaper than 9 Spears) will shoot 4 Spears off the table a turn.
I’m not saying Spears are bad. Not by a long long stretch, but spamming them won’t win you tournaments – especially against the current soup lists.
Spears require a lot of moving parts to be fully effective. The moment you miss 1 or 2 of those parts, then they really start to struggle.
If you want to balance Spears, then you HAVE to do it from a Craftworlds ONLY point of view. You CANNOT balance a Craftworlds unit around an ability from a different codex. If that ability is what is causing the imbalance, then you target the ability first. Nerfing 1 unit, because of an ability in a different codex just unnecessarily nerfs the unit when used for its original purpose. At that point you are hurting Craftworlds to spite Ynnari, rather than just hurt Ynnari.
I’d wager that the 14 Grotesques, 20 Guardians and the Yncarne in Nick Nanavati’s list had more impact on the games than 9 Spears using 4CP a turn to re-roll hits of 1 in combat and potentially fighting twice vs a Doomed target.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?
This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.
I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.
The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.
Haha, thanks. I try. If it changes the opinion of 1 person or helps them think a bit more, then I’m happy.
Either that or I’m becoming masochistic lol!
Exalted. Great post and good reasoning. This exactly matches my experience with shining spears, just from the other side of the table. A good deny roll in the wrong moment (Doom or Protect) and the glass cannon simply breaks apart.
The post is also BS.
Talking about +1 to hit +1 to wounds spells than no one freaking uses. And how deepstriking 20 gardians is actaully better than spears...LOL. The gak people say to keep their stuff from getting nerfed is laughable. All you need is guide and doom - You are hitting on 3's and you have str 6 in CC - it is more than enough to deal with even t8 targets - as I have pointed out with math shown. "Spears aren't game breaking" Quote of the day man.
Spirit seers take protect and quicken. That is all they will ever take if you have 2 warlocks or seers (you likely wont have more). Deep striking 20 gardians is good. I do it all the time. That might nuke 1 target - spears nuke 1 or 2 targets then tie up a ton of stuff and are indestructible - that is a big difference for only 100 more points and no required deep strike stratagem to get into position.
First off, i haven't played my Craftworlds army since January, and i don't intend on doing so again anytime soon. So implying i'm saying all of this in an attempt not to get Shining Spears nerfed is nonsense.
I mentioned the +1 to hit and +1 to wound powers simply because of my experience using them with Spears. If my experience with the unit when it is buffed up to 15 rather than 11 was hit or miss, but mainly "reasonable", then i had grounds to make the comments i did.
Yes, i agree that Spears can, if they get slightly above average rolls, 1 shot a Castellan Knight with shooting and melee (average dice says 25.396 wounds) - but who is reasonably going to let you get 9 Spears within 6" range of a Castellan on turn 1 in a highly competitive game? Sure, 416 points should be able to kill most T8 targets, but beyond getting a Knight in the perfect situation, what T8 target is going to allow you to make those points back before the Spears get counter charged?
Spears are a glass hammer. In the perfect situation they hurt - as Ynnari they hurt even more, but they hardly roll over competitive lists. You seem to think that Spears are "indestructible" and will nuke high value targets every turn. The moment you charge 9 Spears into my lines, i will happily sacrifice a unit and then gladly remove them either with shooting if you failed protect from the Spiritseer, or in combat. If they don't charge, they are only strength 3, and they won't be re-rolling wounds against my charging units.
Spears are in a decent place when you look at the from a Craftworlds point of view. Craftworlds Shining Spear units aren't game breaking.
-2 to hit
Moves anywhere on the board with ease
Guaranteed hits at 16", strength what, 14? flat 2
Can cast and deny psychic powers
This might not be a problem for you, but a lot of us struggle with these. Marines are better equipped to solve these problems than Tyranids, Necrons, Orks, Tau, Guard...
Smash feth deep strikes and rerolls a 3d6 charge - his mobility is almost equal lets get real though - his mobility is enough to do his job
Str 12 - might as well be str 9 in most cases
So can farseers and spirit seers - it's nice they can get in range easy which is a nice feature. Jetbike farseer has not problem getting in range to deny though.
If a hemlock is shooting you - he's only going to be -1 to hit next turn - just like any flyer. He's only t6 with no invo save.
It's not a bad unit - it's great against tyranids because it has a good chance at 1 shotting a carnifex with a good roll and you don't want to charge one with a tyrant (just some advice - just charge it with the tyrant - you will drop the sucker) it's also good and hunting down and killing hive guard units hiding behind walls. IMO a crimson does this just as well and costs less and has the added benifit of not needing to get close to deal damage.
Marmatag wrote: If you think Smash Captain is as problematic for game balance as Custode Bikes or Hemlocks i don't know what to tell you.
Explain your case then - the hemlock costs almost double smash captain. Does About 1/4 of his damage. Yet is more broken? The bird averages 4 shots man - thats is not great. Crimson hunter is superior to it even and you aren't even mentioning it.
I don't have any problem with the regular custode bikes - 4++ save is tough to deal with but they are 90 points. Their stratagem is pretty brutal but its the only good stratagem in their whole codex. You have to shoot them - That isn't hard to do - if you can kill a hive tyrant you can kill 3 custode bikes...it's actually easier to do with most weapons and you get MORE points efficiency out of the deal. Bike captains are a bit more problematic. (at least hes not fighting twice...and does only d3 damage and not flat 3-4) and at least his threat range isn't the whole table - at least he can fail a charge - at least hes not rerolling wounds if you charge him. Smash captain is automatic kills after failed invos and hes fighting twice with almost double the attacks doing double the damage...
A Hemlock has so many more options available to it than a Smash Captain does.
Take away CP farming from a list with 3 Smash Captains in it, and the Smash Captain spam isn't overly threatening.
Generally in ITC, Hemlocks will score secondary points for you every turn, whilst also facilitating the scoring of primary points as well. Between their auto hitting str 12 weapons hitting (well killing in a lot of cases) at 16" range, their ability to target smites from behind screens due to their movement, ability to use Jinx, their -2 often, -3 to hit penalties on turn 1, their 6+++ and the often forgotten about leadership debuff, they are a lot harder to deal with than a Smash Captain charging into your lines.
So many of the units considered "OMG SO BROKEN" currently are only considered to be so far spending half a dozen cp every turn on them. As such, this points to CP being the problem not the units themselves.
Galas wrote: Guys, guys guys... do you know that many different units can be OP at different degrees and in different ways at the same time...don't you?
Sure, if you read my post I think i outlined the difference quite nicely. Units can be strong - better than average - and not be OP.
-2 to hit
Moves anywhere on the board with ease
Guaranteed hits at 16", strength what, 14? flat 2
Can cast and deny psychic powers
This might not be a problem for you, but a lot of us struggle with these. Marines are better equipped to solve these problems than Tyranids, Necrons, Orks, Tau, Guard...
Smash feth deep strikes and rerolls a 3d6 charge - his mobility is almost equal lets get real though - his mobility is enough to do his job
Str 12 - might as well be str 9 in most cases
So can farseers and spirit seers - it's nice they can get in range easy which is a nice feature. Jetbike farseer has not problem getting in range to deny though.
If a hemlock is shooting you - he's only going to be -1 to hit next turn - just like any flyer. He's only t6 with no invo save.
It's not a bad unit - it's great against tyranids because it has a good chance at 1 shotting a carnifex with a good roll and you don't want to charge one with a tyrant (just some advice - just charge it with the tyrant - you will drop the sucker) it's also good and hunting down and killing hive guard units hiding behind walls. IMO a crimson does this just as well and costs less and has the added benifit of not needing to get close to deal damage.
Depending on CP to deep strike then then perform a 3d6 charge, isn't the same level of mobility as a flyer. You likely get where you want to go initially, but it is also something that can be reasonably countered with screening.
In agree though, that str 12 practically means nothing against your T7 and T8 targets, but it plays a part in dealing with other flyers, DE transports and things like Death Guard etc.
Yes, there are other options in the armies for deny rolls. Hemlocks are just an additional option though should they be needed vs a psychic heavy force. Their mobility also allows your Farseers and Spiritseers more flexibility on positioning should you need it. When they carry Jinx, it also frees up power spots on your regular casters, for things like Quicken and Protect.
Depends on what you are shooting with the Hemlock, and whether it pops the stratagem. Heavy weapons will be at -2 regardless, as they will either need to move within 12" and thus take the movement penalty, or stay still and take the Alaitoc penalty. Sure, some screens might be in range, but, sure, go for it with the screens. T6, 12 wounds, 3+ save and a 6+ fnp, alongside a -1, -2 or -3 to hit penalty. It takes more to bring them down than you want to admit. (just like it could easily just take 2 lascannon shots if you get lucky)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Guys, guys guys... do you know that many different units can be OP at different degrees and in different ways at the same time...don't you?
Yes, the same unit can be either super OP or completely lack luster in loads of different situations. The problem we experience here though, is that people always pick that 1 outlying "OP" situation and ignore all the other situations when determining what is OP or not.
Rather than address the causes of those outlying situations, people always take aim at the unit itself.
"Slamguinius is built on stacking massive amounts of CP in strategums to build a monster"
Why? There are almost no other situations I can think of where you have a unit playing 3-4 offensive stratagems a turn. It's usually 1 offensive and MAYBE one defensive if you get targeted and sometimes 2. If he is this strong why aren't all other marine captains this strong if he is "fine" LOL. Give me a break man. He is insanely broken and it mostly because he has stratagem that no one else does.
The only unit this would really affect is smash fether. Who really gets most of his power out of stacking stratagems.
Think about these game decisions you have to make now. Wouldn't that be an interesting feature against knights?Sure you can use the fight at full power stratagem for your castellan- but then you aren't using reroll ones and you aren't rerolling a crucial miss later in that turn. I think it's an elegant fix. Smash fether will still be stronger than regular captains because his +1 to wound base stat and 4 damage hammer will set him apart. Hell just stop being a cruise missile (which he was never intended to be anyways - judging by his reroll 1's aura) Like everyone other captain. He still will have access to the same stratagems - he just needs to pick one of them.
So Tau can use branched novacharge on a riptide then arn't allowed to use any other strategum that would effect the riptide for the rest of the turn so no ignores cover strategum because that would be OP.
Automatic repair for D3 wounds and using focoused fire to down that Castellan, not with that model your not.
Stacking Auspex Scan and Flakmissle on marines or hellfireshells clearly OP.
Thats the problem in trying to stop slamguinius you just screwed everyone else in the game.
If you want to nerf Slamguinius increase the CP cost of the strategums he needs, or limit their stacking.Use a scalpel instead of a shotgun. I also never said slamguinius was fine I just disagree on how to nerf him.
Marmatag wrote: If you think Smash Captain is as problematic for game balance as Custode Bikes or Hemlocks i don't know what to tell you.
Explain your case then - the hemlock costs almost double smash captain. Does About 1/4 of his damage. Yet is more broken? The bird averages 4 shots man - thats is not great. Crimson hunter is superior to it even and you aren't even mentioning it.
I don't have any problem with the regular custode bikes - 4++ save is tough to deal with but they are 90 points. Their stratagem is pretty brutal but its the only good stratagem in their whole codex. You have to shoot them - That isn't hard to do - if you can kill a hive tyrant you can kill 3 custode bikes...it's actually easier to do with most weapons and you get MORE points efficiency out of the deal. Bike captains are a bit more problematic. (at least hes not fighting twice...and does only d3 damage and not flat 3-4) and at least his threat range isn't the whole table - at least he can fail a charge - at least hes not rerolling wounds if you charge him. Smash captain is automatic kills after failed invos and hes fighting twice with almost double the attacks doing double the damage...
A Hemlock has so many more options available to it than a Smash Captain does.
Take away CP farming from a list with 3 Smash Captains in it, and the Smash Captain spam isn't overly threatening.
Generally in ITC, Hemlocks will score secondary points for you every turn, whilst also facilitating the scoring of primary points as well. Between their auto hitting str 12 weapons hitting (well killing in a lot of cases) at 16" range, their ability to target smites from behind screens due to their movement, ability to use Jinx, their -2 often, -3 to hit penalties on turn 1, their 6+++ and the often forgotten about leadership debuff, they are a lot harder to deal with than a Smash Captain charging into your lines.
So many of the units considered "OMG SO BROKEN" currently are only considered to be so far spending half a dozen cp every turn on them. As such, this points to CP being the problem not the units themselves.
Secondary points are irrelevant - they are made up house rules. They have nothing to do with game balance.
Lets also not forget a hemlock costs 80 points more than a smash captain. And smash captain 1 shots a hemlock with little effort (it doesn't even need to fight twice). 3 CP is all he needs to spend to reliably kill a hemlock. Leadership debuff is also a nice feature. I used it to kill a single fire warrior the other day - It was one of the first times I saw a model die to leadership in 8th edition.
"Slamguinius is built on stacking massive amounts of CP in strategums to build a monster"
Why? There are almost no other situations I can think of where you have a unit playing 3-4 offensive stratagems a turn. It's usually 1 offensive and MAYBE one defensive if you get targeted and sometimes 2. If he is this strong why aren't all other marine captains this strong if he is "fine" LOL. Give me a break man. He is insanely broken and it mostly because he has stratagem that no one else does.
The only unit this would really affect is smash fether. Who really gets most of his power out of stacking stratagems.
Think about these game decisions you have to make now. Wouldn't that be an interesting feature against knights?Sure you can use the fight at full power stratagem for your castellan- but then you aren't using reroll ones and you aren't rerolling a crucial miss later in that turn. I think it's an elegant fix. Smash fether will still be stronger than regular captains because his +1 to wound base stat and 4 damage hammer will set him apart. Hell just stop being a cruise missile (which he was never intended to be anyways - judging by his reroll 1's aura) Like everyone other captain. He still will have access to the same stratagems - he just needs to pick one of them.
So Tau can use branched novacharge on a riptide then arn't allowed to use any other strategum that would effect the riptide for the rest of the turn so no ignores cover strategum because that would be OP.
Automatic repair for D3 wounds and using focoused fire to down that Castellan, not with that riptide your not.
Stacking Auspex Scan and Flakmissle on marines or hellfireshells clearly OP.
Thats the problem in trying to stop slamguinius you just screwed everyone else in the game.
If you want to nerf Slamguinius increase the CP cost of the strategums he needs, or limit their stacking.Use a scalpel instead of a shotgun.
No one is going to waste their CP on auspex scan hellfire missles firing at a -1 to to hit. Nor is anyone going to deep strike within 12 of a devestator squad anyways. So this is how far you have to dig to thing of units using multiple offensive strats in a turn.
I said stratagem per unit. Focus fire is a stratagem that targets an enemy unit. Yeah - the riptide would have to chose one turn if he wanted to repair or have a 3++...this seems reasonable actually. Or he can just bring a repair drone from forge world and do all of this at the same time.
Like with the archon shadowfeild he can't reroll the 2++ - I guess someone at GW said...that might be too powerful if you can just reroll the failed 2++ every turn. Think about death grip - it's okay to get a reroll on deathgrips to hit roll? It's probably going to automatically kill a character for 1 CP. Does it really need to do that even better?
Galas wrote: Guys, guys guys... do you know that many different units can be OP at different degrees and in different ways at the same time...don't you?
Sure, if you read my post I think i outlined the difference quite nicely. Units can be strong - better than average - and not be OP.
The difference you site is an artificial distinction. Average is a very subjective term.
In any case - spears and smash captains are the absolutely best at what they do. Which is why they keep dominating tournaments. It's been done with ynnari spears - it's been done with aloitoc spears, it's been done with siamhan spears. It's been done with smash captains. It's been done with Shield captains. These units are all OP.
Marmatag wrote: If you think Smash Captain is as problematic for game balance as Custode Bikes or Hemlocks i don't know what to tell you.
Explain your case then - the hemlock costs almost double smash captain. Does About 1/4 of his damage. Yet is more broken? The bird averages 4 shots man - thats is not great. Crimson hunter is superior to it even and you aren't even mentioning it.
I don't have any problem with the regular custode bikes - 4++ save is tough to deal with but they are 90 points. Their stratagem is pretty brutal but its the only good stratagem in their whole codex. You have to shoot them - That isn't hard to do - if you can kill a hive tyrant you can kill 3 custode bikes...it's actually easier to do with most weapons and you get MORE points efficiency out of the deal. Bike captains are a bit more problematic. (at least hes not fighting twice...and does only d3 damage and not flat 3-4) and at least his threat range isn't the whole table - at least he can fail a charge - at least hes not rerolling wounds if you charge him. Smash captain is automatic kills after failed invos and hes fighting twice with almost double the attacks doing double the damage...
A Hemlock has so many more options available to it than a Smash Captain does.
Take away CP farming from a list with 3 Smash Captains in it, and the Smash Captain spam isn't overly threatening.
Generally in ITC, Hemlocks will score secondary points for you every turn, whilst also facilitating the scoring of primary points as well. Between their auto hitting str 12 weapons hitting (well killing in a lot of cases) at 16" range, their ability to target smites from behind screens due to their movement, ability to use Jinx, their -2 often, -3 to hit penalties on turn 1, their 6+++ and the often forgotten about leadership debuff, they are a lot harder to deal with than a Smash Captain charging into your lines.
So many of the units considered "OMG SO BROKEN" currently are only considered to be so far spending half a dozen cp every turn on them. As such, this points to CP being the problem not the units themselves.
Secondary points are irrelevant - they are made up house rules. They have nothing to do with game balance.
Lets also not forget a hemlock costs 80 points more than a smash captain. And smash captain 1 shots a hemlock with little effort (it doesn't even need to fight twice). 3 CP is all he needs to spend to reliably kill a hemlock. Leadership debuff is also a nice feature. I used it to kill a single fire warrior the other day - It was one of the first times I saw a model die to leadership in 8th edition.
When using a competitive event as part of the basis for what is considered OP or not, you have to consider the setting in addition to the unit. Primary and secondary points win event games and events. Houserules or not.
If we are going to ignore all competitive results and instead base all out arguments and findings on standard non event games, then the entire "what is broken and what isn't" discussion needs to be reset from all sides and some ground truths laid out for people to discuss around. Taking a normal game, i could say that all i need to kill a unit Shining Spears is 1 unit of 30 Ork Boyz and a Wierd Boy casting Da Jump. Does that mean Ork Boyz are OP, because they destroy several units of another OP unit? A lot of what is currently classed as "OP" is what we see in tournament winning lists and top 10 lists. We wouldn't be arguing whether Guardsmen should be 4 or 5 points each, if it wasn't for the Nova results. Nor would we be complaining about Smash Captains or "givemeallthecp Castellans".
As for a Smash Captain 1 shotting a Hemlock, it all depends.
If you've spent 1 CP on Black Rage, 1 CP on Red Rampage (and don't roll a 1), 2 CP on a 3D6 charge and 1 CP to deepstrike, then yes, you can just about 1 shot a Hemlock with average dice. But, that to me is a 5 CP investment that requires a warlord trait to make the hammer 4 damage. You could also fail the charge and the re-roll (not likely but possible)
Sure, the Hemlock isn't likely to kill the Captain, but, if you put 3 Smash Captains vs 3 Hemlocks, you aren't killing all 3 Hemlocks.
Marmatag wrote: If you think Smash Captain is as problematic for game balance as Custode Bikes or Hemlocks i don't know what to tell you.
Explain your case then - the hemlock costs almost double smash captain. Does About 1/4 of his damage. Yet is more broken? The bird averages 4 shots man - thats is not great. Crimson hunter is superior to it even and you aren't even mentioning it.
I don't have any problem with the regular custode bikes - 4++ save is tough to deal with but they are 90 points. Their stratagem is pretty brutal but its the only good stratagem in their whole codex. You have to shoot them - That isn't hard to do - if you can kill a hive tyrant you can kill 3 custode bikes...it's actually easier to do with most weapons and you get MORE points efficiency out of the deal. Bike captains are a bit more problematic. (at least hes not fighting twice...and does only d3 damage and not flat 3-4) and at least his threat range isn't the whole table - at least he can fail a charge - at least hes not rerolling wounds if you charge him. Smash captain is automatic kills after failed invos and hes fighting twice with almost double the attacks doing double the damage...
A Hemlock has so many more options available to it than a Smash Captain does.
Take away CP farming from a list with 3 Smash Captains in it, and the Smash Captain spam isn't overly threatening.
Generally in ITC, Hemlocks will score secondary points for you every turn, whilst also facilitating the scoring of primary points as well. Between their auto hitting str 12 weapons hitting (well killing in a lot of cases) at 16" range, their ability to target smites from behind screens due to their movement, ability to use Jinx, their -2 often, -3 to hit penalties on turn 1, their 6+++ and the often forgotten about leadership debuff, they are a lot harder to deal with than a Smash Captain charging into your lines.
So many of the units considered "OMG SO BROKEN" currently are only considered to be so far spending half a dozen cp every turn on them. As such, this points to CP being the problem not the units themselves.
Secondary points are irrelevant - they are made up house rules. They have nothing to do with game balance.
Lets also not forget a hemlock costs 80 points more than a smash captain. And smash captain 1 shots a hemlock with little effort (it doesn't even need to fight twice). 3 CP is all he needs to spend to reliably kill a hemlock. Leadership debuff is also a nice feature. I used it to kill a single fire warrior the other day - It was one of the first times I saw a model die to leadership in 8th edition.
When using a competitive event as part of the basis for what is considered OP or not, you have to consider the setting in addition to the unit. Primary and secondary points win event games and events. Houserules or not.
