Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
I certainly agree that is the intent, but the execution is not quite right. Troops also get ObSec, which has its own value.
So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
8E's original 3CPs for a Battalion is far closer to what it SHOULD be. Outriders/Spearheads/Vanguard then being 1CP don't seem so trash in comparison.
Taking Battalions/Brigades back down to 3/9CPs and changing Battle Forge to 5CPs would go a long way to rebalancing Soup (not completely fixed, but the gap won't be so wide between Soup and mono-faction lists).
Do that simple change and then give some reward to Monofaction lists and now Soup really won't be that bad.
And as I have stated many times, I think the best way to boost monofactions would be to give additional CPs to detachments that share 2+ keyword with your WL
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered?
The weakness is supposed to be lack of mobility. IG are an unstoppable force that can overwhelm anything with sheer volume of dice and bodies, but they're slow to apply that force and are easily outmaneuvered by faster armies. An IG player who screws up their positioning or makes the wrong call on which objectives to go for can find themselves thoroughly camped on their deployment zone but unable to do much besides keep those objectives 100% secure and hope for a stray Basilisk shot to finish off the enemy unit claiming something on the other side of the table. That's why the few fast IG units are either aircraft (which can't score at all) or one-shot suicide weapons (storm troopers) that are really just a Basilisk shot on round bases. But 8th edition has two problems with this theory:
1) Lack of a reasonable LOS system. If nothing blocks LOS then gunlines are too good and a lack of mobility doesn't really matter. There's nowhere to hide an objective camping unit, so who cares if you're out of position? Just declare a target on the other side of the table and kill it with no penalty.
2) Soup giving IG units they aren't supposed to have. Suffering from a lack of fast units that can wreck stuff in the inevitable melee combat that happens when you move up to claim objectives? No problem, just ally in some jetbikes or a melee knight.
Fix both of these things and IG are much less of a problem.
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered?
The weakness is supposed to be lack of mobility. IG are an unstoppable force that can overwhelm anything with sheer volume of dice and bodies, but they're slow to apply that force and are easily outmaneuvered by faster armies. An IG player who screws up their positioning or makes the wrong call on which objectives to go for can find themselves thoroughly camped on their deployment zone but unable to do much besides keep those objectives 100% secure and hope for a stray Basilisk shot to finish off the enemy unit claiming something on the other side of the table. That's why the few fast IG units are either aircraft (which can't score at all) or one-shot suicide weapons (storm troopers) that are really just a Basilisk shot on round bases. But 8th edition has two problems with this theory:
1) Lack of a reasonable LOS system. If nothing blocks LOS then gunlines are too good and a lack of mobility doesn't really matter. There's nowhere to hide an objective camping unit, so who cares if you're out of position? Just declare a target on the other side of the table and kill it with no penalty.
2) Soup giving IG units they aren't supposed to have. Suffering from a lack of fast units that can wreck stuff in the inevitable melee combat that happens when you move up to claim objectives? No problem, just ally in some jetbikes or a melee knight.
Fix both of these things and IG are much less of a problem.
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
Don’t be thinking about nerfing Militarum Tempestus! Militarum Tempestus can be its own Astra Militarum army, just with a radically different playstyle than that of a Guard army.
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
Let's be clear here:
"Rough Riders" are an Index unit and are just "okay".
It's the Death Riders from the DKoK list that we keep seeing make an appearance.
Additionally, Scions are almost exclusively used as kamikaze units. If you do anything to make them not fill that role, I'd be happy.
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
Let's be clear here:
"Rough Riders" are an Index unit and are just "okay".
It's the Death Riders from the DKoK list that we keep seeing make an appearance.
Additionally, Scions are almost exclusively used as kamikaze units. If you do anything to make them not fill that role, I'd be happy.
Not Online!!! wrote: Morale however does rarely play a factor because msuIG squad spam.
When you say "msuIG squad spam", are you just referring to "taking Infantry Squads"?
They usually are, yeah.
Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
It's ignorance like suggesting 4th edition Necrons had limited mobility. If you made the army on purpose to not have mobility, maybe...