If we are going to ignore all competitive results and instead base all out arguments and findings on standard non event games, then the entire "what is broken and what isn't" discussion needs to be reset from all sides and some ground truths laid out for people to discuss around. Taking a normal game, i could say that all i need to kill a unit Shining Spears is 1 unit of 30 Ork Boyz and a Wierd Boy casting Da Jump. Does that mean Ork Boyz are OP, because they destroy several units of another OP unit? A lot of what is currently classed as "OP" is what we see in tournament winning lists and top 10 lists. We wouldn't be arguing whether Guardsmen should be 4 or 5 points each, if it wasn't for the Nova results. Nor would we be complaining about Smash Captains or "givemeallthecp Castellans".
As for a Smash Captain 1 shotting a Hemlock, it all depends.
If you've spent 1 CP on Black Rage, 1 CP on Red Rampage (and don't roll a 1), 2 CP on a 3D6 charge and 1 CP to deepstrike, then yes, you can just about 1 shot a Hemlock with average dice. But, that to me is a 5 CP investment that requires a warlord trait to make the hammer 4 damage. You could also fail the charge and the re-roll (not likely but possible)
Sure, the Hemlock isn't likely to kill the Captain, but, if you put 3 Smash Captains vs 3 Hemlocks, you aren't killing all 3 Hemlocks.
Secondaries change - mission types change - there ETC, ITC, and many other rules sets people play competitively by. Secondary objectives do not matter for game balance - I'm sorry man. Unless GW comes out with an official secondary rule set - they are artificial factors that influence tournament results badly IMO. Plus - if a unit is winning out on an objective type more often then not - more than likely it is an OP unit.
What makes the hemlock so good at scoring secondaries? It's ability to snipe characters?
Also personally - you can throw these tournament results down the toilet. You can balance the game with math . I (anyone with a logical mind) could have looked at these codexes - figured out the combos - made tests lists - and predicted these results without even playing the game.
For example - I read about torn results but my best mate that plays 40k doesn't. I was like "guess what list won Nova" he says "Let me guess - a solo Castellan - guard brigade - and shield captains" "Nope....blood angels with smash captains" .... "well it was ether one or the other" - Point is - this is not surprising.
Admittedly I screwed up to allow the marine one to present the situation, but when his warptalons are about to tag your sicaran you do use your signum to counter the -1 so back to 3's and the strategum to get +1and mortal wound and try and kill one or two before they charge it.
Marmatag wrote: If you think Smash Captain is as problematic for game balance as Custode Bikes or Hemlocks i don't know what to tell you.
Explain your case then - the hemlock costs almost double smash captain. Does About 1/4 of his damage. Yet is more broken? The bird averages 4 shots man - thats is not great. Crimson hunter is superior to it even and you aren't even mentioning it.
I don't have any problem with the regular custode bikes - 4++ save is tough to deal with but they are 90 points. Their stratagem is pretty brutal but its the only good stratagem in their whole codex. You have to shoot them - That isn't hard to do - if you can kill a hive tyrant you can kill 3 custode bikes...it's actually easier to do with most weapons and you get MORE points efficiency out of the deal. Bike captains are a bit more problematic. (at least hes not fighting twice...and does only d3 damage and not flat 3-4) and at least his threat range isn't the whole table - at least he can fail a charge - at least hes not rerolling wounds if you charge him. Smash captain is automatic kills after failed invos and hes fighting twice with almost double the attacks doing double the damage...
A Hemlock has so many more options available to it than a Smash Captain does.
Take away CP farming from a list with 3 Smash Captains in it, and the Smash Captain spam isn't overly threatening.
Generally in ITC, Hemlocks will score secondary points for you every turn, whilst also facilitating the scoring of primary points as well. Between their auto hitting str 12 weapons hitting (well killing in a lot of cases) at 16" range, their ability to target smites from behind screens due to their movement, ability to use Jinx, their -2 often, -3 to hit penalties on turn 1, their 6+++ and the often forgotten about leadership debuff, they are a lot harder to deal with than a Smash Captain charging into your lines.
So many of the units considered "OMG SO BROKEN" currently are only considered to be so far spending half a dozen cp every turn on them. As such, this points to CP being the problem not the units themselves.
Secondary points are irrelevant - they are made up house rules. They have nothing to do with game balance.
Lets also not forget a hemlock costs 80 points more than a smash captain. And smash captain 1 shots a hemlock with little effort (it doesn't even need to fight twice). 3 CP is all he needs to spend to reliably kill a hemlock. Leadership debuff is also a nice feature. I used it to kill a single fire warrior the other day - It was one of the first times I saw a model die to leadership in 8th edition.
When using a competitive event as part of the basis for what is considered OP or not, you have to consider the setting in addition to the unit. Primary and secondary points win event games and events. Houserules or not.
If we are going to ignore all competitive results and instead base all out arguments and findings on standard non event games, then the entire "what is broken and what isn't" discussion needs to be reset from all sides and some ground truths laid out for people to discuss around. Taking a normal game, i could say that all i need to kill a unit Shining Spears is 1 unit of 30 Ork Boyz and a Wierd Boy casting Da Jump. Does that mean Ork Boyz are OP, because they destroy several units of another OP unit? A lot of what is currently classed as "OP" is what we see in tournament winning lists and top 10 lists. We wouldn't be arguing whether Guardsmen should be 4 or 5 points each, if it wasn't for the Nova results. Nor would we be complaining about Smash Captains or "givemeallthecp Castellans".
As for a Smash Captain 1 shotting a Hemlock, it all depends.
If you've spent 1 CP on Black Rage, 1 CP on Red Rampage (and don't roll a 1), 2 CP on a 3D6 charge and 1 CP to deepstrike, then yes, you can just about 1 shot a Hemlock with average dice. But, that to me is a 5 CP investment that requires a warlord trait to make the hammer 4 damage. You could also fail the charge and the re-roll (not likely but possible)
Sure, the Hemlock isn't likely to kill the Captain, but, if you put 3 Smash Captains vs 3 Hemlocks, you aren't killing all 3 Hemlocks.
Secondaries change - mission types change - there ETC, ITC, and many other rules sets people play competitively by. Secondary objectives do not matter for game balance - I'm sorry man. Unless GW comes out with an official secondary rule set - they are artificial factors that influence tournament results badly IMO. Plus - if a unit is winning out on an objective type more often then not - more than likely it is an OP unit.
What makes the hemlock so good at scoring secondaries? It's ability to snipe characters?
Also personally - you can throw these tournament results down the toilet. You can balance the game with math . I (anyone with a logical mind) could have looked at these codexes - figured out the combos - made tests lists - and predicted these results without even playing the game.
I agree, secondary and non GW primary missions shouldn't matter for game balance at all. Nothing should matter except how the unit performs in the standard GW ruleset alone.
However, the only events that use that format, are the GW events, and, we all know how "useful" those events have been for identifying balance. lol.
BUT, the problem is, if we are using (like we are) event results and lists to determine the most commonly used "op" units and combinations, in order to balance the game, you have to take secondaries etc into account. Points win games. Points win events. Sure, you can try to table your opponent every game, but, it's not going to reliably happen. If we ignore secondaries we have to ignore all event results bar the GW events and balance solely from those events and games played at home or the local club (where only the rulebook is used). If we did that, and had the ability to poll every single club and home player if they thought a Castellan Knight was way to powerful, or if a Blood Angels Captain was to OP, or if a 4 point Guardsman was broken, then i bet the vast majority wouldn't have an opinion, and if they did it'd be towards both ends of the spectrum with little middle ground.
Yes, math helps you gain advantages in the game, and yes, some units are mathmatically better in each given situation than other units. But math doesn't win the physical game - especially core rulebook games, or maelstrom games (which are the only 2 sets of games we can use for balance, in addition to Chapter Approved games).
I seriously bet, that the list that won Nova will not win the next major event or the LVO (even if the Big FAQ and Chapter Approved 2018 were ignored). People will find what is the best counter to said list, and use it to beat the current lists.
There are more factors to a game of 40k than math.
I'd argue that captain smash is needed as long as knight 3++ and stacking negatives to hit fliers are around. And really, its mostly against these units that they are considered OP, because they bypass so much of a what makes those units durable.
The captains are really only good against certain units, it just that those are the good units right now. A full captain combo on turn 1 costs about 6 CP, which would normally be about half your starting CP. And most of the time they die after that turn.
Its mostly the CP regen and saturation of excellent targets that's making them seem so amazing, coupled with them being able to "not a deepstrike" redeploy on turn 1. I have a feeling they'll be mostly useless against orks etc, and if the CP situation improves I think they'll go back to being a non issue.
jcd386 wrote: I'd argue that captain smash is needed as long as knight 3++ and stacking negatives to hit fliers are around. And really, its mostly against these units that they are considered OP, because they bypass so much of a what makes those units durable.
The captains are really only good against certain units, it just that those are the good units right now. A full captain combo on turn 1 costs about 6 CP, which would normally be about half your starting CP. And most of the time they die after that turn.
Its mostly the CP regen and saturation of excellent targets that's making them seem so amazing, coupled with them being able to "not a deepstrike" redeploy on turn 1. I have a feeling they'll be mostly useless against orks etc, and if the CP situation improves I think they'll go back to being a non issue.
This is part of the reason why I say they're strong but not broken. It's a situational trump card, to be sure, but there's nothing wrong with that. And turn 1 deep strike is still not super viable. Most armies have screens, or units capable of screening. Even if CP gets nerfed, Knight armies are still bringing Guardsmen. For the obvious reasons.
I might be totally wrong but I am not convinced a CP nerf would change things. Having 35~ CP certainly helps go the distance - but I am fairly confident 20 would let you do whatever you wanted for the first 2-3 turns. Things like "using half/third of your CP would make it balanced" is hard to measure. Killing stuff efficiently changes games. You don't get to take CP with you if you have 10 left at the end.
Smash captains do impact the meta because they make a lot of beefy units bad.
There is usually a lot of forum debate about things like hemlocks, custodes bike captains and daemon princes. Yet where were they at this tournament? Seemingly nowhere (or at least not dominating), because your captains are a very reliable, efficient counter. (Plus wall to wall chaff and the Castellan).
Whether this makes them overpowered is debatable, but identifying the pressure points in a meta is important.
As I see it the Imperial list is good because everything - even the scouts - has a job and does it well.
Tyel wrote: I might be totally wrong but I am not convinced a CP nerf would change things. Having 35~ CP certainly helps go the distance - but I am fairly confident 20 would let you do whatever you wanted for the first 2-3 turns. Things like "using half/third of your CP would make it balanced" is hard to measure. Killing stuff efficiently changes games. You don't get to take CP with you if you have 10 left at the end.
Smash captains do impact the meta because they make a lot of beefy units bad.
There is usually a lot of forum debate about things like hemlocks, custodes bike captains and daemon princes. Yet where were they at this tournament? Seemingly nowhere (or at least not dominating), because your captains are a very reliable, efficient counter. (Plus wall to wall chaff and the Castellan).
Whether this makes them overpowered is debatable, but identifying the pressure points in a meta is important.
As I see it the Imperial list is good because everything - even the scouts - has a job and does it well.
To me fixing the CP issue would involve making the cap about 15 and the average 10-12.
Galas wrote: Guys, guys guys... do you know that many different units can be OP at different degrees and in different ways at the same time...don't you?
You seem to be one of the more rational people in other threads I've posted in, can you please give me a quick summary of the statements being made here about what isn't OP? This has been going on for a while and I don't want to dive through the whole thread to catch up
2. Release actual Ynnari codex with more units. Possibly re-design soulburst.
3. Buff weak mono armies like Necrons, Tau, pure SM/CSM, mono god daemons, etc.
Notes
1. CP batteries are strong but only when they're AM cheap AND can be paired with allies that can use it to spam really powerful stratagems. For example, Genestealer Cults/Aeldari CP batteries are not really a problem. Pure Knights and pure Custodes don't need nerfs.
2. Ynnari is kinda one-trick but hasn't really seemed to be completely dominating the meta for a while. The 7-flyrant meta and the DE meta both showed plenty of builds that were competitive with Ynnari.
I've got another suggestion regarding Command Points.
What if, rather than different detachments granting different numbers of CPs, we instead based CPs on the points of troops in an army?
We could, for example, say that each army gets 1CP for every 100pts they spend on troops. This way, elite armies aren't punished for taking just a few units of expensive troops and armies like IG can't just take half a dozen cheap infantry squads and get maximum CPs.
I'd also suggest that all CP regeneration type abilities are changed so that they simply generate 1CP automatically each turn (assuming the bearer is still alive). This means that you can't just endlessly recycle CPs - spending a ton of them and getting a ton back as a result.
vipoid wrote: I've got another suggestion regarding Command Points.
What if, rather than different detachments granting different numbers of CPs, we instead based CPs on the points of troops in an army?
We could, for example, say that each army gets 1CP for every 100pts they spend on troops. This way, elite armies aren't punished for taking just a few units of expensive troops and armies like IG can't just take half a dozen cheap infantry squads and get maximum CPs.
I'd also suggest that all CP regeneration type abilities are changed so that they simply generate 1CP automatically each turn (assuming the bearer is still alive). This means that you can't just endlessly recycle CPs - spending a ton of them and getting a ton back as a result.
Any thoughts?
I think they would both work well, but I think the first one is unlikely to happen due to it requiring some math. I'd much rather CA just come out with 5 new pages of new detachment and battleforged rules regarding how armies are put together and CP are generated that can just replace the ones in the rulebook.
Until I see actual attempts to address soup, I don't give a crap about your complaints about Guard. I want soup hit. My book already took a nerf, whether I used the models or not, because of whining about soup.
Back at you. I don't want my already questionable imperial mess to be nerfed because people keep bringing utterly broken gak from Guard dex.
And you still haven't actually proven what you're bringing couldn't be done without a Brigade or Battalion.
Post up.
Because quite frankly? Your soup's viability doesn't trump my codex's. You don't get to nerf my book because you want soup.
Now you're showing off how selfish you are by openly admitting you don't want your stronger codex touched.
Based on the fact they were proven mathematically superior to a lot of other units and still keep showing up?
What other unit options are there for bulking out a Brigade to get your CP spam on? Skitarii Rangers? Vanguard? Kataphron? Tactical Marines? Conscripts? Scions?
You keep pointing at the math while ignoring that if we remove the ability to bring a Brigade of the frigging things and neuter the Command Point spam, it won't be as big of an issue.
You keep pointing at the math while ignoring that if we remove the ability for a Company Commander to be the Warlord, Grand Strategist ceases to be an issue.
You keep pointing at the math while ignoring that if we remove Mortars from Infantry Squads, the threat radius goes down.
Math is great and all but it doesn't actually give the whole picture in every circumstance.
You remind me exactly of certain Scatterbikes defenders who kept saying that the Riptide Wings allied in or the Wraithknights were the issue.
Don't ignore the original issue by trying to distract us with something else that needs to be hit.
Until I see actual attempts to address soup, I don't give a crap about your complaints about Guard. I want soup hit. My book already took a nerf, whether I used the models or not, because of whining about soup.
Based on the fact Infantry do better screening than those listed troops they'd still be taken. Quit blaming Mortars for something Infantry are gonna do anyway. There are several things off the charts with Infantry squads and you know it.
Also saying that the math doesn't give the whole picture is the equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting "LALALALA". I already know that, if suddenly tomorrow, Alpha Legion Cultists got BS2+ and all Assault Cannons for no cost increase, youd have people still saying they're not broken and to learn to play.
Scatterbikes obviously weren't THAT, but people defended it no matter what. That's basically what you're doing with your codex.
Also boo-frickin-hoo your Conscripts and Commissars took a much needed nerf. Yeah the 4 points is over the top, but they deserved everything else.
Galas wrote: Guys, guys guys... do you know that many different units can be OP at different degrees and in different ways at the same time...don't you?
You seem to be one of the more rational people in other threads I've posted in, can you please give me a quick summary of the statements being made here about what isn't OP? This has been going on for a while and I don't want to dive through the whole thread to catch up
To be honest at this point I only read fully 1/3 of the posts But basically, there was a discussion about Shining Spears/Captain Smashfester/Hemlock Jetfigthers/Custodes Vertus Praetors and Captains/Dissintegrator Cannons, etc... and some people said one where powerfull but not as OP as THE other units so by that they where "fine"; etc... wich is an absolutely false conclusion.
Of course, we can all disagree about what constitutes Very Strong vs OP, or what should be the power standard of the game... but I always feel surprised about how fast people loses perspective when they are talking about their units, very powerfull, mathematically unbalanced units, but wich they only see the downsides.
As I play mostly Dark Angels (And I don't spam flyers), I have the perspective of what being really middle of the pack feels, and is obvious, at least for me in my subjetive opinion, how those units, are unbalanced.
It doesnt matter if Grotesques are more OP than Castellans Knights... if they are both unbalanced, they should be corrected.
And sorry, I know this is more than what you asked me for, and probably not exactly what you asked for... but at this point this discussion is no longer a discussion and more preachers trying to out-yell the others
Anyone saying Spears are not OP are playing a different game.
It's interesting that the best players have pretty consistent opinions on these models, but Dakka of course has no shortage of low level players who know better.
SHUPPET wrote: Anyone saying Spears are not OP are playing a different game.
It's interesting that the best players have pretty consistent opinions on these models, but Dakka of course has no shortage of low level players who know better.
Nah tournament players don't know anything all they do is netlist as it isn't like anyone has to make the list they just appear and they copy them they're so unoriginal and unskilled but I don't enter tournaments because that's not my thing.
Until I see actual attempts to address soup, I don't give a crap about your complaints about Guard. I want soup hit. My book already took a nerf, whether I used the models or not, because of whining about soup.
Back at you. I don't want my already questionable imperial mess to be nerfed because people keep bringing utterly broken gak from Guard dex.
And you still haven't actually proven what you're bringing couldn't be done without a Brigade or Battalion.
Post up.
Because quite frankly? Your soup's viability doesn't trump my codex's. You don't get to nerf my book because you want soup.
Now you're showing off how selfish you are by openly admitting you don't want your stronger codex touched.
Your true colors show.
I don't want my codex being touched because tournament goons abuse one component of it--a component which could be solved by an actual tweak to the rules of the game, not my book.
Based on the fact Infantry do better screening than those listed troops they'd still be taken. Quit blaming Mortars for something Infantry are gonna do anyway. There are several things off the charts with Infantry squads and you know it.
Remind me again how many Infantry Squads we saw without Mortars? I'd love to see actual pictures of the tables and where things were.
Also saying that the math doesn't give the whole picture is the equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting "LALALALA". I already know that, if suddenly tomorrow, Alpha Legion Cultists got BS2+ and all Assault Cannons for no cost increase, youd have people still saying they're not broken and to learn to play.
Saying "the math doesn't give the whole picture" is just that. Numbercrunching.
If people wanted just bodies they'd be taking Conscripts--the points difference is almost negligible when talking about Guard. But they don't take Conscripts--because for the same points per model, they get access to Mortars and reliable Orders. And until the addition of the Custodes banner, you basically had to bring in an Inquisitor or Primaris Psyker to babysit them after the Commissar nerf.
Scatterbikes obviously weren't THAT, but people defended it no matter what. That's basically what you're doing with your codex.
Sure, okay.
Also boo-frickin-hoo your Conscripts and Commissars took a much needed nerf. Yeah the 4 points is over the top, but they deserved everything else.
When the fix literally could have been the half-assed Raw Recruits rule they added to curb them taking Orders but don't forget that the "fix" also included the 20 model reduction on unit max.
There's a reason we're not seeing Commissars on boards basically at all these days. Summary Execution is garbage when you have the same ability being handed out as a trait. Summary Execution is garbage when you have T'au rocking "Bonding Knife Ritual" in their unit at no points cost.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine that there were much better ways to handle it and they need to revert the Commissar nerf. Conscripts needed something to be done but they knee-jerked that stuff hard.
You could smell the outside "playtesters" and their influence on that book.
Mortars were taken because they're on the cheap. You take away Mortars the players will just move on to something else or even just keep them bare bones because they function as is.
So please stop pretending Mortars are the REAL issue here.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Mortars were taken because they're on the cheap. You take away Mortars the players will just move on to something else or even just keep them bare bones because they function as is.
So please stop pretending Mortars are the REAL issue here.
You keep focusing on Mortars as though I'm saying they're "the real issue". That I haven't acknowledged that the CP regeneration isn't a thing or that I have not pointed out exactly what you're saying, where Mortars being removed will either force people to swap Heavy Weapons or just keep the units barebones.
I'm not. You pretending that I believe Mortars are the big issue is a strawman argument; you're fighting something I've never said.
I'm bringing up Mortars because they're a part of the attractiveness of the Infantry Squad. You get your CP recycling garbage and an expendable unit you can park in cover on an objective that can harass with a weapon that doesn't need LOS and has a 48" range. There was also the issue that kept being brought up from tournament players regarding ITC and an objective there where it dealt with number of models or something like that? I don't know specifics as I don't care for ITC or tournaments in general, I just remember it being a reason why people kept harping on the need for tournament lists to have a HWT in the Infantry Squads.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Mortars were taken because they're on the cheap. You take away Mortars the players will just move on to something else or even just keep them bare bones because they function as is.
So please stop pretending Mortars are the REAL issue here.
You keep focusing on Mortars as though I'm saying they're "the real issue". That I haven't acknowledged that the CP regeneration isn't a thing or that I have not pointed out exactly what you're saying, where Mortars being removed will either force people to swap Heavy Weapons or just keep the units barebones.
I'm not. You pretending that I believe Mortars are the big issue is a strawman argument; you're fighting something I've never said.