I personally feel that saying that DKoK(a specific Regimental army list) having mobility is kind of a copout. The same thing goes for an Index unit that hasn't had models for two editions.
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 5 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes!
2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes!
3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
Perhaps something which would prevent the sharing of CP between armies? Use similar rules to Battle Brothers so that you have to share a (non-Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids) keyword in order to use CP generated by another detachment.
This solution has been proposed many times. The issue then becomes one of book keeping and it makes the benefits of the special detachments (e.g. Spearhead, Outrider, etc.) pointless. It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Perhaps in addition to going back to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade they add another part to Battle Brothers where the player has to pay CP's to add Faction Keywords to their army.
Kanluwen wrote: I personally feel that saying that DKoK(a specific Regimental army list) having mobility is kind of a copout. The same thing goes for an Index unit that hasn't had models for two editions.
It's not really relevant for most people.
Yeah because NOBODY owns any Rough Riders whatsoever and nobody is using any Index options.
Kanluwen wrote: I personally feel that saying that DKoK(a specific Regimental army list) having mobility is kind of a copout. The same thing goes for an Index unit that hasn't had models for two editions.
It's not really relevant for most people.
Yeah because NOBODY owns any Rough Riders whatsoever and nobody is using any Index options.
Get a grip.
I own 0 Rough Riders. I never needed them before and never wanted them. I own 0 Death Riders as well, because I don't play DKoK.
The only "Index" options I use come from the FW Index, and that is:
Rapier Laser Destroyer
Tarantula Sentry Guns with Heavy Bolters
Crassus
Vulture with twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
But hypothetical question here:
Why don't tournaments just ban Index options if things like Rough Riders(which, again: we're really only seeing in DKoK versions of which have different rules to standard Rough Riders) are such a problem?
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 5 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes!
2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes!
3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
Perhaps something which would prevent the sharing of CP between armies? Use similar rules to Battle Brothers so that you have to share a (non-Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids) keyword in order to use CP generated by another detachment.
This solution has been proposed many times. The issue then becomes one of book keeping and it makes the benefits of the special detachments (e.g. Spearhead, Outrider, etc.) pointless. It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Perhaps in addition to going back to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade they add another part to Battle Brothers where the player has to pay CP's to add Faction Keywords to their army.
Yeah this always gets thrown around as an excuse but
1.keeping track of 3 CP pools is no harder than tracking the wounds on 3 tanks. If you can't handle that amount of bookkeeping you are playing the wrong game
2. Battle forged CP goes to your warlord detachment
a few others that always get used as an excuse
Q. What if i regen a CP A. whatever detachment the character or item that allowed it was in gains it
Q. what if i use a reroll
A. whatever detachment the reroll was being used on
Seriously though tracking cp is one of the lamest ways to discount that idea. Its as much work as saying "this land raider has taken 4 wound and this one has only taken 2"
oni wrote: It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
I mean, the simple solution is any detachment in the army can use those 3 points. They were generated by the entire army being battle forged, so they belong to the entire army. If GW doesn't like that idea, assigning them to the WL's detachment would make sense, too. That's not exactly a hard thing to decide.
oni wrote: It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
I mean, the simple solution is any detachment in the army can use those 3 points. They were generated by the entire army being battle forged, so they belong to the entire army. If GW doesn't like that idea, assigning them to the WL's detachment would make sense, too. That's not exactly a hard thing to decide.
A couple thoughts that have already been said:
1. To say that "allies have been around since second edition" is disingenuous, the game radically changed in 3rd. Furthermore, while I had allies for my Daemonhunters in 4th, it was extremely limited...there was an approved list of units in the codex I could add from Imperial guard or Space marines. That's not "allies" in the way we're talking about them now.
2. Allies can be fluffy. In previous editions, the way you saw this was in team games or special narrative events (in my experience).
Despite the good things that allies can bring to the game, ever since their introduction as a universal mechanic in 6th edition they have caused problems. The core premise of the codex-based army system has been that each army fits a theme and playstyle, with strengths and weaknesses. As soon as you can cherry-pick units though, that mechanic disapears. Allies do let you play inquisition or guard with space marines, but they have also spawned TauDar, Riptide Wing, CentStar, Superfriends, and Daemon-summoning space marines (with GK help). The point is that they have historically caused more harm than good, and even though Blood Angels+Necrons might seem vaguely fluffy many other combos are not, and allies have enabled a new wave of list-based tournament gaming which ruins both the competitive and casual scene alike.