I'm bringing up Mortars because they're a part of the attractiveness of the Infantry Squad. You get your CP recycling garbage and an expendable unit you can park in cover on an objective that can harass with a weapon that doesn't need LOS and has a 48" range. There was also the issue that kept being brought up from tournament players regarding ITC and an objective there where it dealt with number of models or something like that? I don't know specifics as I don't care for ITC or tournaments in general, I just remember it being a reason why people kept harping on the need for tournament lists to have a HWT in the Infantry Squads.
15 infantry squads in the top 3 of Nova.
Not a single Mortar.
Time to admit you were wrong.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around.
Suuuuuuuuuure, "not a single mortar". Andrew Gonyo ran a Brigade and swapped his HWT in Infantry Squads for HWS to get the bonus CPs.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around.
Time for you to get gud.
Time for you to take a peek at the lists that were in the running. Mortars are definitely present--the winning list just had them in a different setup.
Suuuuuuuuuure, "not a single mortar". Andrew Gonyo ran a Brigade and swapped his HWT in Infantry Squads for HWS to get the bonus CPs.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around.
Time for you to get gud.
Time for you to take a peek at the lists that were in the running. Mortars are definitely present--the winning list just had them in a different setup.
And if they decided to do Autocannons for those HWS models they'd have done the same thing for the extra CP. I don't understand the argument.
Now that ITC changed reaper I think most infantry mortars will be going away for the most part, unless you happen to have extra points to spend, as it's not a terrible weapon.
I think it's also safe to say that the battillion going to 5CP is a big part of why people take it. The CP regen is also a reason.
Without all those things, I do think the basic 32 is still probably worth taking in many lists for screening and board control, which they are excellent at, but I'm not sure it's an auto take anymore. I'd be willing to wait to nerf guard if CP was fixed and Marines were buffed, as we're hoping for in FAQ / CA, and then let the meta settle some.
Right now they just have everything going for them so it feels pretty insane, but we don't want them so changed they are never taken, either.
Suuuuuuuuuure, "not a single mortar". Andrew Gonyo ran a Brigade and swapped his HWT in Infantry Squads for HWS to get the bonus CPs.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around. Time for you to get gud.
Time for you to take a peek at the lists that were in the running. Mortars are definitely present--the winning list just had them in a different setup.
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
So BAs are finaly dead, with the CP change? I guess this is going to be another FAQ boomerang hit to GKs. Now it is not even worth to ally in stuff in to your GK army.
Karol wrote: So BAs are finaly dead, with the CP change? I guess this is going to be another FAQ boomerang hit to GKs. Now it is not even worth to ally in stuff in to your GK army.
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Is that mini-dex a 40K thing, or is it for Kill Team?
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Is that mini-dex a 40K thing, or is it for Kill Team?
It's 40K rules for the models in the box. Basically a mini-detachment you can add to other Imperial armies.
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Excellent news that makes perfect sense.
I hope this is rolled out fully.
What exactly are you hoping is rolled out?
If its things like Guilliman and Calgar's +3,+2CP can only be spent of Adaptes Astartes strategums. It's a mild Third nerf to Bobby G but really effects very little.
It doesn't stop the Grand Strategists and Kurov's mess at all.
If you ment the idea that detachments must use their own CP.
1 Thats IMHO a terrible shotgun instead of a scalpel fix.
2 Then Assasins and Sister of Silence need to be given back ways to make their own CP.
In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
The CP issue seems pretty black and white to me. I'm not sure anyone thinks an army should have 30+ CP.
It's just everything else that's hard to agree on because there are so many factors, and we're all coming at things from different points of view.
I think there are some real issues with the current state of the game surrounding the allies mechanic, the relationship between AP/armor/and invuls, how un-fun stacking negative to hit modifiers are, and the fly keyword being too powerful, in addition to the ever present points costs issues.
These are the things that are much harder to accurately diagnose and agree on solutions for.
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Excellent news that makes perfect sense.
I hope this is rolled out fully.
What exactly are you hoping is rolled out?
If its things like Guilliman and Calgar's +3,+2CP can only be spent of Adaptes Astartes strategums. It's a mild Third nerf to Bobby G but really effects very little.
It doesn't stop the Grand Strategists and Kurov's mess at all.
If you ment the idea that detachments must use their own CP.
1 Thats IMHO a terrible shotgun instead of a scalpel fix.
2 Then Assasins and Sister of Silence need to be given back ways to make their own CP.
If they put a rule like that out without fixing Guard CP. I will take it as a personal attack against Ultramarines and just quit the game. I will literally quit.
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Well - this will mean mono army only for the most part or maybe allies where both can fit a batallion. It will be good for competitive play - it will be bad for people who just like allies cause it's cool. It's too bad GW is so bad at pleasing everyone.
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
The CP issue seems pretty black and white to me. I'm not sure anyone thinks an army should have 30+ CP.
It's just everything else that's hard to agree on because there are so many factors, and we're all coming at things from different points of view.
I think there are some real issues with the current state of the game surrounding the allies mechanic, the relationship between AP/armor/and invuls, how un-fun stacking negative to hit modifiers are, and the fly keyword being too powerful, in addition to the ever present points costs issues.
These are the things that are much harder to accurately diagnose and agree on solutions for.
I agree its very hard to agree with what is OP as many things are fine on their own and don't become an issue until you add in unlimited CP and allies. I think the first step is addressing how broken CP regeneration is as well as adding in some type of drawback to allies and then you will actually be able to nail down what is op
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
No I don't think that. Smash captain is the only unit that I think power level is more of an issue of stratagems than base cost.
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
No I don't think that. Smash captain is the only unit that I think power level is more of an issue of stratagems than base cost.
Yop must only be the captain thats why we see mono knight builds running rampant.... because they dont need unlimited CP to become OP
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
No I don't think that. Smash captain is the only unit that I think power level is more of an issue of stratagems than base cost.
I think it depends on the unit.
I really don't think we can know if the Castellan is OP without the 3++ and enough CP to rotate + missile + Raven each turn. I'd much rather they cap rotate to 4++ and remove the ability for SHAux detachments to unlock strategems than I would just make it 700 points.
Infantry squads probably do need to be 5 points. They are just so good at everything they do. A lot of other guard stuff needs buffs, but negatives to hit is what really hurts them.
Dark eldar stuff is probably just too cheap.
Marines just don't fit into this edition. They need special rules more than they need points costs. But they also need some points cost changes.
Custodes need points costs up and down for different units, but their army is generally good.
Eldar need changes to negatives to hit and soulbust more than anything else.
For the CP issue why not just say instead of regenerating points that the item/trait just generates 1 CP each turn after the first turn as long as the item/trait is in play (meaning not having been removed from play via an enemy action or a failed psychic test)? That way you still can gain CP throughout the game but not an outrageous amount of them.
Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
It is true that solo knights are MORE op than multiple additional knights though. Because they can make sure that knight is always a 3++ - I think we already found a soultion to fix the 3++ issue - make ether the stratagem or WL trait say "to a maxiumum of 4++"
Leo_the_Rat wrote: For the CP issue why not just say instead of regenerating points that the item/trait just generates 1 CP each turn after the first turn as long as the item/trait is in play (meaning not having been removed from play via an enemy action or a failed psychic test)? That way you still can gain CP throughout the game but not an outrageous amount of them.
I think its easier to just remove CP regeneration from the game altogether. Let items/heroes add CP at the beginning and that's it. The issue again is that armies with the ability to soup will take said +1 per turn item from multiple factions while races that cant soup will be stuck to 1. Having a starting CP is much easier to balance then gaining them in game
Leo_the_Rat wrote: For the CP issue why not just say instead of regenerating points that the item/trait just generates 1 CP each turn after the first turn as long as the item/trait is in play (meaning not having been removed from play via an enemy action or a failed psychic test)? That way you still can gain CP throughout the game but not an outrageous amount of them.
I think its easier to just remove CP regeneration from the game altogether. Let items/heroes add CP at the beginning and that's it. The issue again is that armies with the ability to soup will take said +1 per turn item from multiple factions while races that cant soup will be stuck to 1. Having a starting CP is much easier to balance then gaining them in game
I'd be okay with that but we are talking about abilities that are entrenched in almost every codex. It's unrealistic to think that will be the measure they take. Regeneration scales with the more CP you start with - so ultimately reducing starting CP number is a nerf to CP regen.
Xenomancers wrote: Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
It is true that solo knights are MORE op than multiple additional knights though. Because they can make sure that knight is always a 3++ - I think we already found a soultion to fix the 3++ issue - make ether the stratagem or WL trait say "to a maxiumum of 4++"
List that isn't winning is OP because xenomancers says it is.... Once again when mono knights are running around slapping down everything we can have a discussion about how they are op without unlimited CP
Leo_the_Rat wrote: For the CP issue why not just say instead of regenerating points that the item/trait just generates 1 CP each turn after the first turn as long as the item/trait is in play (meaning not having been removed from play via an enemy action or a failed psychic test)? That way you still can gain CP throughout the game but not an outrageous amount of them.
I think they could just limit them to only apply when you use <faction> stratagems and that would solve a lot of it without having to change too many rules.
That coupled with a general CP reduction to detachments and an increase in battleforged CP could be enough.
The Castellan list with only 17 starting CP, a 5+ to regen CP spent on IG stratagems, a 5+ to get 1 CP anytime you use BA strats, and a 5+ to get a CP when the enemy uses a stratagem is actually MUCH weaker than the current system.
If they only changed that, capped rotate at a 4++, and removed strategems from the SHaux, the Castellan list would be fairly manageable.
Xenomancers wrote:Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.
Xenomancers wrote:Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.
I think they possibly do need to be toned down, but I also think one of the only reasons they are so good right now is there is no other good way to kill knights or eldar fliers. If there were other ways to do it, people might not choose to lose an HQ unit and 8 CP to kill them. It's good, but its not great when you don't have unlimited CP, and there are certain matchups were they are pretty useless.
Xenomancers wrote:Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.
I think they possibly do need to be toned down, but I also think one of the only reasons they are so good right now is there is no other good way to kill knights or eldar fliers. If there were other ways to do it, people might not choose to lose an HQ unit and 8 CP to kill them. It's good, but its not great when you don't have unlimited CP, and there are certain matchups were they are pretty useless.
But as Reliqs and CP's are chosen/used before the battle begin, if you don't have a nice target for your Captain Smashfester, then you don't make him, and gave another reliq to another hero and you just don't use all those CP.
Xenomancers wrote:Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.
I think they possibly do need to be toned down, but I also think one of the only reasons they are so good right now is there is no other good way to kill knights or eldar fliers. If there were other ways to do it, people might not choose to lose an HQ unit and 8 CP to kill them. It's good, but its not great when you don't have unlimited CP, and there are certain matchups were they are pretty useless.
But as Reliqs and CP's are chosen/used before the battle begin, if you don't have a nice target for your Captain Smashfester, then you don't make him, and gave another reliq to another hero and you just don't use all those CP.
Sure, but it's still less than optimal part of your list, since that's pretty much all the BA battillion is for. If orks get popular we're gonna be a lot less use for these guys, just like there wasn't preknights in the horde meta. If knights get easier to kill with shooting, and fliers aren't as hard to hit, I think maybe the smashboy will just not be as useful.
I could see changing something like not letting him both redeploy and 3d6 charge on the same turn, etc. But I don't think smash captains are "the problem" right now.
Xenomancers wrote: Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
It is true that solo knights are MORE op than multiple additional knights though. Because they can make sure that knight is always a 3++ - I think we already found a soultion to fix the 3++ issue - make ether the stratagem or WL trait say "to a maxiumum of 4++"
List that isn't winning is OP because xenomancers says it is.... Once again when mono knights are running around slapping down everything we can have a discussion about how they are op without unlimited CP
Both smash fether and castellans are winning...I don't understand where you are coming from?
Xenomancers wrote: Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
It is true that solo knights are MORE op than multiple additional knights though. Because they can make sure that knight is always a 3++ - I think we already found a soultion to fix the 3++ issue - make ether the stratagem or WL trait say "to a maxiumum of 4++"
List that isn't winning is OP because xenomancers says it is.... Once again when mono knights are running around slapping down everything we can have a discussion about how they are op without unlimited CP
Both smash fether and castellans are winning...I don't understand where you are coming from?
Yeah I have no idea what he’s talking about but then again I rarely do. Wouldn’t dwell on it.
So I've read through just about the whole thread and one thing I've noticed is everyone seems to have the Nerf bat out. What if we focused on buffing instead?
Originally, CP was meant to balance troop-heavy horde Arnie's against mega elite armies, but some factions seem able to have their cake and eat it too. Having tried one of these armies out though, it is really FUN to have lots of CP and use lots of stratagems. So what if instead of taking that option away, we gave it to everyone?
Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead/Supreme-Command give you 2 CP, Battalion gives 4, Knight Lance 6 and Brigade gives 8, but being Battleforged now gives you 10. A general Warlord Trait is added to the main rulebook giving any Warlord a 5+ CP regen.
Now you can either take your base 12 or whatever CP and use that with a regen or go real heavy on Troops and detachments (getting you 18 with two Battalions) thus negating a need for regen and freeing you up to take a more useful Warlord Trait.
Audustum wrote: So I've read through just about the whole thread and one thing I've noticed is everyone seems to have the Nerf bat out. What if we focused on buffing instead?
Originally, CP was meant to balance troop-heavy horde Arnie's against mega elite armies, but some factions seem able to have their cake and eat it too. Having tried one of these armies out though, it is really FUN to have lots of CP and use lots of stratagems. So what if instead of taking that option away, we gave it to everyone?
Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead/Supreme-Command give you 2 CP, Battalion gives 4, Knight Lance 6 and Brigade gives 8, but being Battleforged now gives you 10. A general Warlord Trait is added to the main rulebook giving any Warlord a 5+ CP regen.
Now you can either take your base 12 or whatever CP and use that with a regen or go real heavy on Troops and detachments (getting you 18 with two Battalions) thus negating a need for regen and freeing you up to take a more useful Warlord Trait.
I understand why you'd rather buff than nerf but you realise the suggestion above would only make soup lists stronger and does nothing to fix them?
One of the strengths of the soup list is that they have access to 3 codexes' worth of stratagems at no cost. With your suggestion above this isn't addressed, instead all you've done is give lists other than Guard the ability to regen CP (something that is considered a major issue currently). Since IK and Smash Captains get so much extra utility out of stratagems they would continue to be chosen in the meta. Having the ability to drop a load of strats is fun but there should be a decision there. Allowing players to use all the best combos with impunity is foolish for balance.
I think the suggestions here are generally to nerf an aspect of the strongest list while buffing the weaker units so they see play. Oh and of course, mortars.
Audustum wrote: So I've read through just about the whole thread and one thing I've noticed is everyone seems to have the Nerf bat out. What if we focused on buffing instead?
Originally, CP was meant to balance troop-heavy horde Arnie's against mega elite armies, but some factions seem able to have their cake and eat it too. Having tried one of these armies out though, it is really FUN to have lots of CP and use lots of stratagems. So what if instead of taking that option away, we gave it to everyone?
Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead/Supreme-Command give you 2 CP, Battalion gives 4, Knight Lance 6 and Brigade gives 8, but being Battleforged now gives you 10. A general Warlord Trait is added to the main rulebook giving any Warlord a 5+ CP regen.
Now you can either take your base 12 or whatever CP and use that with a regen or go real heavy on Troops and detachments (getting you 18 with two Battalions) thus negating a need for regen and freeing you up to take a more useful Warlord Trait.
When the game is in it's most balanced state yet, with a couple of crazy extremes, you focus on reeling in the outliers. You don't buff 20 factions because 3 other ones will be upset that they got weaker if you tune them down.
Xenomancers wrote:Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.
But if you remove infinite CP farm's adjusting the CP cost of some of those strategums to balance them is then a viable balance tool.
If that doesn't work thrn maybe limit the interactions between soem of the strategums etc.
Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.
Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.
That's not going to happen, people need to accept soup isn't going to be going anywhere as it's a business driven decision.
Not to mention GW has enough PR issues right now, adding another layer of player backlash against them is something they will want to avoid.
Soup needs a downside, it doesn't need to be rendered useless.
They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.
Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.
Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.
That's not going to happen, people need to accept soup isn't going to be going anywhere as it's a business driven decision.
Not to mention GW has enough PR issues right now, adding another layer of player backlash against them is something they will want to avoid.
Soup needs a downside, it doesn't need to be rendered useless.
They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.
No even the tournament scene is sick of guard CP shenanigans.
I'm not deffending GW's price rises and other stuff they have done, I'm just trying to point out that is people expect soup to be removed from the game, they are probably going to be in for a disappointment.
Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.
Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.
That's not going to happen, people need to accept soup isn't going to be going anywhere as it's a business driven decision.
Not to mention GW has enough PR issues right now, adding another layer of player backlash against them is something they will want to avoid.
Soup needs a downside, it doesn't need to be rendered useless.
They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.
No even the tournament scene is sick of guard CP shenanigans.
I'm not deffending GW's price rises and other stuff they have done, I'm just trying to point out that is people expect soup to be removed from the game, they are probably going to be in for a disappointment.
The tournament scene is especially fed up with CP farms. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to giving each detachment an individual CP tally.
They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.
But the changes they make do not just hit the top tournament players. When they nerfed razorbacks and Stormravens, it hit GK hard, and GK were neither good tournament or casual lists. In fact the way they nerf stuff makes no sense. They "nerf" eldar or IG units, but IG and eldar stay top armies, casual or not. At the same time the same changes that hit the weaker armies just kill them. BA do not exist, in a tournament or casual setting as anything else then the scouts+cpts.
This is the thing outa8de of access to the CO insanity of Guard, Aeldari and Choas soup arn't doing soup to abuse CP. They are souping for either Psychic powers or units. Currently their is no downside to soup and that needs to change.
Limiting CP by detachments is a clunky fix that removes Allied Knights, SoS, Assasins etc just to protect IG. that noise.
Limiting CP by detachments is a clunky fix that removes Allied Knights, SoS, Assasins etc just to protect IG. that noise.
Ding ding we found a winner!
We really didn't.
As has been stated multiple times, IG don't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.
There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.
Limiting CP by detachments is a clunky fix that removes Allied Knights, SoS, Assasins etc just to protect IG. that noise.
Ding ding we found a winner!
We really didn't.
As has been stated multiple times, IG don't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.
There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.
Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.
We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?
Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.
We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?
Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.
The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.
Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.
Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.
We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?
Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.
The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.
Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.
And Infantry and Imperial Knights just aren't powerful on their own? We proved mathematically before how great Scatterbikes and Riptides were last edition after all, and yet the single moment we do that for Infantry we aren't getting a "big picture" according to you.
Just admit you want to keep Infantry the same because you were tired of them being bad for a few editions. Would that really hurt you?
As has been stated multiple times, IG don't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.
Right. So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, pure Guard doesn't need them.
There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.
So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, they make the soup OP.
Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.
We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?
Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.
The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.
Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.
And Infantry and Imperial Knights just aren't powerful on their own?
Remind me again of all the mono-Guard lists in the OP?
Knights are powerful.
Infantry are plentiful.
Together they become an issue, thanks to Command Points being shared and Stratagems being usable with those shared CPs.
We proved mathematically before how great Scatterbikes and Riptides were last edition after all, and yet the single moment we do that for Infantry we aren't getting a "big picture" according to you.
You're trying to argue two different situations.
You understand that right? It's like arguing that because Marine players were on the defensive about Gladius and Skyhammer, any issues with their book now are null and void.
Just admit you want to keep Infantry the same because you were tired of them being bad for a few editions. Would that really hurt you?
I'm still waiting to hear why Infantry are super broken. You keep putting math out and ignoring the rest of the armies while talking about the Guard getting Orders or having Psykers or all their support elements while for whatever reason the things they're shooting at are lone units standing around with their hands in their pockets or nobody's focus firing the Infantry squads while Infantry squads are piling on all their fire at one unit.
As has been stated multiple times, IGdon't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.
Right. So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, pure Guard doesn't need them.
So let's get rid of the same things from every other book too. If it's an issue with an army that doesn't need them, it should be more of an issue with armies that do.
There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.
So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, they make the soup OP.
Then the Blood Angels Relic is still there. I'm assuming they have a Warlord Trait for it as well.
Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup. The fact that people seem so ridiculously unwilling to nerf soup before the Guard is flabberghasting. I've given ideas. You don't like them. That's tough crap, because Guard have actually been nerfed already. They're still showing up in soup.
Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.
We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?
Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.
The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.
Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.
And Infantry and Imperial Knights just aren't powerful on their own?
Remind me again of all the mono-Guard lists in the OP?
Knights are powerful.
Infantry are plentiful.
Together they become an issue, thanks to Command Points being shared and Stratagems being usable with those shared CPs.
We proved mathematically before how great Scatterbikes and Riptides were last edition after all, and yet the single moment we do that for Infantry we aren't getting a "big picture" according to you.
You're trying to argue two different situations.
You understand that right? It's like arguing that because Marine players were on the defensive about Gladius and Skyhammer, any issues with their book now are null and void.
Just admit you want to keep Infantry the same because you were tired of them being bad for a few editions. Would that really hurt you?
I'm still waiting to hear why Infantry are super broken. You keep putting math out and ignoring the rest of the armies while talking about the Guard getting Orders or having Psykers or all their support elements while for whatever reason the things they're shooting at are lone units standing around with their hands in their pockets or nobody's focus firing the Infantry squads while Infantry squads are piling on all their fire at one unit.
1. If you remove CP it would still be an issue. Infantry are already top durability for the price, and Knights have excellent offense for the price. That's kinda like how Scatterbikes and Riptides didn't need CP to function and do their thing.
2. The only thing different about the situations is that it's two separate editions. We can still apply the same logic as the base of the game is still the same. Oh and it's different armies, but that's not significant.
3. Nobody defended Gladius, ever, until we started getting more silly codices (where Eldar once again did their thing). Skyhammer was basically just good.
4. See we even ignore things like Orders and Infantry still outshoot lots of units. Regiments are icing on the cake after that, and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway.
At least Master Of Ordnance admitted their feelings when they were posting. The least you could do is be honest as well.
Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup.
Sure. Get rid of all CP regen. It should have never been a thing.
I've given ideas. You don't like them.
That's because your ideas are terrible. They are the sort of ideas that disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup.
They're still showing up in soup.
Why?
Because soup is the actual issue.
Soup is literally made up of its ingredients. If there are issues with the soup,then it is due the things put in the soup! Souping the Sisters, the Inquisition and Black Templars sure as hell isn't a problem!
1. If you remove CP it would still be an issue. Infantry are already top durability for the price, and Knights have excellent offense for the price. That's kinda like how Scatterbikes and Riptides didn't need CP to function and do their thing.
They "didn't need CP to function and do their thing" because they played to the strength of the edition. Scatterbikes were fast moving units with the ability to get Objective Secured and they were able to be taken as part of a formation that boosted them even further. Riptides had a formation that made them more powerful and could be taken as a standalone thing. They were also Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles which was a huge difference, as I'm sure you well know.
2. The only thing different about the situations is that it's two separate editions. We can still apply the same logic as the base of the game is still the same. Oh and it's different armies, but that's not significant.
Oh and it's different game mechanics.
Scatterbikes benefited from Warlocks and Psykers boosting them up--which is still a thing that doesn't require Command Points, right? Riptides benefited from Stimulant Injectors as wargear and being Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles.
3. Nobody defended Gladius, ever, until we started getting more silly codices (where Eldar once again did their thing). Skyhammer was basically just good.
People defended Gladius from day one. Those same people constantly whined about the Mechanicus Conclave.
4. See we even ignore things like Orders and Infantry still outshoot lots of units.
This is bull. Read any thread where people discuss Infantry Squads. They always talk about Orders.
Regiments are icing on the cake after that
Everyone has a Regiment equivalent at this point, so that icing is on every dessert. Guard might be the only one with a cake, but it's not like nobody else has a dessert.
and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway.
So when do other armies lose their auras?
At least Master Of Ordnance admitted their feelings when they were posting. The least you could do is be honest as well.
I've been honest. I don't see Infantry Squads as an issue. I see soup being the problem and until I get SOME kind of acknowledgement from anyone else? I'll continue calling people out on the hypocrisy of wanting the Guard CP battery nerfed while painting any idea that touches soup period as "terrible".
As has been stated multiple times, IGdon't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.
Right. So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, pure Guard doesn't need them.
So let's get rid of the same things from every other book too. If it's an issue with an army that doesn't need them, it should be more of an issue with armies that do.
There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.
So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, they make the soup OP.
Then the Blood Angels Relic is still there. I'm assuming they have a Warlord Trait for it as well.
Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup. The fact that people seem so ridiculously unwilling to nerf soup before the Guard is flabberghasting.
I've given ideas. You don't like them. That's tough crap, because Guard have actually been nerfed already. They're still showing up in soup.
Why?
Because soup is the actual issue.
Don't assume, Guard where the codex that got both regeneration of CP on a 5+ and stealing on a 5+.
Nobody else got the acess or level of CP farming Guard did.
Thats why people have a problem with Guard CP its broken stacked on cheap. Guard CP is the broken mess driving Imperial soup.
Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup.
Sure. Get rid of all CP regen. It should have never been a thing.
I've given ideas. You don't like them.
That's because your ideas are terrible. They are the sort of ideas that disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup.
Because "fluffy nonsense soup" can still be done without Brigades or Battalions.
They're still showing up in soup.
Why? Because soup is the actual issue.
Soup is literally made up of its ingredients. If there are issues with the soup,then it is due the things put in the soup! Souping the Sisters, the Inquisition and Black Templars sure as hell isn't a problem!
Soup is made up of its ingredients, but the final result is considered its own product.
And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.
And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".
Don't assume, Guard where the codex that got both regeneration of CP on a 5+ and stealing on a 5+. Nobody else got the acess or level of CP farming Guard did. Thats why people have a problem with Guard CP its broken stacked on cheap. Guard CP is the broken mess driving Imperial soup.
And I've suggested making it so that Guard can't be the warlord in soup--that's Grand Strategist out of the picture for soup, while making it so that the few Guard builds that might make use of it could keep it as a potential bit.
And let's be honest here: The whining about Guard CP is focused strictly on the Guard element. It never talks about the things being powered up by those CPs. We'd also get a similar effect from simply making it so that you don't get CPs for anything that isn't in the same Detachment or from the same Faction.
Don't assume, Guard where the codex that got both regeneration of CP on a 5+ and stealing on a 5+.
Nobody else got the acess or level of CP farming Guard did.
Thats why people have a problem with Guard CP its broken stacked on cheap. Guard CP is the broken mess driving Imperial soup.
And I've suggested making it so that Guard can't be the warlord in soup--that's Grand Strategist out of the picture for soup, while making it so that the few Guard builds that might make use of it could keep it as a potential bit.
And let's be honest here: The whining about Guard CP is focused strictly on the Guard element. It never talks about the things being powered up by those CPs.
We'd also get a similar effect from simply making it so that you don't get CPs for anything that isn't in the same Detachment or from the same Faction.
No thats your suggesting removing player agency to protect IG access to infinite CP.
Becuase in their own armies without infinite CP access (Something uniquely Guard) most of the models are actually nowhere near as powerful. They can also be balanced by an increase in CP cost.
Your Detachment idea screws Assasins, Solo Knights, Sisters of Silence. It also effects choas and Eldar soup who arn't abusing soup for CP as they don't have an infinite CP codex.
Everyone has a Regiment equivalent at this point, so that icing is on every dessert. Guard might be the only one with a cake, but it's not like nobody else has a dessert.
and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway
So when do other armies lose their auras?.
That is not true. GK have a codex, and neither have any auras or regiment equivalent.
Maybe ally should have another separate detachment table ? Make it big so there is no cheap deeping in to a faction, maybe even limit its CP gain comparing to a battalion or Brigade. People that would want to play ally could still do it, but the return would be smaller and the investment in to the ally would be more substential, and would be more in line with the stuff eldar and dark eldar have to do.
No thats your suggesting removing player agency to protect IG access to infinite CP.
Oh please. "Player agency"?
Player agency would be a thing if so many of the lists weren't the same damn thing.
Becuase in their own armies without infinite CP access (Something uniquely Guard) most of the models are actually nowhere near as powerful. They can also be balanced by an increase in CP cost.
Let's be clear: it's not "infinite CP access".
It's a large amount of CPs from the Detachment and a slightly higher chance to get CPs back when you use a Stratagem. Between a Brigade(+12 CPs) of Guard, a Battalion(+5CPs), a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment(+0 points) and being a Battle-Forged Army(3CPs) you're looking at 20 CPs, with each time you use a Stratagem Grand Strategist can be used(5+) and each time your opponent uses a Stratagem you can potentially get a CP back as long as the bearer is on the field, right from the outset.
20. Bumping it down to a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead means you're looking at 5 or 12 CPs gone. Just gone. That's a huge drop, especially when Patrols grant +0 and Vanguard, Spearhead, or Outrider Detachments only grant +1 CPs.
Your Detachment idea screws Assasins, Solo Knights, Sisters of Silence. It also effects choas and Eldar soup who arn't abusing soup as they don't have an infinite CP codex.
Auxiliary Detachments exist(-1 CP to take a lone Assassin, oh noes!). Superheavy Auxiliary Detachments exist(and don't have a CP penalty because Lords of War aren't regular slots in the other Detachments).
Index: Imperium 2
Pages 110 a nd 111
– Prosecutors, Vigilators, Witchseekers and Null-Maiden Rhino, Abilities
Add the following ability:
Null Maidens:
So long as your Warlord is from the Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units. However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
Index: Imperium 2
Pages 114 and 115
– Vindicare Assassin, Callidus Assassin, Eversor Assassin and Culexus
Assassin, Abilities
Add the following ability:
Execution Force:
So long as your Warlord is from the
Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units.
However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command
Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
So yeah. I guess I totally haven't thought things through, eh?
No thats your suggesting removing player agency to protect IG access to infinite CP.
Oh please. "Player agency"?
Player agency would be a thing if so many of the lists weren't the same damn thing.
Becuase in their own armies without infinite CP access (Something uniquely Guard) most of the models are actually nowhere near as powerful. They can also be balanced by an increase in CP cost.
Let's be clear: it's not "infinite CP access".
It's a large amount of CPs from the Detachment and a slightly higher chance to get CPs back when you use a Stratagem. Between a Brigade(+12 CPs) of Guard, a Battalion(+5CPs), a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment(+0 points) and being a Battle-Forged Army(3CPs) you're looking at 20 CPs, with each time you use a Stratagem Grand Strategist can be used(5+) and each time your opponent uses a Stratagem you can potentially get a CP back as long as the bearer is on the field, right from the outset.
20. Bumping it down to a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead means you're looking at 5 or 12 CPs gone. Just gone. That's a huge drop, especially when Patrols grant +0 and Vanguard, Spearhead, or Outrider Detachments only grant +1 CPs.
Your Detachment idea screws Assasins, Solo Knights, Sisters of Silence. It also effects choas and Eldar soup who arn't abusing soup as they don't have an infinite CP codex.
Auxiliary Detachments exist(-1 CP to take a lone Assassin, oh noes!). Superheavy Auxiliary Detachments exist(and don't have a CP penalty because Lords of War aren't regular slots in the other Detachments).
Index: Imperium 2
Pages 110 a nd 111
– Prosecutors, Vigilators, Witchseekers and Null-Maiden Rhino, Abilities
Add the following ability:
Null Maidens:
So long as your Warlord is from the Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units. However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
Index: Imperium 2
Pages 114 and 115
– Vindicare Assassin, Callidus Assassin, Eversor Assassin and Culexus
Assassin, Abilities
Add the following ability:
Execution Force:
So long as your Warlord is from the
Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units.
However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command
Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
So yeah. I guess I totally haven't thought things through, eh?
I read the FAQ you clearly just don't give a about non Guard players.
As neither of those detachments generate any CP. So they can't even use the BRB strategums if as you suggest CP are detachment locked.
1. If you remove CP it would still be an issue. Infantry are already top durability for the price, and Knights have excellent offense for the price. That's kinda like how Scatterbikes and Riptides didn't need CP to function and do their thing.
They "didn't need CP to function and do their thing" because they played to the strength of the edition. Scatterbikes were fast moving units with the ability to get Objective Secured and they were able to be taken as part of a formation that boosted them even further.
Riptides had a formation that made them more powerful and could be taken as a standalone thing. They were also Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles which was a huge difference, as I'm sure you well know.
2. The only thing different about the situations is that it's two separate editions. We can still apply the same logic as the base of the game is still the same. Oh and it's different armies, but that's not significant.
Oh and it's different game mechanics.
Scatterbikes benefited from Warlocks and Psykers boosting them up--which is still a thing that doesn't require Command Points, right? Riptides benefited from Stimulant Injectors as wargear and being Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles.
3. Nobody defended Gladius, ever, until we started getting more silly codices (where Eldar once again did their thing). Skyhammer was basically just good.
People defended Gladius from day one. Those same people constantly whined about the Mechanicus Conclave.
4. See we even ignore things like Orders and Infantry still outshoot lots of units.
This is bull. Read any thread where people discuss Infantry Squads. They always talk about Orders.
Regiments are icing on the cake after that
Everyone has a Regiment equivalent at this point, so that icing is on every dessert. Guard might be the only one with a cake, but it's not like nobody else has a dessert.
and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway.
So when do other armies lose their auras?
At least Master Of Ordnance admitted their feelings when they were posting. The least you could do is be honest as well.
I've been honest. I don't see Infantry Squads as an issue. I see soup being the problem and until I get SOME kind of acknowledgement from anyone else? I'll continue calling people out on the hypocrisy of wanting the Guard CP battery nerfed while painting any idea that touches soup period as "terrible".
1. And yet there was no call to actually destroy allies, but rather just adjust the units as necessary. You're not interested in that this edition though. Maybe because it more directly affects your armies? Obviously you have no emotional attachment to Imperial Guard.
2. Scatterbikes didn't need the benefit from Warlocks but it was nice. Kinda like how Infantry don't require Commanders and Regiments to benefit them. Yet it's all different to you simply because you have a vested interest in keeping your Guard army fine and destroying anyone else that treads on your territory.
3. Ugh don't get me started on Conclave either. But no, nobody defended either Gladius or Conclave until later codices made these builds only contenders.
4. That's brought up in several posts by Xenomancers, true, but what about those posts where it isn't brought up?
Also other armies didn't lose their auras. They just don't get them on the cheap.
5. That's because Soup isn't really the issue now, especially with how keywords affect everything. Could you imagine Azrael giving Infantry a 4++ now? That would be overly silly, even though it wasn't a bad thing last edition.
Remember: if the soup is too spicy, maybe the recipe should be had Jalapenos to begin with instead of habaneros. Or something. My food metaphors aren't very good.
Kanluwen wrote: And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.
Ok, let's take the Crusade. BT and SoB battalions 13 CPs. Does this seem like something that needs nerfing? Even if you could shove the contents of on battalion to a patrol, that drops you to 8 CPs, which is pretty crippling. Meanwhile your monoguard can keep their effectively infinite CP. Does this seem fair to you? (Ok, sure, it probably does to you, but not to a reasonable person...)
And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".
Maybe we could just ban Guard from matched play? It would solve many issues, and you could still use your army in open play, so it would be fine, right?
Kanluwen wrote: And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.
Ok, let's take the Crusade. BT and SoB battalions 13 CPs. Does this seem like something that needs nerfing? Even if you could shove the contents of on battalion to a patrol, that drops you to 8 CPs, which is pretty crippling. Meanwhile your monoguard can keep their effectively infinite CP. Does this seem fair to you? (Ok, sure, it probably does to you, but not to a reasonable person...)
And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".
Maybe we could just ban Guard from matched play? It would solve many issues, and you could still use your army in open play, so it would be fine, right?
Nah only certain fluffy lists are okay to use, clearly.
Kanluwen wrote: And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.
Ok, let's take the Crusade. BT and SoB battalions 13 CPs. Does this seem like something that needs nerfing? Even if you could shove the contents of on battalion to a patrol, that drops you to 8 CPs, which is pretty crippling. Meanwhile your monoguard can keep their effectively infinite CP. Does this seem fair to you? (Ok, sure, it probably does to you, but not to a reasonable person...)
So what you're saying is that an army chosen from one book would get benefits that an army chosen from multiple sources wouldn't?
That sounds like a good step towards balancing out soup to me.
And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".
Maybe we could just ban Guard from matched play? It would solve many issues, and you could still use your army in open play, so it would be fine, right?
You still haven't actually said what's in the list that requires you to do two Battalions but can't be done with Patrols, Vanguards, Outriders, or Spearheads.
Patrols:
1-2 HQs, 1-3 Troops, 0-2 Elite, FA, HS, or Flyers.
Battalions are 2-3 HQ, 3-6 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attacks and Heavy Supports.
The remainder are 1-2 HQs, 0-3 Troops, 3-6 Elites, Fast Attacks, or Heavy Supports and 0-2 of the other depending on the specialties. Spearheads are 3-6 Heavy Supports while only getting 0-2 Elites and Fast Attacks, Vanguard are 3-6 Elites and 0-2 FA and HS, Outriders are 3-6 FA and 0-2 Elite and HS.
So what exactly is so critical to your Battalions that you can't get it in the others?
So what you're saying is that an army chosen from one book would get benefits that an army chosen from multiple sources wouldn't?
But even with their 13 CPs, that BT & SoB army would be way weaker than the monoguard one. So why are we nerfing the weaker army and not the stronger one?
1. And yet there was no call to actually destroy allies, but rather just adjust the units as necessary. You're not interested in that this edition though. Maybe because it more directly affects your armies? Obviously you have no emotional attachment to Imperial Guard.
Are you serious? You're trying to claim that there was "no call to actually destroy allies"? There was plenty of it.
2. Scatterbikes didn't need the benefit from Warlocks but it was nice. Kinda like how Infantry don't require Commanders and Regiments to benefit them. Yet it's all different to you simply because you have a vested interest in keeping your Guard army fine and destroying anyone else that treads on your territory.
And yet you don't see people fielding Auxiliary Support Detachments of Infantry Squads...because they're after the Command Points, not just the Infantry Squads.
3. Ugh don't get me started on Conclave either. But no, nobody defended either Gladius or Conclave until later codices made these builds only contenders.
They absolutely did. From the very outset, Gladius was defended. The arguments shifted from "It requires a massive outlay of points", granted, to "It's the only way to be competitive" once the MSU Gladius became a thing.
Conclave had people completely misrepresenting or understanding it from early on.
4. That's brought up in several posts by Xenomancers, true, but what about those posts where it isn't brought up?
What about them? They're few and far between. Xenomancers and Marmatag are big offenders in constantly bringing it up.
Also other armies didn't lose their auras. They just don't get them on the cheap.
It's hard to argue that people are paying for things like that though. Guard characters are cheap because they're not really bringing a whole lot of stuff to the party. They don't come with a master-crafted boltgun, bolt pistol, power armor, an invulnerable save, frag and krak grenades as standard.
It's a dude with a Laspistol, a Refractor Field, Frag Grenades, T3, 5 Wounds, and a 5+ armor save. You think that's worth more than the current points cost? Because he can issue Orders further than an Aura if he happens to be within 3" of a Vox-Caster and the unit he's issuing it to has a Vox-Caster?
5. That's because Soup isn't really the issue now, especially with how keywords affect everything. Could you imagine Azrael giving Infantry a 4++ now? That would be overly silly, even though it wasn't a bad thing last edition.
Remember: if the soup is too spicy, maybe the recipe should be had Jalapenos to begin with instead of habaneros. Or something. My food metaphors aren't very good.
We might be at an "agree to disagree" point. We don't see Mechanicus batteries for Knights, despite the synergy that could exist there. We're literally just seeing the cheapest stuff being used to buff up Command Point totals for the heavy hitting portions. The Guard are just there to take up space and bring CPs.
So what you're saying is that an army chosen from one book would get benefits that an army chosen from multiple sources wouldn't?
But even with their 13 CPs, that BT & SoB army would be way weaker than the monoguard one. So why are we nerfing the weaker army and not the stronger one?
So because Black Templars are underpowered and people know it and Sisters of Battle are still coming from an Index...we should be nerfing Guard?
So what exactly is so critical to your Battalions that you can't get it in the others?
What is so critical about having infinite CP and undercosted infantry? You certainly can play your army without them.
You keep arguing that you can't play the lists without 13 CPs or Battalions/Brigades.
So once again: WHAT.ARE.THE.LISTS. You should know the lists by heart if you're so passionate about them.
And what unit choices am I supposed to use in a Guard army if Infantry Squads get points increased? Conscripts? Scions? Because those are the only two Troops alternatives I have--and spoiler alert, Conscripts actually requires a swap in models(everyone has a Lasgun--Infantry Squads don't have this) and Scions can't receive Orders unless you bring along a Tempestor Prime--meaning that an HQ choice has to be brought along, meaning that I might as well just bring a Patrol Detachment of Scions.
As has been stated multiple times, IGdon't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.
Right. So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, pure Guard doesn't need them.
So let's get rid of the same things from every other book too. If it's an issue with an army that doesn't need them, it should be more of an issue with armies that do.
There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.
So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, they make the soup OP.
Then the Blood Angels Relic is still there. I'm assuming they have a Warlord Trait for it as well.
Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup. The fact that people seem so ridiculously unwilling to nerf soup before the Guard is flabberghasting.
I've given ideas. You don't like them. That's tough crap, because Guard have actually been nerfed already. They're still showing up in soup.
Why?
Because soup is the actual issue.
It's cute that you act as though you have some kind of final say here, when in reality you're one of the posters with the most disproportionate ratio of competitive game knowledge to posts made speaking on it, that I've ever seen on here.
We don't care for your "ideas" because they're all focused around avoiding making the changes that need to be made from the perspective of someone who doesn't see the game beyond a need to make their own personal collection as easy to win with as possible. Why you think we are limited to having to agree with one of them is beyond me. Like, no, I'll just agree with all the good players, who unsurprisingly seem to universally disagree with you?
You keep arguing that you can't play the lists without 13 CPs or Battalions/Brigades.
So once again:
WHAT.ARE.THE.LISTS. You should know the lists by heart if you're so passionate about them.
First, less than ten CP is pretty damn crippling. Second, I am not gonna start posting lists. This is not about my armies specifically, I am not as self centred as you. We can both easily come up dozens of examples of lists that would beceome literally impossible with you restrictions and countless which would become crippled CP wise.
And what unit choices am I supposed to use in a Guard army if Infantry Squads get points increased? Conscripts? Scions? Because those are the only two Troops alternatives I have--and spoiler alert, Conscripts actually requires a swap in models(everyone has a Lasgun--Infantry Squads don't have this) and Scions can't receive Orders unless you bring along a Tempestor Prime--meaning that an HQ choice has to be brought along, meaning that I might as well just bring a Patrol Detachment of Scions.
What ever you want. Infantry squads will still be good for 5 ppm. But that is really a minor detail, ultimately the important part is the CP regen nerf, which you oppose with tooth and nail despite acknowledging Guard doesn't even need it. This show how unreasonable you are.
Karol wrote: That is not true. GK have a codex, and neither have any auras or regiment equivalent.
Grey Knights have a +1 to their Psychic rolls as their chapter tactic and a lot of their HQ units have auras. Just to name a few- Drago allows rerolls of misses, Voldus/Grand Masters/GMDKs all allow rerolls of "1", Chapter Masters allow smite and mini GK smites to double their range.