There are solutions for those who want allies to stay, including rolling similar armies into the same codex or allowing limited souping from fluff-based alliances. But the current situation is bad for the game and the players.
For me, saying that Allies have caused problems since they have been introduced in the game is a non sequitur because everything that is introduced into the game causes problems.
Vehicles, Flyers, Super heavies, Special Characters, Stratagems, Sub-faction bonuses, Psychic Powers, all of those things add both problems and dept to the game, and Allies aren't different.
Of course nearly all of those previous things will have people that believe they should or shouldn't belong in W40K, just like Allies, but to put Allies as some special and diferent case is something I just don't think is right to do.
And I say this being a Imperium (As is, someone that play Imperium armies with detachment of different factions, Tempestus Scions, Sisters of Silence, Adeptus Custodes, Imperial Assasins and Imperial Knights in my case) player that wants to se further restrictions in soup and mix and max of detachments.
My favourite is, each sub-faction can only use his own CP and remove the generic +3CP, making those exclusive for armies where all detachments share the same sub-faction. And also change the three special detachments to give +2 CP instead of +1CP.
Galas wrote: For me, saying that Allies have caused problems since they have been introduced in the game is a non sequitur because everything that is introduced into the game causes problems.
Vehicles, Flyers, Super heavies, Special Characters, Stratagems, Sub-faction bonuses, Psychic Powers, all of those things add both problems and dept to the game, and Allies aren't different.
Vehicles and psychic powers have been around as long as some would have us believe allies have been, and while they have at times created issues (Rhino Rush, Parking Lot, Invisibility) the abuses were specific and more importantly lasted for at most an edition or so. TauDar dominated tournaments as soon as the 6th ed allies matrix dropped, and allies have had a negative impact ffrom then until now...in 8th edition. The time span may be shorter, but the core rules have changed alot in that time and Allies are still causing a problem. Allies aren't 100% bad, but they have thus far caused much more harm than good.
Galas wrote: For me, saying that Allies have caused problems since they have been introduced in the game is a non sequitur because everything that is introduced into the game causes problems.
Vehicles, Flyers, Super heavies, Special Characters, Stratagems, Sub-faction bonuses, Psychic Powers, all of those things add both problems and dept to the game, and Allies aren't different.
Vehicles and psychic powers have been around as long as some would have us believe allies have been, and while they have at times created issues (Rhino Rush, Parking Lot, Invisibility) the abuses were specific and more importantly lasted for at most an edition or so. TauDar dominated tournaments as soon as the 6th ed allies matrix dropped, and allies have had a negative impact ffrom then until now...in 8th edition. The time span may be shorter, but the core rules have changed alot in that time and Allies are still causing a problem. Allies aren't 100% bad, but they have thus far caused much more harm than good.
WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Really makes you think, huh? What's that again about allies causing more harm than good again?
No one has issues with vehicles these days. No one has OP psychic powers. But allies have been broken for 3 editions...and it’s not like “oh fix invisibility”. It’s a Hydra, as soon as you cut off one combo another appears. I’ve listed dominant lists from 3 different editions, with a variety of different units and combinations. You can’t just keep playing whack-a-mole with allies because the same hammer doesn’t work on the same unit in the different possible combos, unless you treat all the alliances as a single army and balance against that metric...but like it or not mono codex is still a major part of 40K and has been for most of the history of the game.
Sure, you can go Grand Alliance style, but that turns 40K into a list-optimization, broken-unit hunt game and not everyone benefits equally. This is before you factor in the rules bloat and ease of play factors, too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
And what excactly is the reason to go back to the old FOC? That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
And what excactly is the reason to go back to the old FOC? That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.
Good! A restricted experience is not inherently bad. Most of the problems we see in 40k over the past few editions are down to the removal of restrictions. The old FOC has a lot of advantages. It creates armies that actually look and feel like armies. At the recent LVO we had an Eldar army with 7 flyers, a Chaos army which was pretty much a whole bunch of monstrous Daemonic characters and other "armies" barely worthy of the name. A friend of mine who hasn't played much 40k this edition recently commented on a couple of games going on at our club, pointing out the stuff on the board didn't resemble anything like an army, and that really put him off getting back into the game. The FOC also gives you a defined structure to balance around and helps create balance by reigning in the power of some units via a hard cap on their numbers.
I think something similar to the old FOC, with the possibility of some restricted allied detachment alongside it would improve 40k hugely. It won't happen because the current army selection structure is designed to maximise profits rather than the gameplay experience.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
And what excactly is the reason to go back to the old FOC? That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.
Good! A restricted experience is not inherently bad. Most of the problems we see in 40k over the past few editions are down to the removal of restrictions. The old FOC has a lot of advantages. It creates armies that actually look and feel like armies. At the recent LVO we had an Eldar army with 7 flyers, a Chaos army which was pretty much a whole bunch of monstrous Daemonic characters and other "armies" barely worthy of the name. A friend of mine who hasn't played much 40k this edition recently commented on a couple of games going on at our club, pointing out the stuff on the board didn't resemble anything like an army, and that really put him off getting back into the game. The FOC also gives you a defined structure to balance around and helps create balance by reigning in the power of some units via a hard cap on their numbers.
I think something similar to the old FOC, with the possibility of some restricted allied detachment alongside it would improve 40k hugely. It won't happen because the current army selection structure is designed to maximise profits rather than the gameplay experience.
And needlessly complicates alot of problems, not to mention that troops go back to 2 and armies that can't field squadrons are going to have severly limited options.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
Also it would rephrase back to even more firepower.
greyknight12 wrote: No one has issues with vehicles these days. No one has OP psychic powers. But allies have been broken for 3 editions...and it’s not like “oh fix invisibility”. It’s a Hydra, as soon as you cut off one combo another appears. I’ve listed dominant lists from 3 different editions, with a variety of different units and combinations. You can’t just keep playing whack-a-mole with allies because the same hammer doesn’t work on the same unit in the different possible combos, unless you treat all the alliances as a single army and balance against that metric...but like it or not mono codex is still a major part of 40K and has been for most of the history of the game.
Sure, you can go Grand Alliance style, but that turns 40K into a list-optimization, broken-unit hunt game and not everyone benefits equally. This is before you factor in the rules bloat and ease of play factors, too.
So much that 7TH top lists were Decurion styles formations, Demon Summoning Circus and WK + Scatterbiker spam, none of which used allies AT ALL.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
What's the difference from the current state of the game?
Even more dead armies?
That's to say i am not fundamentaly opposed to just not allow soup.
The newly dead armies might actually profit from it.
7th edition was playable if neither you nor your opponent played Tau, Eldar or 3000 Points of Space Marines.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
What's the difference from the current state of the game?
Even more dead armies?
That's to say i am not fundamentaly opposed to just not allow soup.
The newly dead armies might actually profit from it.
7th edition was playable if neither you nor your opponent played Tau, Eldar or 3000 Points of Space Marines.
Or Demons
Or Necron Decurions
Or the new GSC
Sorry but no, 7th was the lowest point 40K ever had
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
What's the difference from the current state of the game?
Even more dead armies?
That's to say i am not fundamentaly opposed to just not allow soup.
The newly dead armies might actually profit from it.
7th edition was playable if neither you nor your opponent played Tau, Eldar or 3000 Points of Space Marines.
Or Demons
Or Necron Decurions
Or the new GSC
Sorry but no, 7th was the lowest point 40K ever had
That still leaves half of the existing armies, which could fight each other on more or less even ground.
Of course having 2 tiers of armies isn't what we should aim for, but it worked out somehow.
But it certainly is better than the current state, where some armies only work because they can be built as an anti-meta army. Because that means that you have to buy new units every time GW nerfs the top dog.
Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.
Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.
8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.
Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.
Tyel wrote: 7th didn't have two tiers. It had a ladder.
Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.
Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.
8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.
Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.