You keep arguing that you can't play the lists without 13 CPs or Battalions/Brigades.
So once again:
WHAT.ARE.THE.LISTS. You should know the lists by heart if you're so passionate about them.
First, less than ten CP is pretty damn crippling. Second, I am not gonna start posting lists. This is not about my armies specifically, I am not as self centred as you. We can both easily come up dozens of examples of lists that would beceome literally impossible with you restrictions and countless which would become crippled CP wise.
So basically you have no examples of the lists. You just wanted to post crap without actually contributing. Got it.
Using Sisters of Battle as part of any argument is downright disingenuous at this point, since it's an Index army and we know they're in the process of getting a book, with us getting previews from Chapter Approved.
And what unit choices am I supposed to use in a Guard army if Infantry Squads get points increased? Conscripts? Scions? Because those are the only two Troops alternatives I have--and spoiler alert, Conscripts actually requires a swap in models(everyone has a Lasgun--Infantry Squads don't have this) and Scions can't receive Orders unless you bring along a Tempestor Prime--meaning that an HQ choice has to be brought along, meaning that I might as well just bring a Patrol Detachment of Scions.
What ever you want. Infantry squads will still be good for 5 ppm.
Arguable. If there were any changes to Officers, wargear, or any number of things Infantry Squads could go the way of Conscripts.
But that is really a minor detail
No, it really isn't. It's a huge detail. Conscripts are garbage thanks to whining like yours. Scions require a specific setup to work.
ultimately the important part is the CP regen nerf, which you oppose with tooth and nail despite acknowledging Guard doesn't even need it. This show how unreasonable you are.
I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.
Eh, they could just limit CP usage to the army that brings them.
This way you have only more CP for the general reroll, or the interrupt or pass morale, and intensive army specific CPS can't be abused. More bookeeping this way (like 15 guard CP, 6 Knight CP... basically you need more coloured d20s to keep track of) but probably the best way to keep the soup while neutering its best effect (READ: rotate iron shield + reroll 1s every turn or the 3d6charge+redeploy/whatever of the slamguinius).
So basically you have no examples of the lists. You just wanted to post crap without actually contributing. Got it.
FFS. I really don't understand why you want me to waste my time doing this, we both know how the lists are built.
Spoiler:
Battalion Detachment +5CP (Imperium - Black Templars)
HQ
Chaplain
Captain
Troops
Crusader Squad
Crusader Squad
Intercessor Squad
Elites
Apothecary
Company Champion
Dreadnought
Reiver Squad
Heavy Support
Devastator Squad
Hellblaster Squad
Whirwind
Battalion Detachment +5CP (Imperium - Adeptus Ministorum)
HQ
Canoness
Canoness
Troops
Battle Sister Squad
Battle Sister Squad
Battle Sister Squad
Elites
Repentia
Mistress of Repentance
Arco-Flagellants
Ministorum Priest
Fast Attack
Dominion Squad
Seraphim Squad
Seraphim Squad
Heavy Support
Retributor Squad
Retributor Squad
Retributor Squad
Vanguard Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Inquisition)
HQ
Inquisitor
Elites
Acolytes
Acolytes
Daemonhost
Boy, that was really good use of my time!
These are pretty expensive units. With armies with really cheap stuff like Guard and AM you would run into problems even easier.
I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.
The soup is addressed by nerfing the CP regen, which includes nerfing the Guard.
CapRichard wrote: Eh, they could just limit CP usage to the army that brings them.
This way you have only more CP for the general reroll, or the interrupt or pass morale, and intensive army specific CPS can't be abused. More bookeeping this way (like 15 guard CP, 6 Knight CP... basically you need more coloured d20s to keep track of) but probably the best way to keep the soup while neutering its best effect (READ: rotate iron shield + reroll 1s every turn or the 3d6charge+redeploy/whatever of the slamguinius).
You sure your not a sock puppet account for Kanluwen.
This idea means any Assasins, SoS and any other unit taken in detachments that don't inherently generate CP, loose acess to even the BRB strategums.
Also those thing your describing are not the effect of Soup thats the effect of Guard getting 1/3 off strategums plus bonus CP from the enemies strategums aswell.
Go look at Choas and Eldar soup how much is their soup dependent upon one faction handing out infinite CP?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That renders armies like Deathwatch and Custodes obsolete. You know, those pesky armies everyone treats like glorified allies.
Custodes I don't think so. I tried them and I seemed like I had enough CP using just them. Their awn eagle captains only use will be nerfed, due to not getting all of the relics and superior creations and victor of the blood games and whatnot superstacking. They still remain potent as a unit though.
Deathwatch... yeah, they are CP hungry.
I guess that you would need a total rebalance of how CP are assigned, but I can see it working as a quick fix. Personally, I would re-introduce formations. They are what actually gives CPs and access to special Stratagems, in my head at least.
Ice_can wrote: This idea means any Assasins, SoS and any other unit taken in detachments that don't inherently generate CP, loose acess to even the BRB strategums.
Also those thing your describing are not the effect of Soup thats the effect of Guard getting 1/3 off strategums plus bonus CP from the enemies strategums aswell.
Go look at Choas and Eldar soup how much is their soup dependent upon one faction handing out infinite CP?
Well, duh, you'll need to give them something back, of course. It's not like this change is done in a vacuum. Yeah, it's a nerf to guard specifically in the context of Soup, but this keeps the soup as is for all other armies. Guard regenerating CPs for itself is not that invincible. And I said that BRB stratagems are excempt from this.
Hell no! I want to choose myself what models to bring, instead of being forced to use some custom made bundle GW desperately needs to sell!
Mind that stratagems already have this built in. Like Killshots works on Predators, so you have to take 3 predators in order for it to function, same with the Vindicator Stratagem. If you don't use those models, you can't use the stratagems. I would just organize it better.
Edit example: like, why only Azrael, Guilliman and some other guys give out bonus CPs? This "forces" people to take them (ok, they have other useful abilities, but let's ignore them for now). You can create a "Astartes Command" formation, that makes people get a +1CP if they bring in a Chapter Master (named or custom), +2CP if they have a Chapter Master and a couple of Liutenants to help and other things. This way you can arguably use whatever model you want instead of always looking at the names characters. It's a matter of well designing the system. Still it's GW so, it's not like I have any hopes, I mean, it's my idea not theirs XD. (this is just an example, to make it work I would change a lot around, like the whole army building blocks, don't focus on this alone).
I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.
The good thing is its FAQ first then CA. The issue is there is speculation that CA is already at the printers so whatever changes they've decided on is going to almost be pre-FAQ, which is the wrong way to do it. On that basis I think guard will be tweaked only slightly.
I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.
The good thing is its FAQ first then CA. The issue is there is speculation that CA is already at the printers so whatever changes they've decided on is going to almost be pre-FAQ, which is the wrong way to do it. On that basis I think guard will be tweaked only slightly.
That's not going to make him happy. A small tweak is too much by his measure, that's exactly what he's saying.
If the book is already printed, why doesn't GW say what is going to be in it? This way people could avoid buying nerfed stuff or save money to buy good units, they don't have to go rule by rule or anything like that, but they could at least say what direction they want to take with the changes. There is like zero actual communication from GW. All they do is put up some empty words, and no actual stuff. They design talks are even worse, because they never talk about actual design stuff, how they count stuff cost or how they test stuff. They just go on and on, how "cool" stuff is or about fluff which has nothing to do with rules.
Karol wrote: If the book is already printed, why doesn't GW say what is going to be in it? This way people could avoid buying nerfed stuff or save money to buy good units, they don't have to go rule by rule or anything like that, but they could at least say what direction they want to take with the changes. There is like zero actual communication from GW. All they do is put up some empty words, and no actual stuff. They design talks are even worse, because they never talk about actual design stuff, how they count stuff cost or how they test stuff. They just go on and on, how "cool" stuff is or about fluff which has nothing to do with rules.
Precisely for that...They want you to buy models NOW. And then when book comes out they want you to buy MORE models. What? You think they care about balance or making sure players get away with as little money as possible? Hah. They want you to spend as much as possible and changes are designed to make sure you buy new models. Whether it's more balanced game is irrelevant. As long as you buy new models to adapt to meta the change is good.
In tourneys, players tend to field or approximate tourney-winning armies.
If the new CA does not change the meta, we will see more and more Imperium soup lists of the same type.
This would be funny, but I guess not the intention of GW.
Well, when I used to manage production schedules at a publisher, there was the classic time/cost balance when choosing your printers. Opting for a Chinese printer meant good quality but long shipping lead-times. My guess is that, because books are a cash cow for GW (and something that's really holding 40k back imo), they go for the most profitable option, meaning they need to supply files 8-12 weeks ahead of time.
Indeed, the book has already been printed.
So we cannot be sure whether GW has addressed the Imperium soup lists, or better the rules that made these lists very strong.
Would be funny if FAQ would change things and then CA, already printed, would change things right back GW would need to errata the CA right away
I expect them to nerf some units to death to get people some more models but I don't think they will stop soup. It's too good of a marketing for GW to allow people to field multiple armies. The soup goes for GW's goal so tiny change is most likely there. GW doesn't want people to build mono armies.
Hell no! I want to choose myself what models to bring, instead of being forced to use some custom made bundle GW desperately needs to sell!
Mind that stratagems already have this built in. Like Killshots works on Predators, so you have to take 3 predators in order for it to function, same with the Vindicator Stratagem. If you don't use those models, you can't use the stratagems. I would just organize it better.
Edit example: like, why only Azrael, Guilliman and some other guys give out bonus CPs? This "forces" people to take them (ok, they have other useful abilities, but let's ignore them for now). You can create a "Astartes Command" formation, that makes people get a +1CP if they bring in a Chapter Master (named or custom), +2CP if they have a Chapter Master and a couple of Liutenants to help and other things. This way you can arguably use whatever model you want instead of always looking at the names characters. It's a matter of well designing the system. Still it's GW so, it's not like I have any hopes, I mean, it's my idea not theirs XD. (this is just an example, to make it work I would change a lot around, like the whole army building blocks, don't focus on this alone).
Personally, I’ve always maintained that Chapter Masters should give +1 CP, named or otherwise, and Named ones that currently give 1 CP would give boosted to +2 CP.
I also think that this should be the case for the majority of army named Character “generals”. Yriel, Asurman and Eldrad. Straken and Yarrick. Farsight, Aun’Va. Swarmlord etc. Not every character would get the bonus, as they aren’t “leaders” per say, but, I’ve never really understood why they don’t give some kind of “command” benefit for being…. The commanders.
As for old school formations, I don’t think we need them anymore. Stratagems allow you to build armies around certain ideas, and I don’t think it’d be in the best interest of the game if we started stacking a “formation” bonus, on top of a detachment bonus, on top of a selection of stratagems.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Personally, from the hints we’ve heard about C.A so far, I don’t think it will touch soup at all.
C.A will be all about points changes, the trial Sisters codex and probably more new missions, alongside some random stuff like “how to build your own landraider part 2”.
Soup will be addressed via Big FAQ errata and beta rules. This allows them to be flexible throughout the year and trial things, whilst C.A tackles some of the more “fixed” issues, such as points.
At least… That is how I would do it if I was running things logically and efficiently… But… S.W codex.. so…
Tournament players trying to him tournaments of this size will get new models even at the tiniest change in the meta, no need to put extra effort into it. The past FAQs and CAs caused massive changes in the meta, as did codex releases.
WH40k is not yet in a place where they need to changes just to shake up the meta. Just nerfing things that are too powerful and buffing/reworking things that don't work will already cause enough shake-ups. If soup doesn't provide enough CP to fuel both the castellan and the TH jump-pack captain, meta will change, models will be bought. If GW for some reason decides that guardsmen should be 10 points now, half the lists in that top 10 will disappear and new models will be bought.
Spoiler:
Disclaimer: 10ppm guardsmen is an intentionally chosen unrealistic example, please don't start to argue this unless you want to prove that you can't properly read posts.
There is no reason to piss off players who will not/cannot change their army at the drop of a hat.
Kdash wrote: Personally, from the hints we’ve heard about C.A so far, I don’t think it will touch soup at all.
C.A will be all about points changes, the trial Sisters codex and probably more new missions, alongside some random stuff like “how to build your own landraider part 2”.
Soup will be addressed via Big FAQ errata and beta rules. This allows them to be flexible throughout the year and trial things, whilst C.A tackles some of the more “fixed” issues, such as points.
At least… That is how I would do it if I was running things logically and efficiently… But… S.W codex.. so…
Yea I agree with this and it seems like a safe bet. If CA is already printed, which we assume it is, it likely won't touch soup. It'll focus more on the Sisters pre-dex and probably how to make your own terrain/run a narrative campaign. Then again, contrary to this is the fact that the mini-dexes for Rogue Trader must have been printed some time ago and both of those have the rule regarding '+3 CP only to be used on this detachment'.
The big FAQ is for the real meat and potatoes of the meta shift though. That's where they'll introduce global, wide ranging rules and sure up things like the rule of 3/deep strike restrictions.
It certainly seems that the biggest issue in the game right now from a competitive standpoint is soup. Maybe I'm just being ignorant, but wouldn't the easiest fix simply be to make it so that you can only use Stratagems available to your Warlord's faction, and those out of the main rule book? Doing this would significantly inhibit the current top list, and would prevent soup from being auto-take while still not removing it from the game. With the current most problematic list, you would have to make a choice:
Want lots of CP's through Grand Strategist/Kurov's Aquila (which should probably be radically altered anyway)? You have to make that Guard character your Warlord, which means no Stratagems (including extra relics) for your Blood Angels or Imperial Knights, other than those out of the main rule book.
Want those amazing Captains Smashface? Make one your warlord so you can have access to BA stratagems, but lose out on most of your CP regeneration through the Guard stuff, and no stratagems for your Knight. You can still take that Battalion of IG to get a few extra CP, but without the regeneration, you won't be swimming in CP every turn.
Need that 3++ Imperial Knight BS? Cool. No Stratagems or Relics for BA or IG, but hey, you can get the extra CP's from a couple small Battalions, just no regeneration at all.
CommunistNapkin wrote: It certainly seems that the biggest issue in the game right now from a competitive standpoint is soup.
Honestly? I think Soup is probably giving a lot more stuff a viable place in the meta than its taking away. I think without it we'd see a pretty large amount of stuff vanish completely. There's definitely some big issues that need resolving, but most of them are just individual stuff that's over the curve some of it is specific, problematic interactions and not a big sweeping change that throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, when I used to manage production schedules at a publisher, there was the classic time/cost balance when choosing your printers. Opting for a Chinese printer meant good quality but long shipping lead-times. My guess is that, because books are a cash cow for GW (and something that's really holding 40k back imo), they go for the most profitable option, meaning they need to supply files 8-12 weeks ahead of time.
Printed physical books are just a terrible way to manage a game these days. They probably always have been, honestly, but they certainly don't hold up to the ever evolving landscape of modern gaming.
CommunistNapkin wrote: It certainly seems that the biggest issue in the game right now from a competitive standpoint is soup.
Top tournament lists are transient - look back through the history of 8th edition for all the other 'biggest issues' from tournaments.
The trick is to locate and fix the specific problem, so that you can move onto the next biggest issue with minimal collateral damage.
If GW fixes one issue, the tourney players will move from one maxed out army to another preferably with minimum effort.
This was always the case in the GW history, as said.
Jidmah wrote: That kind of kills armies which legitimately play half one army and half another.
Yeah, and it is even worse for the weaker books. A top tournament player may not like to play a field where 50%+ of armies consists of more or less the same combination of models, but he will buy in to it or a counter to it. If meta changes he will just switch. A non tournament player, who is affected by the changes in the same way, may not want to hear that the soultion to his [insert army name] is just to find 800$ and buy another army, and he better do it fast, because the next faq/errata are coming in a few months and your new army may get nerfed then. It is like asking people to spend 800$ or more on GW products every 2 months, just to be able to play the game.
Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.
The problem is command point generation, not soup.
If your warlord's faction is the only one that earns CP when the list is constructed, that would probably fix it.
Provided, you could still use book-level super categories. For instance, there is no reason to penalize an <Imperial Fists> and <Raven Guard> force in the CP department, as they're both <Adeptus Astartes>. Or, in the case of Dark Eldar, where you pretty much have to bring more than one <Drukhari> faction in a pure list unless you go brigade (assuming rule of 3 still exists).
But even tournaments were a lot more diverse and interesting 10 weeks ago. You had horde-army holdovers from the pre-March FAQ days, still doing ok, especially in the Chaos variant. Tyranids were fielding some interesting Kraken lists that were competitive without being lazy-stupid Flyrant-spam. Tau were good, but not overwhelming so. Guilliman still made it's odd showing, but certainly wasn't dominating the Meta. TS was good, but hadn't really won anything yet. Ynnari and Dark Eldar were probably the most potent lists and in need of a slight adjustment, but nowhere near as prevalent as the Knight-lists are today. Hell, while the Guard-CP farm did exist, people didn't have quite as a no-brainer as Knights to spend it on as right now. Mostly it was used to buff Custodes and prop up struggling Dark Angels or whatever. Even Orks and armies with Sisters detachments were winning the odd smaller tournament as underdog.
Competitive 40K was, historically speaking, in one of the best spots it's ever been. Far, far from perfect, sure, but certainly more diverse than it's been most of it's time.
Marmatag wrote: Provided, you could still use book-level super categories. For instance, there is no reason to penalize an <Imperial Fists> and <Raven Guard> force in the CP department, as they're both <Adeptus Astartes>.
How would that apply with, say, Raven Guard, Blood Angels and Space Wolves? Still all ADEPTUS ASTARTES, but now you're looking at 3 books, not one...
Tyel wrote: Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.
The obvious balance mechanism for soup is CP's the issue is Guard broke the CP rules along time ago.
Eldar and choas arn't souping for CP its either units or psychic powers. No amount of CP being locked to detachments will fix that and will break as has been said for the 5th time so please start reading and comprehending you guard apologists.
Assasins, SoS, Inquisition and any unit in an Super heavy Auxiliary detachment has 0 CP. Auxiliary Detachments can't even be taken as they have no CP to countet the -1CP the detachment costs.
Guard don't need grand strategist and Kurov's ever. Removing them would address the hyper CP generation.
Soup needs a downside the only thing common to every army is battleforged CP.
Eratta the Battle forged bonus to not give CP to armies using the Big 3 keyword of Imperial, choas or Aldari.
Tyel wrote: Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.
Hell no. The top end tournament players are a tiny minority of 40K players and they play heavily houseruled version of the game anyway. Balance issues should be addressed, but any fixes that shaft the more casual players are bad fixes.
Like that previous 'soup fix' which killed the soup detachments and mostly hurt already highly uncompetitive Inquisition style builds (former Inquisition units being now scattered in various different factions in this edition.)
If your warlord's faction is the only one that earns CP when the list is constructed, that would probably fix it.
That would pretty much kill any lists that draw roughly evenly from different sources and make the most logical soup warlord, an Inquisitor, even more impossible choice than it is now.
Guard don't need grand strategist and Kurov's ever. Removing them would address the hyper CP generation.
Soup needs a downside the only thing common to every army is battleforged CP.
Eratta the Battle forged bonus to not give CP to armies using the Big 3 keyword of Imperial, choas or Aldari.
Yes. This is the sensible fix. It would probably still up hurting some fluffier soup builds disproportionately, but at leas they would remain playable.
We could just make it so that those CP generation things can only ever generate a certain amount of points in a given turn. Grand Strategist only gets you a max of 1 a turn, and the Aquila only gets you 1 a turn.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: We could just make it so that those CP generation things can only ever generate a certain amount of points in a given turn. Grand Strategist only gets you a max of 1 a turn, and the Aquila only gets you 1 a turn.
It would be better, but the problem would still be with stacking them in the soup. You can potentially have loads of CP regen sources. If CP regen needs to stay then you could limit battleforged armies to having only one source of CP regen in total. Then soup and mono armies would be even on that regard.
Marmatag wrote: The problem is command point generation, not soup.
If your warlord's faction is the only one that earns CP when the list is constructed, that would probably fix it.
Provided, you could still use book-level super categories. For instance, there is no reason to penalize an <Imperial Fists> and <Raven Guard> force in the CP department, as they're both <Adeptus Astartes>. Or, in the case of Dark Eldar, where you pretty much have to bring more than one <Drukhari> faction in a pure list unless you go brigade (assuming rule of 3 still exists).
^This. There are so many ways to fix it too. You can either make only your WLs faction generate CPs Or reduce detachment earned CPs to very little and have Battle Forged outright grant more CPs Or restrict use of generated CPs to the faction that generated them. The list can go on.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: We could just make it so that those CP generation things can only ever generate a certain amount of points in a given turn. Grand Strategist only gets you a max of 1 a turn, and the Aquila only gets you 1 a turn.
It would be better, but the problem would still be with stacking them in the soup. You can potentially have loads of CP regen sources. If CP regen needs to stay then you could limit battleforged armies to having only one source of CP regen in total. Then soup and mono armies would be even on that regard.
??? You can't have loads of CP regen sources. They're all Warlord traits except the Aquilla. The only reason Grand Strategist is ubiquitous is that its pointless better than all the others you can potentially take.
??? You can't have loads of CP regen sources. They're all Warlord traits except the Aquilla. The only reason Grand Strategist is ubiquitous is that its pointless better than all the others you can potentially take.
??? You can't have loads of CP regen sources. They're all Warlord traits except the Aquilla. The only reason Grand Strategist is ubiquitous is that its pointless better than all the others you can potentially take.
Blood Angels at least have a CP regen relic too.
Oh right. I always forget it, since it currently effectively costs 2 CP to take. In general I'm of the opinion that Imperium seems to be all about the CP regen Warlord traits, so there really shouldn't be relics that do it as well. Then again, I'd rather see CP regen as a general rule for having your Warlord on the table than be tied to either relics or traits.
If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?
Dysartes wrote: If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?
Because Guard get cheap acess to CP and one of the best regeneration traits.
Dysartes wrote: If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?
Or, perhaps no army should have the ability to regen CP? Make spending CP on stratagems an actual decision rather than an automatic process.
It also makes it much more balanced for those armies that can't regen CP.
Dysartes wrote: If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?
Or, perhaps no army should have the ability to regen CP? Make spending CP on stratagems an actual decision rather than an automatic process.
It also makes it much more balanced for those armies that can't regen CP.
If the system remains as it is now - it simply makes no sense that the army that generates CP the easiest through detachments also has the best regeneration ability. That is an easy fix - remove CP regen from AM and give to to Custodes (the army that has the hardest time generation CP through detachments). CP regen in other armies starting with 8-10 CP is really not an issue.
Space marines for example with 5+ regen triat are only expect to regen 3-4 points with that trait for a total of 14ish. Which is likely less than an IG force started with. Again - the issue is not regen. The issue is starting CP number and ofc - multiple sources of regen (which should not be allowed.)
I've been thinking about it and I think there are two simple changes that fix the CP problem almost entirely: 1) cap the number of CP you can start the game with to 12 at 2000 points. 2) Make it so the CP regeneration abilities can only be used on <faction> stratagems.
The first limits CP to a number almost any army can get to, and the second makes reroll abilities bad if you're not spending CP on your faction's abilities.
Dysartes wrote: If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?
Or, perhaps no army should have the ability to regen CP? Make spending CP on stratagems an actual decision rather than an automatic process.
It also makes it much more balanced for those armies that can't regen CP.
I think CP regen is better than more starting CP, but the game really wants players to have a good chunk of CP over the game. I'd rather it was a flat amount rather than random though, simply because regen based on use is self sustaining.
Tyel wrote: Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.
Only people in cou ntries where you play at stores can't just ad hoc change the rules they play with, plus even in a small group the chance of you opponents saying yes to a rule that buffs your army are low, specially if their army is doing ok, or worse the house rule would make their army weaker. And the idea of people buying units or whole armies just so someone with a weaker army gets a chance could be a thing probably, if you happen to sleep on money.
The game should be fixed not by making good stuff that works bad to a point no one uses it or the nerf is so inconsequential people run the stuff anyway, but by making the crapy stuff good enough people want to play with it. Don't nerf IG, SOUP , make other stuff good. What if your army got really nice extra set of rules if all detachments in it were astartes, and I mean something really good and not plus 1 to Ld? Maybe an all ig army gets free tranches, you could go even deeper with that and make detachment rules that only work for Astra militarum, that are also cadian. There could also be stuff similar to what DE have , and army could get special rules if it includes a tempestus, Inq and sob detachment, and give it extra rules, maybe even relics Tec. They could put those rules online or in to WD, am sure it would boost the sales.
Tyel wrote: Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.
Only people in cou ntries where you play at stores can't just ad hoc change the rules they play with, plus even in a small group the chance of you opponents saying yes to a rule that buffs your army are low, specially if their army is doing ok, or worse the house rule would make their army weaker. And the idea of people buying units or whole armies just so someone with a weaker army gets a chance could be a thing probably, if you happen to sleep on money.
The game should be fixed not by making good stuff that works bad to a point no one uses it or the nerf is so inconsequential people run the stuff anyway, but by making the crapy stuff good enough people want to play with it. Don't nerf IG, SOUP , make other stuff good. What if your army got really nice extra set of rules if all detachments in it were astartes, and I mean something really good and not plus 1 to Ld? Maybe an all ig army gets free tranches, you could go even deeper with that and make detachment rules that only work for Astra militarum, that are also cadian. There could also be stuff similar to what DE have , and army could get special rules if it includes a tempestus, Inq and sob detachment, and give it extra rules, maybe even relics Tec. They could put those rules online or in to WD, am sure it would boost the sales.
That isn't a good idea, to force excessive powercreep into the game, if you brought every army up to that level of power the game would be over after the roll of for first turn and sieze as nothing survives turn 1 with sufficient strength.
That isn't a good idea, to force excessive powercreep into the game, if you brought every army up to that level of power the game would be over after the roll of for first turn and sieze as nothing survives turn 1 with sufficient strength.
Yeah, I'd rather see nerfs than buffs (some stuff needs buffs of course,) especially to the offence. The game is actually way more fun when both players are playing 'underoptimised' armies, as half of your force is not vaporised in the first turn so there is some room for actual tactics.
That isn't a good idea, to force excessive powercreep into the game, if you brought every army up to that level of power the game would be over after the roll of for first turn and sieze as nothing survives turn 1 with sufficient strength.
Yeah, I'd rather see nerfs than buffs (some stuff needs buffs of course,) especially to the offence. The game is actually way more fun when both players are playing 'underoptimised' armies, as half of your force is not vaporised in the first turn so there is some room for actual tactics.
What you mean people might actually have to worry about Possitioning and objectives rather than can I get first turn and wipe my opponent from the table in 3 turns.
But that's not the 8th edition way.
Martel732 wrote: I agree with the sentiment in principle, but I think there's too much to nerf.
People keep saying that but really there is two main things driving the top two levels of competitive lists.
1 The infinite CP farm codex nerf this and Imperial Soup drops a lot of power
2 Soup in general has no downside, remove the battel forged bonus CP for the 3 super factions of Imperium, Choas and Aeldari.
With those 2 things you probably have a good number of mono codex's and soups if not balanced atleast at semi competative level, its no longer a landslide victory in turn 2.
From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.
Martel732 wrote: I agree with the sentiment in principle, but I think there's too much to nerf.
People keep saying that but really there is two main things driving the top two levels of competitive lists.
1 The infinite CP farm codex nerf this and Imperial Soup drops a lot of power
2 Soup in general has no downside, remove the battel forged bonus CP for the 3 super factions of Imperium, Choas and Aeldari.
With those 2 things you probably have a good number of mono codex's and soups if not balanced atleast at semi competative level, its no longer a landslide victory in turn 2.
From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.
There's a pretty large number of weapons out there that make power armor units virtually useless. That's what I was referring to.
Martel732 wrote: There's a pretty large number of weapons out there that make power armor units virtually useless. That's what I was referring to.
Actually that's never been the biggest issue I've had with marines or sisters or anything in power armour. It that the bolter stats don't really work in 8th more than power armour.
From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.
There are too many codexes in the game for mono-codex to provide meaningful data. Funny enough, we probably have more codexes in the top 11 with soup than we would without. There's 10 codexes represented there, which in a mono-codex world would be an incredible top 11. Cut out soup and I'd expect we'd only get 3-5 tops in there, and they'd probably large be the same obvious problems we're arguing about now.
Martel732 wrote: There's a pretty large number of weapons out there that make power armor units virtually useless. That's what I was referring to.
Actually that's never been the biggest issue I've had with marines or sisters or anything in power armour. It that the bolter stats don't really work in 8th more than power armour.
We can debate quite a while about which sin is worse. Anecdotally, DW marines perform better on their turn, but give up points faster on the opponent's turn, as none of their benefits are defensive in nature. Power armor has a better history than the bolter, and so that's why I personally am focusing on that.
Dysartes wrote: If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?
Because Guard get cheap acess (sic) to CP and one of the best regeneration traits.
Which, if we view IG on their own, isn't bad design - if an army starts with a lot of a resource and has few Strategems they're likely to want to use as the game goes along (I've got to be honest, most of the IG ones got a "Huh..." when I looked through them just now), then the value of traits or relics which regen that resource is lowered. I'm sure this was pointed out above, but I'm re-iterating it.
If you want to remove them from the book, they do need to be replaced with something, too.
What was the rationale for the CP increase for Batallions and Brigades, btw?
An Actual Englishman - I don't think I've seen too many people who would disagree with removing CP regeneration mechanics full stop - though again, you'd need to replace those entries in the appropriate books. I'm curious, though - outside of Imperial Soup, are combinations of these abilities causing problems? And assuming GW wanted to keep the CP regen mechanic in the game (for some reason), would a cap of 1 source per army not be the simplest fix?
Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.
From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.
There are too many codexes in the game for mono-codex to provide meaningful data. Funny enough, we probably have more codexes in the top 11 with soup than we would without. There's 10 codexes represented there, which in a mono-codex world would be an incredible top 11. Cut out soup and I'd expect we'd only get 3-5 tops in there, and they'd probably large be the same obvious problems we're arguing about now.
If you'd quoted the whole thing instead of 1 part the idea was to make the top mono codex's and soup and equal or atleast close enough power level for mono and soup lists to be semi competative list as not all armies are allowed to soup. So requiring people to soup to be competitive excludes Tau, crons and Orks from competitive settings. I'm not OK with that.
Dysartes wrote: If CP regen is the issue... why not just have it as a rule in the CP section that an army may only contain one source of in-game CP (re)generation - i.e., just Grand Strategist, or just Kurov, or just the Vitae thing in the IG/IK/BA build?
Because Guard get cheap acess (sic) to CP and one of the best regeneration traits.
Which, if we view IG on their own, isn't bad design - if an army starts with a lot of a resource and has few Strategems they're likely to want to use as the game goes along (I've got to be honest, most of the IG ones got a "Huh..." when I looked through them just now), then the value of traits or relics which regen that resource is lowered. I'm sure this was pointed out above, but I'm re-iterating it.
If you want to remove them from the book, they do need to be replaced with something, too.
What was the rationale for the CP increase for Batallions and Brigades, btw?
An Actual Englishman - I don't think I've seen too many people who would disagree with removing CP regeneration mechanics full stop - though again, you'd need to replace those entries in the appropriate books. I'm curious, though - outside of Imperial Soup, are combinations of these abilities causing problems? And assuming GW wanted to keep the CP regen mechanic in the game (for some reason), would a cap of 1 source per army not be the simplest fix?
Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.
It is terrible design in an edition when one of the selling points was allies, also if guard strategums have to be so bad to compensate for the insane CP levels in that codex isn't that also bad game design too.
I disagree that those two have to be replaced actually as they aren't mandatory choices, they need to be removed from matched play but can be left in as open or narrative play only options.
From thier a number of codex's can work maybe mono build or with some not fun builds but atleast they could work.
The fine balance then becomes more obvious and GE might actually get some tournament data to look at for more units.
There are too many codexes in the game for mono-codex to provide meaningful data. Funny enough, we probably have more codexes in the top 11 with soup than we would without. There's 10 codexes represented there, which in a mono-codex world would be an incredible top 11. Cut out soup and I'd expect we'd only get 3-5 tops in there, and they'd probably large be the same obvious problems we're arguing about now.
If you'd quoted the whole thing instead of 1 part the idea was to make the top mono codex's and soup and equal or atleast close enough power level for mono and soup lists to be semi competative list as not all armies are allowed to soup. So requiring people to soup to be competitive excludes Tau, crons and Orks from competitive settings. I'm not OK with that.
I don't think you should require to soup to be competitive, but most of the soup armies are pretty fractured on their own compared to the Xenos stuff. Personally, it feels like all of those, but Orks in particular would hugely benefit from self soup. Sticking with the Ork mindset, it would be fantastic to see Clans for Orks that meaningfully made each branch of their model selection work. Make one focus on Mechs where another is the Green Tide kind of thing and another all about bikes and buggies. Orks have all the variety they need for each of these to work in separate detachments and effectively "soup" with themselves.
Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.
This is not the case. The Custodes are definitely intended to work with allies, they have rules which sole purpose is to boost other imperial units. Knights are also designed to work with allies, until recently they shared a book with Ad Mech.
Xenomancers - I suspect Custodes are designed with the idea they wouldn't have native access to huge numbers of CP, nor to CP regeneration. This explains why their Stratagems are more potent than IG ones, for example - theoretically, as they have less CP available, the work they need to get out of each CP is increased. Break that design - by souping in other sources of CP, or giving them access to CP regeneration - and you'll see improved performance of Custodes units, such as the Bike Captains. See also: Castellan Knights.
This is not the case. The Custodes are definitely intended to work with allies, they have rules which sole purpose is to boost other imperial units. Knights are also designed to work with allies, until recently they shared a book with Ad Mech.
I think it's more of an issue of power creep than anything else. Stratagems get consistently better as codex come out. AM were made in the era where codex stratagems just aren't that great.
Tyel wrote: Non tournament players can do whatever they like in their garages. Game balance shouldn't be sacrificed so five people can play their totally fluffy three faction soup lists. Frankly they can carry on doing so in their garages anyway.
nothing change in your garage, also if they "nerf" soup armies or anything else in matched play, keep play narrative and you can do anything you want, dont u?
Btw guys forget they ever limit allies or force to play mono codex, allies means money for GW they will never fix it, last but not least, local tournaments usually aren't so boring, you see a wide variety of lists, just avoid big tournaments like NOVABAO or LVO and you ll be fine,
Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12. And, further, i would limit stratagem usage to the faction that earned it. Lastly, limit 1 dice roll per stratagem spent to regen, and also, take away rolling when your opponent spends a CP.
Many of the problem units are enabled by strong stratagems. For instance, Shining Spears. Of course they're also enabled by Ynnari but that's a legitimate problem with Ynnari in general. Their mechanic is far too strong, always has been.
Mono faction armies SHOULD be able to farm for their CPs. That would be the reward. Armies that have 2 different Faction Keywords should only gain CP for their Primary Detachment. You could even suggest that the Primary detachment is the one the Warlord is selected from.
Marmatag wrote: Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12. And, further, i would limit stratagem usage to the faction that earned it. Lastly, limit 1 dice roll per stratagem spent to regen, and also, take away rolling when your opponent spends a CP.
Many of the problem units are enabled by strong stratagems. For instance, Shining Spears. Of course they're also enabled by Ynnari but that's a legitimate problem with Ynnari in general. Their mechanic is far too strong, always has been.
Something like "Battalions give 1 CP for every 150 points spent on it, brigades give 1 CP for every 100 points spent on it"? I think that i like it.
This wouid make a really organic army like a full 2000 brigade have 23 CPs, and the current IGbattalion, BAttalion, knight lists to have around 10.
By also putting an "IG only stratagems"on grand strategist, it could work.
Marmatag wrote: Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12. And, further, i would limit stratagem usage to the faction that earned it. Lastly, limit 1 dice roll per stratagem spent to regen, and also, take away rolling when your opponent spends a CP.
Many of the problem units are enabled by strong stratagems. For instance, Shining Spears. Of course they're also enabled by Ynnari but that's a legitimate problem with Ynnari in general. Their mechanic is far too strong, always has been.
The problem is the Craftwords codex is designed with Ynnari in mind, units were overpriced and blatantly bad because the designers fear soul burst balance.
Ynnari benefits from units that do a lot of damage fast and sadly the best CW units do exactly that. CW detachments are taken only for the stratagems and extra CP.
Most of the relics are meh and don`t work well with +3 toughness characters, you can`t give them to the phoenix lords. Battle focus don`t work with heavy weapons and wraithguards/wraithblades and wraithlords don`t have it anyway. Tough expensive units don`t have invul save, dont have battle focus so even they can benefit in most cases more from Ynnari then the CW attributes.
DE codex is good and is viable without Ynnari, power from pain is very good, relics and warlord traits have nice synergy with the rest of the army. So DE players are not forced into the Ynnari path.
The problem is the Craftwords codex is designed with Ynnari in mind, units were overpriced and blatantly bad because the designers fear soul burst balance.
Ynnari benefits from units that do a lot of damage fast and sadly the best CW units do exactly that. CW detachments are taken only for the stratagems and extra CP.
Most of the relics are meh and don`t work well with +3 toughness characters, you can`t give them to the phoenix lords. Battle focus don`t work with heavy weapons and wraithguards/wraithblades and wraithlords don`t have it anyway. Tough expensive units don`t have invul save, dont have battle focus so even they can benefit in most cases more from Ynnari then the CW attributes.
You're partly right. Some CW units (such as Wraith*) can benefit heavily from Ynnari as other units that can dish out a lot of damage like Dark Reapers and Fire Dragons. That's why CW and Ynnari can make it to the top in tourneys.
Marmatag wrote: Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.
Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.
Marmatag wrote: Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.
Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.
It's overly complicated. For no reason. Just start with a base number like I have suggested and give negatives for not taking battalion and brigades. Give negatives for allies. It accomplishes everything we want.
Allies would be an inherent negative - as you'd want to take as few detatchments as possible. This would make Soup not strictly better. Although fine tuning would need to be done to make Soup and Mono on an even playing field, the 'Detatchments Cost CP' structure gives you a toolbox to start tuning that.
Bharring wrote: Allies would be an inherent negative - as you'd want to take as few detatchments as possible. This would make Soup not strictly better. Although fine tuning would need to be done to make Soup and Mono on an even playing field, the 'Detatchments Cost CP' structure gives you a toolbox to start tuning that.
Yes - exactly.
Then maybe we can make some adjustments to how regen works. Or where you can play stratagems from. Perhaps stratagems not coming from your warlords faction should cost +1 CP. Perhaps we should have limits on the number of stratagems you can play outside of your warlords detachment.
This will mean there is a sweet spot for allies. You might have a sweet spot - the ally combo might be better...but it costs more CP...is it really worth it? Decisions = balance.
Marmatag wrote: Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.
Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.
Marmatag wrote: Balance isn't that far off. Toning down CP generation would make a lot of sense. My personal opinion is that CP should be rewarded only if you spend to a certain threshold in the detachment. A 180 CP brigade gets you 1 CP. A 500 point brigade gets you the full 5 points. So you'd need 1200 in a brigade at minimum to get the 12.
Great idea, nice and elegant, and introduces scaling, which is so conspicuous by its absence.
This is sarcasm right?
I hope it is sarcasm, because it is an horrible idea.
Marines, necrons. knights and custodes are the only armies that don't have cheap bataillon. You want to penalize every other army, because they are cheaper than your army...
People are not looking at solutions to the problems that nova showed, they are just wanting to push their pet agenda at this point:
People that never liked allied want to make that unplayable
Some that play pure marines, dont want anyone to have more cp
When the problem is cp regeneration, and certain combos that allows to blow insane amount of cp in a turn.
First problem is easy to fix.
Second problem has several solutions that need a lot of testing ( I am for getting an initial smaller pool of cp, then some each turn that can't be carried over. Or a rule that a unit can only use one strat a turn maybe, but that would be very very hard to put in play...)
I always like it when people assume I benefit wholly from the suggestions I make, because it hurts their army.
Armies I field competitively at 2000 points: Tyranids Dark Eldar
Armies i field casually at 2000 points: Ultramarines Chaos Space Marines Grey Knights
You'll notice that Tyranids and DE have dirt cheap battalions, if I want them.
There is no reason for someone to bring Archon Archon kabx5 kabx5 kabx5
On top of their CWE + Ynnari soup, for the 5 CP and access to Vect. It's dumb. My suggestion would require they flesh this detachment out, in order to generate enough CP to even Vect something once. This could be done with Transports, ravagers, etc, but it's still increasing the footprint of that aspect of your force.
I would also be perfectly fine with this not generating any CP for the CWE soup army, period. But, that seems a bit scorched earth to me.
The problem is not just soup. The problem is not just CP and it's regeneration or lack thereof. The problem is not just stratagems. There is also the problem of units performing too well for their points. Here's something I posted in the "how to balance Guard" thread that I think is very pertinent here;
Judging IG Infantry against other similarly costed units they outperform all but GSCultists significantly. Not by a small amount. Significantly. They are mathematically better than Fire Warriors even when they are increased to 5ppm.
Infantry are simply the most points efficient unit in the game by a huge margin when compared to other, similarly costed units. Let's stop pretending that mono Guard can't compete - it has been stated already but at the BAO a Guard player was the second highest ranked mono list, the first list was Tau. Also as far as any Imperium lists are concerned in the competitive meta, "pure" anything lists don't really exist, particularly when we consider that there is absolutely no downside to souping.
In contrast to the general belief here, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;
August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction) July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction) June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction) March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
They also feature in almost every Imperium soup list, even when they aren't the primary faction.
So I think it's pretty justified to nerf those units in the guard dex that are clearly outperforming their peers. The biggest culprit of this is, without question, Infantry squads. There are others in the IG dex that also need to be brought in line with everything else in the game.
I really wish people would stop defending something that is clearly too good. It's obvious through mathematics in a vacuum. It's obvious from real life experience. It's obvious from tournament results backing up all the theory. At this point it's blindingly obvious that certain units are not priced properly, yet whenever this is raised I see far more IG players defending their units rather than accepting the facts.
You can replace 'Infantry squads' for any unit that is performing too well for it's points cost - Castellans, Dawn Eagle Shield Captains, Slamguinius, Shining Spears, Dark Reapers etc etc etc
Can we stop pretending that a magical mix of CP, stratagems and soup somehow make these units perform better than they do otherwise? The units perform better than average regardless of whether they are taken in a mono or soup list. Soup lists simply give players the ability to sure up the traditional weaknesses of a faction by picking another to compliment it.
Can we stop pretending that a magical mix of CP, stratagems and soup somehow make these units perform better than they do otherwise? The units perform better than average regardless of whether they are taken in a mono or soup list. Soup lists simply give players the ability to sure up the traditional weaknesses of a faction by picking another to compliment it.
I agree with this, though the Castellan specifically IS probably overperforming due to a magical mix of CP, strategems and soup. Arguably the Slam Captain as well I suppose. There is little else that stands out as much as these two though.
The game is more or less decided by turn 2 in basically every game I play. Even with a nerf to CP genreation these lists will still be able to start the game with 20 CP. LOL 20 CP? That is 2 turns of captain smash and 2 turns of rotate ion sheilds (which lets be honest) Shooting at the castellan is a waste anyways even with a 4++ save. I think a smart player will just let you shoot it and waste your firepower. Then fight at full strength for 1 CP (if CP started to become an issue) which it wont. 20 CP is more than enough to run this army - I ASSURE YOU.
Lets see - with my proposal.
15 starting CP IG brigade = -0
Allied batallion = -1 (-1 due to allied)
Allied superheavy detachment = -4 (3 for super heavy - 1 for allied)
They would still have regen but they would start the game with 10 CP (before relics are distributed and paid for) This army would start the game with 7 CP with their exact build. Plus honestly - I would sure like to remove the ability to use CP regen on multiple detachments. Lets say - only your warlords faction can but used for abilities that "cause you to be refunded or gain CP or start with bonus CP".
Xenomancers wrote: The game is more or less decided by turn 2 in basically every game I play. Even with a nerf to CP genreation these lists will still be able to start the game with 20 CP. LOL 20 CP? That is 2 turns of captain smash and 2 turns of rotate ion sheilds (which lets be honest) Shooting at the castellan is a waste anyways even with a 4++ save. I think a smart player will just let you shoot it and waste your firepower. Then fight at full strength for 1 CP (if CP started to become an issue) which it wont. 20 CP is more than enough to run this army - I ASSURE YOU.
The list typically spends 3 CP on BA relics, 2 on Knight warlord and relic, and 2 on DVoS on the smash captains to start the game with 13.
If the only change that was made was too limit CP regen abilities to only work on <faction> stratagems, you'd only regen 1-2 CP from the BA captain combo (6-7CP if he dies/fights again) and none from the IK stratagems (7CP) so you'd be down to 0-3 ish CP on average by your second turn assuming you regen 1-2 from enemy strats.
That's not enough to do a full combo again, so you'd have to consider spending fewer CP at the start. You could leave DVoS and the BA relic off and start with 16, and have a bit more in that second turn, but the effectiveness of the list would definitely be reduced with each change.
If this was combined with fewer CP to start with (let's say we cap it to 12 or do the reverse CP thing) and a something stopping the Castellan from getting a 3++ (maybe make the 4++ warlord Questorus class only, or change it in some other way) all of the issues with this list would be solved.
A cap to 12-15 CP (and probably up battleforged to 4-5 or increase the 1CP detachments to 2) would also let most armies get close to the same CP levels as long as they took at least 1 battillion, which should be all they need to do IMO. Rewards after that first one should be minimal. I don't like it as much as reverse CP but it's a one to three sentence solution.
A lot of perfectly valid normal mono armies currently only get about 8 CP. 1 battillion and a spearhead should be a valid army build. If it gave you 10-11CP and the most anyone could get was 15 then things wouldn't be so bad, and you wouldn't feel forced with a lot of armies to take a second battillion.
Xenomancers wrote: The game is more or less decided by turn 2 in basically every game I play. Even with a nerf to CP genreation these lists will still be able to start the game with 20 CP. LOL 20 CP? That is 2 turns of captain smash and 2 turns of rotate ion sheilds (which lets be honest) Shooting at the castellan is a waste anyways even with a 4++ save. I think a smart player will just let you shoot it and waste your firepower. Then fight at full strength for 1 CP (if CP started to become an issue) which it wont. 20 CP is more than enough to run this army - I ASSURE YOU.
The list typically spends 3 CP on BA relics, 2 on Knight warlord and relic, and 2 on DVoS on the smash captains to start the game with 13.
If the only change that was made was too limit CP regen abilities to only work on <faction> stratagems, you'd only regen 1-2 CP from the BA captain combo (6-7CP if he dies/fights again) and none from the IK stratagems (7CP) so you'd be down to 0-3 ish CP on average by your second turn assuming you regen 1-2 from enemy strats.
That's not enough to do a full combo again, so you'd have to consider spending fewer CP at the start. You could leave DVoS and the BA relic off and start with 16, and have a bit more in that second turn, but the effectiveness of the list would definitely be reduced with each change.
If this was combined with fewer CP to start with (let's say we cap it to 12 or do the reverse CP thing) and a something stopping the Castellan from getting a 3++ (maybe make the 4++ relic Questorus class only, or change it in some other way) all of the issues with this list would be solved.
A cap to 12-15 CP (and probably make the 1CP detachments cost 2) would also let most armies get close to the same CP levels as long as they took at least 1 battillion, which should be all they need to do IMO. Rewards after that first one should be minimal. I don't like it as much as reverse CP but it's a one to three sentence solution.
A lot of perfectly valid normal mono armies currently only get about 8 CP. 1 battillion and a spearhead should be a valid army build. If it gave you 10CP and the most anyone could get was 15 then things wouldn't be so bad, and you wouldn't feel forced with a lot of armies to take a second battillion.
12 would probably be even better.
No you've got it backwards - a lot of armies take a vanguard or a spearhead to get an additional CP because they are units they are taking anyways. Their slots for HS were already open in their battalion. This system rewards armies that take less detachments.
Also as someone who plays a lot of mono knights getting by on like 9 CP if I am lucky. The idea that they can't get by with 16 is just asinine. They can.
Primarily the only thing you really need to spam the 3++ against is another castellan. Nothing else has the firepower to chew through 28 wounds t8 4++ to begin with. Just having the ability to do it makes shooting at it a complete waste. Plus there is the poor mans build for the castellan. Use house tyranis and have the same durability of a 3++ just by standing there for free...What do you lose? reroll 1's to hit and wound but save 2 CP a turn which you can use to resurrect yourself if you die for 2 CP. Yeah...that is what I would do and it will still dominate. Castellan being 100 points too cheap is a much bigger issue than command points.
I suppose this is one place I disagree with your CP/Detatchment scheme:
Battalion/Brigade should cost CP, even if it's one.
This incentivises the player to take a Brigade or fully flesh out their Battalion instead of adding an aditional detatchment. Thus, the CP cost makes the player want to minimize detatchments. That inherently makes Allies a little less appealing, without making Allies DOA.
Which is extra nice, because no need to figure out "what counts as allies". It seems super simple with the keyword detatchement system, but gets quite a bit more complicated quickly.
Bharring wrote: I suppose this is one place I disagree with your CP/Detatchment scheme:
Battalion/Brigade should cost CP, even if it's one.
This incentivises the player to take a Brigade or fully flesh out their Battalion instead of adding an aditional detatchment. Thus, the CP cost makes the player want to minimize detatchments. That inherently makes Allies a little less appealing, without making Allies DOA.
Which is extra nice, because no need to figure out "what counts as allies". It seems super simple with the keyword detatchement system, but gets quite a bit more complicated quickly.
Perhaps an additional brigade or batallion should cost 1 CP. I honestly hadn't even thought of that. The first one should be free though - it also starts getting too complicated there. It's not like taking 2 batallion does not have it's own taxes. That requires 4 HQ and 6 troop. That is a solid amount of tax. I get where you are coming from though - you don't want people to take 2 batallions with 6 heavy support. You would much rather see a batallion full of FA and elites too.
What problem are you even trying to solve with this? The entire game shouldn't be revamped because of imperial guard.
Double battalion has a hefty tax if you aren't imperial guard. And so does a brigade.
The problem isn't that you take a lower batt/brigade to improve your own cp, the problem is that it can be accomplished for nothing. And that's primarily in 1 faction.
Tau have access to dirt cheap battalions. Do we need to nerf Tau?
A)
Start with 11 CP Each Brigade or Battalion after the first is 1CP
Each Vanguard... is nCP
...
B)
Start with 12 CP Each Brigade or Battalionis 1CP
Each Vanguard... is nCP
I'd rather 4 HQ and 6 Troop of Ultramarines have more CP (even if it's just 1) than 2 UM HQ 3 Troops + 2 BAHQ + 3 troops. Without adding more rules, if possible.
What exactly are you guys trying to achieve now as this is going into changes that are borderline 8.5 edition.
Once Guard CP generation has been addressed/removed CP isn't why people are souping.
It's strategums, units and psykic powers, you can't address those directly but you can just put in a CP counter. Does it realy matter which detachment people take for allies?
Why are you trying to force people into mono subfaction of mono codex's?
Marmatag wrote: What problem are you even trying to solve with this? The entire game shouldn't be revamped because of imperial guard.
Double battalion has a hefty tax if you aren't imperial guard.
And so does a brigade.
The problem isn't that you take a lower batt/brigade to improve your own cp, the problem is that it can be accomplished for nothing. And that's primarily in 1 faction.
Tau have access to dirt cheap battalions. Do we need to nerf Tau?
I'm trying to solve all the games problems with a simple fix. using a simple approach - fairness.
Tau wont be nerfed by this - armies taking allies will be punished - while tau can will start the game with 15 CP. Only 2 less than their typical build would start with now.
As pointed out above - the soup list with a Castellan and BA batallion and IG bridage is suffering a -5 CP penalty from the 15 base they start with. Tau will have +5 CP on that army. It is a big deal.
Nids for example - the power they can get out of a single batallion is freaking huge.
3 FHT
3 Hive Guard units
and 9 carnifex.
Pretty sure nids will be able to start with 15 CP most of the time without sacrificing unit quality. In fact I see this as a buff to nids because nid troops are pretty much garbage. My nid armies are starting with 9 ATM...Yeah...it sucks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: What exactly are you guys trying to achieve now as this is going into changes that are borderline 8.5 edition.
Once Guard CP generation has been addressed/removed CP isn't why people are souping.
It's strategums, units and psykic powers, you can't address those directly but you can just put in a CP counter. Does it realy matter which detachment people take for allies?
Why are you trying to force people into mono subfaction of mono codex's?
Wrong. IG will still have the most command points. You have to look ahead. Nothing short of nerfing allies into complete uselessness - short of what I am proposing (a rework of how command points are obtained) will fix the games problems.
If we nerfed CP regen. Here is what happens. Space marines become worse. Admech become worse. All eldar factions become worse (this is not necessarily bad). Even tau becomes worse. Guess who wins? Imperial Gaurd. By far the cheapest CP battalions and brigades. Plus - they don't take a single bad unit to obtain them. "but CP regen on gaurd is OP" no...its not. It is only OP because they start with the most command points BY FAR and regen scales with starting CP. If we make starting CP standard...Guard does not have such a huge advantage in CP anymore(thought they still will have the best ability to regen) - plus - if we charge CP for allied units their base CP shrinks and other armies start to have CP advantage over them.
Marmatag wrote: What problem are you even trying to solve with this? The entire game shouldn't be revamped because of imperial guard.
Double battalion has a hefty tax if you aren't imperial guard.
And so does a brigade.
The problem isn't that you take a lower batt/brigade to improve your own cp, the problem is that it can be accomplished for nothing. And that's primarily in 1 faction.
Tau have access to dirt cheap battalions. Do we need to nerf Tau?
I'm trying to solve all the games problems with a simple fix. using a simple approach - fairness.
Tau wont be nerfed by this - armies taking allies will be punished - while tau can will start the game with 15 CP. Only 2 less than their typical build would start with now.
As pointed out above - the soup list with a Castellan and BA batallion and IG bridage is suffering a -5 CP penalty from the 15 base they start with. Tau will have +5 CP on that army. It is a big deal.
Nids for example - the power they can get out of a single batallion is freaking huge.
3 FHT
3 Hive Guard units
and 9 carnifex.
Pretty sure nids will be able to start with 15 CP most of the time without sacrificing unit quality. In fact I see this as a buff to nids because nid troops are pretty much garbage. My nid armies are starting with 9 ATM...Yeah...it sucks.
You actually have nerfed a number of Tau builds with this rule.
Your trying to over engineer a solution when it's obvious the issue isn't CP regen in general its Astra Millicheese CP recycling plant.
You've also still screwed Assasins and Sisters of silence hardcore.
P.S. who cares if mono Guard generate CP for less points, you make it so that armies loose battle forged CP to add guard.
Which also helps with Choas and Aeldari.
If the 3 CP isn't enough of a deterrent just add CP to that and reduce battalions and Brigades.
Ice_can wrote: What exactly are you guys trying to achieve now as this is going into changes that are borderline 8.5 edition.
Once Guard CP generation has been addressed/removed CP isn't why people are souping.
It's strategums, units and psykic powers, you can't address those directly but you can just put in a CP counter. Does it realy matter which detachment people take for allies?
Why are you trying to force people into mono subfaction of mono codex's?
Isnt the current thing to dump CP into relics? the whole thing about IG is that you can make a ton of CP, get a butt load of relics and still have more left over for other strats AND generate more.
going by the last few even lists at least.
i guess a fix might be to only allow you to buy relics for your primary detachment or lock stratagems to specific detachments so that you cant max out relics if you want to use some specific other strat.
but some one some where will complain about any changes eh?
Ice_can wrote: What exactly are you guys trying to achieve now as this is going into changes that are borderline 8.5 edition.
Once Guard CP generation has been addressed/removed CP isn't why people are souping.
It's strategums, units and psykic powers, you can't address those directly but you can just put in a CP counter. Does it realy matter which detachment people take for allies?
Why are you trying to force people into mono subfaction of mono codex's?
Isnt the current thing to dump CP into relics? the whole thing about IG is that you can make a ton of CP, get a butt load of relics and still have more left over for other strats AND generate more.
going by the last few even lists at least.
i guess a fix might be to only allow you to buy relics for your primary detachment or lock stratagems to specific detachments so that you cant max out relics if you want to use some specific other strat.
but some one some where will complain about any changes eh?
The solution to that problem is taking Grand Strategists and Kurov's to Non matched play options.
The solution to that problem is taking Grand Strategists and Kurov's to Non matched play options.
You lost me there.
you mean using those cp regens?
Well fix that by making it so those only affect faction specific CP. and anything refunded only work for the faction that ability is part of.
no Fix is going to be easy. its basicly going to have to be one hell of an updated rehaul to make sure there is no cross contamination of CP. Mind you i have no idea what would happen. or if something else will become abused but i think it would help at least the current meh meta.
Marmatag wrote: What problem are you even trying to solve with this? The entire game shouldn't be revamped because of imperial guard.
Double battalion has a hefty tax if you aren't imperial guard.
And so does a brigade.
The problem isn't that you take a lower batt/brigade to improve your own cp, the problem is that it can be accomplished for nothing. And that's primarily in 1 faction.
Tau have access to dirt cheap battalions. Do we need to nerf Tau?
I'm trying to solve all the games problems with a simple fix. using a simple approach - fairness.
Tau wont be nerfed by this - armies taking allies will be punished - while tau can will start the game with 15 CP. Only 2 less than their typical build would start with now.
As pointed out above - the soup list with a Castellan and BA batallion and IG bridage is suffering a -5 CP penalty from the 15 base they start with. Tau will have +5 CP on that army. It is a big deal.
Nids for example - the power they can get out of a single batallion is freaking huge.
3 FHT
3 Hive Guard units
and 9 carnifex.
Pretty sure nids will be able to start with 15 CP most of the time without sacrificing unit quality. In fact I see this as a buff to nids because nid troops are pretty much garbage. My nid armies are starting with 9 ATM...Yeah...it sucks.
You actually have nerfed a number of Tau builds with this rule.
Your trying to over engineer a solution when it's obvious the issue isn't CP regen in general its Astra Millicheese CP recycling plant.
You've also still screwed Assasins and Sisters of silence hardcore.
P.S. who cares if mono Guard generate CP for less points, you make it so that armies loose battle forged CP to add guard.
Which also helps with Choas and Aeldari.
If the 3 CP isn't enough of a deterrent just add CP to that and reduce battalions and Brigades.
"Your trying to over engineer a solution when it's obvious the issue isn't CP regen in general its Astra Millicheese CP recycling plant."
You must see beyond the specific problem you are thinking about and look overall at the problem.
Armies need CP to function - they do not have access to equal ability to get them. This is an inherent flaw in the system.
Custodes for example have a min battalion of like 650ish points while IG can make a battalion for 180 points. This would make sense if there were some sort of link between CP power and ability to create CP - BUT THERE ISN'T. So any solution to the problem has to start here.
The next problem is that allies can give CP to allied armies. This creates a situation where allies are essential to run certain armies. This is inherently flawed because you should be able to run any army you want right out of your own codex. Allies should be an option but not a requirement. So any solution that uses allies as a crutch is also a failure.
Alternatively suggestions have been made that suggest CP/stratagems should only be available to your warlords faction. This is a failure because it completely kills allies - you should be able to take allies if you want - it should just not be autoinclude or a requirement to run your army. Allies give you the benifit of taking the best possible unit for a role that your base army lacks - in turn it should also have a negative associated with it.
From these three lines of thought - we (my good 40k buddy IRL) came to this solution. It solves all these problems simultaneously. Without forcing you to build your army any particular way. With every build available in the previous system still being potentially viable. The only place this system is weak - is with the current power level/ access to stratagems area of things. This might require balancing - IDK.
If it turns out IK starting with 15 CP is too much...we will increase the cost of their stratagems. Same thing with an army like custodes. Or any stratagem that is over-performing. Problem is right now we have no real metric to establish stratagem balance because all armies have unequal access to command points. This will fix that.
Ice_can wrote: What exactly are you guys trying to achieve now as this is going into changes that are borderline 8.5 edition.
Once Guard CP generation has been addressed/removed CP isn't why people are souping.
It's strategums, units and psykic powers, you can't address those directly but you can just put in a CP counter. Does it realy matter which detachment people take for allies?
Why are you trying to force people into mono subfaction of mono codex's?
Isnt the current thing to dump CP into relics? the whole thing about IG is that you can make a ton of CP, get a butt load of relics and still have more left over for other strats AND generate more.
going by the last few even lists at least.
i guess a fix might be to only allow you to buy relics for your primary detachment or lock stratagems to specific detachments so that you cant max out relics if you want to use some specific other strat.
but some one some where will complain about any changes eh?
Well the problem is more complicated than that. Yeah - that is what is happening. There is more than one problem though.
IG have the absolutely cheapest battalion and brigade. They offer a huge chunk of CP to start with. Basically with 500 points of IG in your army - you have more starting CP than most complete 2000 point armies. Unless they are spamming batallions which...only 1 army other than IG does that well - and it's tau. Tau can't take allies though (they don't have access to them) so nobody complain about them fueling soup.
So really - lets just focus on that. 500ish points of IG gets you more starting CP than most other armies 2000 point final product. Seems pretty unfair right? Well...it is.
Also on top of this - they also have the best ability to create CP in game per spent CP - with a free combo of relic and warlord trait. This is even more unfair.
What a bunch of uninspired people are suggesting to fix this problem that we remove CP regeneration from the game. Just go back to IG easily producing more base CP than everyone else. However every other army (I think 8 others have CP regen) also loses their regen (and it wasn't as good as the IG regen was to begin with). Somehow that is going to balance the game?
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Because it makes it pretty pointless to ally in IG anymore, and makes armies that have three roughly even factions really hard to play, and it still doesn't solve the problem of some factions not being able to generate CP very well.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Yeah. I think that's the best solution.
Kinda curious how all the tournament players claim this is "too much bookkeeping" while playing all those weird spreadsheet ITC/Nova missions, etc..
3 base CP should just be assigned the faction of your warlord and you're done.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Because it makes it pretty pointless to ally in IG anymore, and makes armies that have three roughly even factions really hard to play, and it still doesn't solve the problem of some factions not being able to generate CP very well.
No point are you kidding? 4 point screens that have orders and 5+ saves? Artillery? These things are generally useful. People were taking imperial guard before farming CP was a thing, because they're incredibly useful in shutting off assault. Even if you get 0 CP, small footprint armies like Custodes and Knights still want to patch their holes with Guard.
Because it makes it pretty pointless to ally in IG anymore, and makes armies that have three roughly even factions really hard to play, and it still doesn't solve the problem of some factions not being able to generate CP very well.
Well, alternatively just make all CP regen non-matched play only. For matched-play and tournament, everyone gets, dunno, 10 CP flat, no regen. Done. Doesn't get more balanced than that for the variant of 40K that plays more towards the "test your skill/e-sport" angle than the background angle.
Marmatag wrote: What problem are you even trying to solve with this? The entire game shouldn't be revamped because of imperial guard.
Double battalion has a hefty tax if you aren't imperial guard.
And so does a brigade.
The problem isn't that you take a lower batt/brigade to improve your own cp, the problem is that it can be accomplished for nothing. And that's primarily in 1 faction.
Tau have access to dirt cheap battalions. Do we need to nerf Tau?
I'm trying to solve all the games problems with a simple fix. using a simple approach - fairness.
Tau wont be nerfed by this - armies taking allies will be punished - while tau can will start the game with 15 CP. Only 2 less than their typical build would start with now.
As pointed out above - the soup list with a Castellan and BA batallion and IG bridage is suffering a -5 CP penalty from the 15 base they start with. Tau will have +5 CP on that army. It is a big deal.
Nids for example - the power they can get out of a single batallion is freaking huge.
3 FHT
3 Hive Guard units
and 9 carnifex.
Pretty sure nids will be able to start with 15 CP most of the time without sacrificing unit quality. In fact I see this as a buff to nids because nid troops are pretty much garbage. My nid armies are starting with 9 ATM...Yeah...it sucks.
You actually have nerfed a number of Tau builds with this rule.
Your trying to over engineer a solution when it's obvious the issue isn't CP regen in general its Astra Millicheese CP recycling plant.
You've also still screwed Assasins and Sisters of silence hardcore.
P.S. who cares if mono Guard generate CP for less points, you make it so that armies loose battle forged CP to add guard.
Which also helps with Choas and Aeldari.
If the 3 CP isn't enough of a deterrent just add CP to that and reduce battalions and Brigades.
"Your trying to over engineer a solution when it's obvious the issue isn't CP regen in general its Astra Millicheese CP recycling plant."
You must see beyond the specific problem you are thinking about and look overall at the problem.
Armies need CP to function - they do not have access to equal ability to get them. This is an inherent flaw in the system.
Custodes for example have a min battalion of like 650ish points while IG can make a battalion for 180 points. This would make sense if there were some sort of link between CP power and ability to create CP - BUT THERE ISN'T. So any solution to the problem has to start here.
The next problem is that allies can give CP to allied armies. This creates a situation where allies are essential to run certain armies. This is inherently flawed because you should be able to run any army you want right out of your own codex. Allies should be an option but not a requirement. So any solution that uses allies as a crutch is also a failure.
Alternatively suggestions have been made that suggest CP/stratagems should only be available to your warlords faction. This is a failure because it completely kills allies - you should be able to take allies if you want - it should just not be autoinclude or a requirement to run your army. Allies give you the benifit of taking the best possible unit for a role that your base army lacks - in turn it should also have a negative associated with it.
From these three lines of thought - we (my good 40k buddy IRL) came to this solution. It solves all these problems simultaneously. Without forcing you to build your army any particular way. With every build available in the previous system still being potentially viable. The only place this system is weak - is with the current power level/ access to stratagems area of things. This might require balancing - IDK.
If it turns out IK starting with 15 CP is too much...we will increase the cost of their stratagems. Same thing with an army like custodes. Or any stratagem that is over-performing. Problem is right now we have no real metric to establish stratagem balance because all armies have unequal access to command points. This will fix that.
Ice_can wrote: What exactly are you guys trying to achieve now as this is going into changes that are borderline 8.5 edition.
Once Guard CP generation has been addressed/removed CP isn't why people are souping.
It's strategums, units and psykic powers, you can't address those directly but you can just put in a CP counter. Does it realy matter which detachment people take for allies?
Why are you trying to force people into mono subfaction of mono codex's?
Isnt the current thing to dump CP into relics? the whole thing about IG is that you can make a ton of CP, get a butt load of relics and still have more left over for other strats AND generate more.
going by the last few even lists at least.
i guess a fix might be to only allow you to buy relics for your primary detachment or lock stratagems to specific detachments so that you cant max out relics if you want to use some specific other strat.
but some one some where will complain about any changes eh?
Well the problem is more complicated than that. Yeah - that is what is happening. There is more than one problem though.
IG have the absolutely cheapest battalion and brigade. They offer a huge chunk of CP to start with. Basically with 500 points of IG in your army - you have more starting CP than most complete 2000 point armies. Unless they are spamming batallions which...only 1 army other than IG does that well - and it's tau. Tau can't take allies though (they don't have access to them) so nobody complain about them fueling soup.
So really - lets just focus on that. 500ish points of IG gets you more starting CP than most other armies 2000 point final product. Seems pretty unfair right? Well...it is.
Also on top of this - they also have the best ability to create CP in game per spent CP - with a free combo of relic and warlord trait. This is even more unfair.
What a bunch of uninspired people are suggesting to fix this problem that we remove CP regeneration from the game. Just go back to IG easily producing more base CP than everyone else. However every other army (I think 8 others have CP regen) also loses their regen (and it wasn't as good as the IG regen was to begin with). Somehow that is going to balance the game?
Your going to have to provide a bit more of a detailed list of what each detachment costs and which armies get to side step some of those costs.
SoS can only ever be taken in vanguard detachments even in a pure list.
Knights are superheavy or superheavy auxiliary but if a superheavy is 0 CP guard would still be better placed.
How do Primarchs fit in to this structure to?
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Because it makes it pretty pointless to ally in IG anymore, and makes armies that have three roughly even factions really hard to play, and it still doesn't solve the problem of some factions not being able to generate CP very well.
How so. you still have an ass load of bodies, decently strong options for cheap shooting. from what i recall decent double shot tank options for specific regis, only thing i dont know is what you would use those CP for.
also who cares if you cant generate more CP on some armies. yall ever thing you should be able to play the game without using CP as such a crutch? or that not all armies should have to use them as a crutch.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Marmatag wrote: No, adjusting imperial guard has to be the starting point, for any of these solutions.
Then, you need to adjust soup.
You need to adjust soup before touching any armies.
End of story.
Any disagreement on that note is you just wanting to nerf one army.
You're both wrong. There are multiple codexes with units that are over-performing, all of which need to be addressed as well as soup and CP. See my post at the top of this page.
Because it makes it pretty pointless to ally in IG anymore, and makes armies that have three roughly even factions really hard to play, and it still doesn't solve the problem of some factions not being able to generate CP very well.
Well, alternatively just make all CP regen non-matched play only. For matched-play and tournament, everyone gets, dunno, 10 CP flat, no regen. Done. Doesn't get more balanced than that for the variant of 40K that plays more towards the "test your skill/e-sport" angle than the background angle.
So screw everyone with a fixed CP regen warlord trait then? Nice to see a well though out and all impacts considered arguments being made.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Xenomancers wrote: [
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Well, not sure if it "kills" them, but isn't that kinda the point. Competitively, people use allies to cover the weakspots of respective armies. You don't ally Blood Angels artillery with Imperial Guard Smash-Characters after all. So their needs to be a balancing downside of some sort to be, literally, balanced compared to a mono-list army that does not cover it's inherent weakness with an ally. Less fungible CP and a risk of losing them might fit the bill.
It even makes thematic sense, of a sort, as commanding a more diverse force of Marines, Knights and Guardsman, say, should be harder and less intuitive than a "mono force" that's trained together forever.
Marmatag wrote: No, adjusting imperial guard has to be the starting point, for any of these solutions.
Then, you need to adjust soup.
I disagree. The only thing wrong with the CP regen abilities is them stacking.
If you remove that, the next biggest issue becomes some factions having access to way too many CP for the points you pay for them.
Once you fix that, the issue becomes it's always better to have more factions vs only one.
Once you fix that, you can balance the individual factions.
I agree with you CP stacking needs to be addressed. The proposed everyone starts with 15 cp and takes negatives based on army comp removed these other issues.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Because it makes it pretty pointless to ally in IG anymore, and makes armies that have three roughly even factions really hard to play, and it still doesn't solve the problem of some factions not being able to generate CP very well.
How so. you still have an ass load of bodies, decently strong options for cheap shooting. from what i recall decent double shot tank options for specific regis, only thing i dont know is what you would use those CP for.
also who cares if you cant generate more CP on some armies. yall ever thing you should be able to play the game without using CP as such a crutch? or that not armies should have to use them as a crutch.
It's just overly restrictive for no reason when better solutions clearly exist, and it handicaps most soup lists a lot, which shouldn't be anyone's goal.
There isn't anything wrong with blood angels units in a guard army bring as effective as they are in a BA army. But there is something wrong guard giving BA way more CP than normal. If a BA army would always have more or similar CP to a IG+BA army, this problem would be solved.
Xenomancers wrote: [
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Well, not sure if it "kills" them, but isn't that kinda the point. Competitively, people use allies to cover the weakspots of respective armies. You don't ally Blood Angels artillery with Imperial Guard Smash-Characters after all. So their needs to be a balancing downside of some sort to be, literally, balanced compared to a mono-list army that does not cover it's inherent weakness with an ally. Less fungible CP and a risk of losing them might fit the bill.
It even makes thematic sense, of a sort, as commanding a more diverse force of Marines, Knights and Guardsman, say, should be harder and less intuitive than a "mono force" that's trained together forever.
Think about it from a business sense for GW. Allies make them money - the solution has to not crush allies.
Marmatag wrote: No, adjusting imperial guard has to be the starting point, for any of these solutions.
Then, you need to adjust soup.
I disagree. The only thing wrong with the CP regen abilities is them stacking.
If you remove that, the next biggest issue becomes some factions having access to way too many CP for the points you pay for them.
Once you fix that, the issue becomes it's always better to have more factions vs only one.
Once you fix that, you can balance the individual factions.
I agree with you CP stacking needs to be addressed. The proposed everyone starts with 15 cp and takes negatives based on army comp removed these other issues.
Yeah I'm 100% on board with your system.
The only reason I mentioned an alternate (cap CP at 12-15) is because it would be an easier bandaid until they can redo the system and it would work almost as well.
It's just overly restrictive for no reason when better solutions clearly exist, and it handicaps most soup lists a lot, which shouldn't be anyone's goal.
There isn't anything wrong with blood angels units in a guard army bring as effective as they are in a BA army. But there is something wrong guard giving BA way more CP than normal. If a BA army would always have more or similar CP to a IG+BA army, this problem would be solved.
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
you can still ally. you still get the benefits of body and fire power. you just cant abuse CP.
literally one of the simplest fixes before out right banning allies.
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.
Its also an issue as different armies have varying levels of power when it comes to actual usable strats. which.... well i dont have Xenos so i cant really say.
seriously though question. what are the most common strats used for each faction?
But handicapping soup is the point. its literally the top everything. and the biggest abuse point of it is the CP sharing.
CP sharing is only an issue because different factions are so ludicrously varied in their ability to generate CP. In Xeno's system this issue really does not exist.
Even just Imperial Guard, ignoring soup, the CP farming warlord trait and relic are clearly not balanced vis-a-vis the other warlord traits and relics and would need a balancing until you see all traits/relics roughly equally in Guard lists/detachments across tournaments.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
This is basically impossible to meaningfully interpret from the results given the volume of Guard that made up the top lists in a soup capacity. It's possible the Castellan is just that much better than what the Guard can bring, but its just as likely that its a smaller improvement but enough for top players to gravitate towards. Honestly, any one player's results are subject to a lot of specifics. You need to see where their wins and losses came from and rule out things like "well, its just worse than the Knight version". Even when it comes to trending, I don't really like to dig much deeper than Top 8 to look for successful trends unless I'm going to get into the nitty gritty on matchup performances and other specific stats.
I agree with there being a set amount of cp based on points level then "paying" for each detachment if its not part of the primary armies codex.
Makes sense and encourges less soup. Cp regen could then be tied to specific armies, i.e. make the ig one work for ig strats only. Wont address overpowered units, but does address cp abuse, and people trying to cobble stuff together to best abuse the system
Even when it comes to trending, I don't really like to dig much deeper than Top 8 to look for successful trends unless I'm going to get into the nitty gritty on matchup performances and other specific stats.
That's pretty silly. There're easily tens of millions of possible army lists. You can pretty much guarantee that the top 100.000 lists in the ITC make up less than the Top 1% of lists, power-wise. Proper balancing would probably need nerfs to the top 30% of all 40K, probably more lists than even register for ITC in a single year (and a boost to just as many lists at the bottom end of the power scale).
I like your solution Xeno, it definitely needs to be hammered around the edges to cater to certain specific scenarios, but the idea itself seems solid to me.
Things to look out for:
-Units like Assassins or Sisters of Silence, or Legion of the Damned - units who can only be allied in, and really can't fill out a detachment. These types of units may need some small special rule noting that an allied detachment of one of them does not remove CP.
-Units like Tau Commanders, who are currently limited to 1 per detachment. Unless you want to roleplay infighting between 2 or 3 Commanders all gunning for the glory, it would probably be pretty unfun losing CP to take them.
Overall though, I like the idea, and it is fairly easy to scale - if it turns out one number is too much, or too little, the number can just be altered, rather than rejiggering everything.
Even when it comes to trending, I don't really like to dig much deeper than Top 8 to look for successful trends unless I'm going to get into the nitty gritty on matchup performances and other specific stats.
That's pretty silly. There're easily tens of millions of possible army lists. You can pretty much guarantee that the top 100.000 lists in the ITC make up less than the Top 1% of lists, power-wise. Proper balancing would probably need nerfs to the top 30% of all 40K, probably more lists than even register for ITC in a single year (and a boost to just as many lists at the bottom end of the power scale).
Aiming for perfect balance is a pipe dream, even for a game with a tenth of the options 40k has. The best you can hope is that each faction can find a place in the meta. Honestly, as diverse as 40k is it would be a miracle if every Codex made an appearance as a part single list of the top 8 across something like 5 major tournaments. The idea that every possible list is somehow viable is beyond even the best game designers. Also, there's just not that much to learn from things at the bottom of the tournament. Someone has to lose after all. I'd not be at all surprised to learn there's a dozen or more Castellans with Guard in the bottom third of Nova. Their lists might even be exactly the same as what's on top. It's just not a place where you get much in terms of meaningful data about model balance.
Marmatag wrote: No, adjusting imperial guard has to be the starting point, for any of these solutions.
Then, you need to adjust soup.
I disagree. The only thing wrong with the CP regen abilities is them stacking.
If you remove that, the next biggest issue becomes some factions having access to way too many CP for the points you pay for them.
Once you fix that, the issue becomes it's always better to have more factions vs only one.
Once you fix that, you can balance the individual factions.
I agree with you CP stacking needs to be addressed. The proposed everyone starts with 15 cp and takes negatives based on army comp removed these other issues.
Yeah I'm 100% on board with your system.
The only reason I mentioned an alternate (cap CP at 12-15) is because it would be an easier bandaid until they can redo the system and it would work almost as well.
I've been testing with 15 - it's felt right. What about a stratagem per turn limit in match play? What should be the limit per player? 3?4?
Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
I have conceded that with my system it's obvious weakness is for armies like knights and custodians - their stratagems are REALLY strong because they affect 500+ point units sometimes plus they are just good. It's best to just increase the cost of those strats. Also I think the RIS should be maxed at 4++. 3++ is just bonkers. really 4++ knight is also bonkers.
Zid wrote: I agree with there being a set amount of cp based on points level then "paying" for each detachment if its not part of the primary armies codex.
Makes sense and encourges less soup. Cp regen could then be tied to specific armies, i.e. make the ig one work for ig strats only. Wont address overpowered units, but does address cp abuse, and people trying to cobble stuff together to best abuse the system
I would love to be able to use Deathwatch under a system like that. They don't have cheap HQ units, so being able to get six to eight units of troops with just a couple of HQ dudes would be wonderful.
I played a really strong tau list with 3 commanders tons of firewarriors and 3 ionheads with 1 being long strike. Plus stealth suits broadsides and markers drones with a drone controller. VS an admech list with a knight crusder and the standard other stuff for a gunline.
Turn 1 he went first and blew up longstrike (totally expected) but that was about all I lost. When I went. I did only 21 wounds to the knight with about half my army. Focusing him and I killed 2 destroyer plasma squads. With 3++ save and 6+fnp he was impossible to kill. His knight was in a weird position though with only 3 wounds and unable to charge my tau sept hammer heads and a commander with 4x CIB or risk death from overwatch so from there on out he basically just sat next to my hammerheads shooting me while I put -1 to hit on him. It made no sense to shoot him dead though because he has about 75% chance to stand right back up and act as normal with stratagems. He bounced the commander for 2 straight turns though (yes it was lucky but 3++ makes that possible). 3++ knights needs to die a horrible death.
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
Zid wrote: I agree with there being a set amount of cp based on points level then "paying" for each detachment if its not part of the primary armies codex.
Makes sense and encourges less soup. Cp regen could then be tied to specific armies, i.e. make the ig one work for ig strats only. Wont address overpowered units, but does address cp abuse, and people trying to cobble stuff together to best abuse the system
I would love to be able to use Deathwatch under a system like that. They don't have cheap HQ units, so being able to get six to eight units of troops with just a couple of HQ dudes would be wonderful.
It is the space marine plauge. Heros are all expensive and being forced to take 4 of them to get meaningful CP means your firepower is trash. Plus - they are all pretty redundant outside of your first 2.
I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
With my system a knight lance gets -0. At the time we created it though a knight lance required 3 Questoris knights to function. Since it no longer does maybe they require a -3. Open to suggestions here. Knights are kind of a weird army you know?
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
Interestingly, mono guard is actually going to be pretty bad until eldar are nerfed, since they really can't handle -2 to hit.
SHUPPET wrote: I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.
How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
Wait so what you are saying is IG alone already does well so allying them without the full benefit of having cp wouldnt be that bad? (that was the point of what i was saying in the first place mate)
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
With my system a knight lance gets -0. At the time we created it though a knight lance required 3 Questoris knights to function. Since it no longer does maybe they require a -3. Open to suggestions here. Knights are kind of a weird army you know?
The most knights can get right now is 12. If the SHD is -2, you could fit all your knights into one for 13, or take two in order to mix house traits and have 11. Seems okay to me.
If certain strats are too good, just make them cost more IMO.
its literally one of the biggest problem right now is using allies as a battery to fuel other stratagems. going by what is top 8ting.
like riddle me this. what would a 500 point IG brigade do with all the CP they can eat but cant hand them out to anyone else. what is worth casting for that army?
if you lock it down, people will be using IG less and less for their battery potential but can still run them for other things.
(my suggestion was to lock all CP to their own respective factions. 200 CP from IG will never touch a Blood angles captains shiny relic. anything that regens will only effect their own dice pool. the free base CP would need to be fixed or only function on the 3 base strats)
Humm - IG certainly do better at giving CP to other armies - but they aren't space marine levels of bad here. They have good enough stratagems for their having more CP is still a real issue because their units are also better. For example they can give +1 armor to a unit on demand (has a similar benifit to eldar -1 to hit). They can also get +1 to hit against a single target for their whole army...that is really good too (comparable to the tau +1w stratagem). They also have a host of other things to dump CP into....like outflanking russes or shadowswords. Like - a lot of these armies were popular when the gaurd codex came out but before other armies came out that gave them better options. The IG armies were winning then and they are still winning now. Not much has changed except soup has made IG even better than before.
Restricting CP to the detachment that created them kills allies.
Imagine - your detachment of BA is all dead but didn't spend their CP (that is just wasted CP). Now Imagine you really need more CP for you BA captain but you can't because you have 20 CP on your imperial gaurd pool...it just doesn't work. It will kill allies if you do something like that. Which I am actually fine with that - I am just trying to make a solution that makes everyone happy. I would love to go back to mono armies.
Winning before.... i dont recall i know IG was strong but i could of sworn some one brough up that pure IG was pretty low on the list.
as for killing allies.... seriously you guys IG Still have a lot of good things to do that fill out a lot of problems for other armies.
Solo IG is extremely high on the list in terms of successful solo armies, which is absurd because there is almost no reason to bring it solo, so it would be even higher if nobody was taking allies. Sounds like you've just been reading what you want to read.
Interestingly, mono guard is actually going to be pretty bad until eldar are nerfed, since they really can't handle -2 to hit.
I agree. We are in a situation where mono guard are like where riptide wings used to be. Riptide wings absolutely dominate anything but a super death star with invisibility. In this scenario Eldar are the super deathstar that requires 6's to hit. If we were in 7th ed right now - my suggestion would be to nerf invisibility and also nerf riptide wing to cost additional points and nerf drone net at the same time. It's literally the same kind of situation. 1 army has unreasonable firepower and 1 army is practically immune to firepower.
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Knights with 15 CP are flat broken. This is a consequence of unrestricted souping, and it should change.
I hate the idea of a limit such as X stratagems per turn per player. These are bandaid fixes to the core problem: armies simply have too much CP to use, because they can generate it effortlessly with allies.
If the SHAux cost -1 and the SHD cost -2 they would normally be at about 11 which is one less than they can get now. With no regen it's not hard to use 11 CP pretty quickly as knights. The typical Raven Castellan uses 7 a turn.
With my system a knight lance gets -0. At the time we created it though a knight lance required 3 Questoris knights to function. Since it no longer does maybe they require a -3. Open to suggestions here. Knights are kind of a weird army you know?
The most knights can get right now is 12. If the SHD is -2, you could fit all your knights into one for 13, or take two in order to mix house traits and have 11. Seems okay to me.
If certain strats are too good, just make them cost more IMO.
Good place to start I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also important to look at things reasonably.
The typical knight in this winning type list does spend that much CP. It is only like that because they have unlimited CP though. Going to a 3++ is not always necessary - no is shooting a missle at a character for 2 CP (that missile also wrecks basically everything) I mean...with CP farming you spend Cp because it might gain you CP...hard to believe this wasn't nerfed by TO...TO are not doing their friggen jobs man. If something is so obviously broken as that...fix it. I paly a lot of knights and without undless CP - 3 CP is too much to spend on your castellan to get +1 invo. If that is nerfed I think we'd just start seeing Taranis knights instead of Raven knights. Which trust me - are an equally problematic unit and they don't need endless CP to be indestructible - they just need your average amount.
SHUPPET wrote: I think it's a great system too. I think it's a good way to add costs to allies too instead of them being Scot free, by making allied detachment cost an extra CP or two, but not impacting the stratas they can use. So it's a solve for allies that tones them but doesn't kill them. However - it doesn't address the other issue at hand which is CP Regen. That being said, the issue is pretty easily fixed - just say CP cannot be regenerated in matched play. These two fixes would be great and simple.
How about we just limit it to one source? "Only 1 ability that regerenates/refunds/or creates command points in any way can be used per turn"
CP regen isn't that powerful if it doesn't stack and only works on <faction> abilities. If you have 15 starting CP, and blow 6 on the rulebook strats, you'll get 3 back from the IG warlord on the other 9. If your enemy uses 9 strats of their own over the course of the game, you'll get 3 of those back. You'll then get 2 more out of the 6 you've gotten back and average about 23 over the course of the game.
That's good, but it's not game breaking in a mono IG list. If you brought allies, their strategems would not regen for you so you'd get a lot less
stuff they have done, I'm just trying to point out that is people expect soup to be removed from the game, they are probably going to be in for a disappointment.