Yeah I got to be honest, Orkz were at an immediate disadvantage in 7th versus basically every other army, with Chaos and Nidz being our best opponents to play against, but only if Nidz didn't spam Flyrants, because there was basically feth all orkz could do Vs. Flyrants besides die in droves.
Tyel wrote: 7th didn't have two tiers. It had a ladder.
Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.
Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.
8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.
Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.
Yeah I got to be honest, Orkz were at an immediate disadvantage in 7th versus basically every other army, with Chaos and Nidz being our best opponents to play against, but only if Nidz didn't spam Flyrants, because there was basically feth all orkz could do Vs. Flyrants besides die in droves.
The FOC and no soup capability just leads to the more unbalanced mono armies making the top ranks out under themselves, whilest soup (even though it is problematic imo) leads to atleast more armies having something that is seen in the higher tables.
It gives the illusion that certain codecies work, even though they basically just add 1 -2 units to an army.
greyknight12 wrote: No one has issues with vehicles these days. No one has OP psychic powers. But allies have been broken for 3 editions...and it’s not like “oh fix invisibility”. It’s a Hydra, as soon as you cut off one combo another appears. I’ve listed dominant lists from 3 different editions, with a variety of different units and combinations. You can’t just keep playing whack-a-mole with allies because the same hammer doesn’t work on the same unit in the different possible combos, unless you treat all the alliances as a single army and balance against that metric...but like it or not mono codex is still a major part of 40K and has been for most of the history of the game.
Sure, you can go Grand Alliance style, but that turns 40K into a list-optimization, broken-unit hunt game and not everyone benefits equally. This is before you factor in the rules bloat and ease of play factors, too.
So much that 7TH top lists were Decurion styles formations, Demon Summoning Circus and WK + Scatterbiker spam, none of which used allies AT ALL.
To an extent this is correct. Sometimes they did still pop up (mostly just Centurionstar and Wolfstar), but otherwise the topping armies were mostly pure. In that sense, 7th was good at that.
The method of doing so was really bad though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: 7th didn't have two tiers. It had a ladder.
Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.
Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.
8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.
Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.
Necrons are the opposite of slow. This is a giant misconception.
The firepower issue is the problem. Gauss is only effective vs higher point models, and a bunch of free HP3 vehicles is bad news. Then there was the fact the only time Objective Secured was worth anything, in which Eldar and Tau didn't need formations to make their troops function. Sure vs the lower armies you didn't need it, until CSM got their Legion supplement. After that, Necrons sank lower.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
Those things are only weaknesses as long as the models remain bad. In this sense, are you saying it's good for certain models to remain bad?
Also Khorne as an army isn't actually terrible at shooting. Between Skull Cannons, Obliterators, Havocs, Forgefiends, cheap Helbrutes, Crimson Crown affecting shooting, etc., they can easily support their melee element.
So my next question is should these units be toned down the moment they are marked for Khorne?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you talk about vehicles not being inherently broken, but the editions of them being too good and too powerful say otherwise.
You're complaining about external balance when you say you can pick and choose the best units from each codex. That's because those are problem units. They shouldn't be broken when they're used in pure armies in the first place, so why not fix them instead of complaining about allies so you can keep your broken units?
No more allies, no more spamming non-troops units and ignoring the core of your army, enforcing more balance in list design.
That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.
Restrictions are a good thing. Some options are bad for the game and should be taken away, and part of the skill element is being able to win despite not being able to abuse whatever hypothetical list you can come up with if you ignore all restrictions.
Not a problem. The limits on non-troops units (0-3 slots, can not claim objectives) force you to take more than two anyway in all but the smallest games, and with only one detachment allowed there's no more CP farming with minimum-strength detachments.
and armies that can't field squadrons are going to have severly limited options.
Limits are the entire point. You can't just pick the best unit from a codex and spam it up to the point limit, you have to find multiple options and spend a lot of your points on basic troops.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
Then fix the balance of those armies. They're already broken if they depend on soup and spamming non-troops units, the ability to bring them as a soup component just covers up the poor design.
Also it would rephrase back to even more firepower.
Hardly. Remember, there's a 0-3 limit on all of your biggest guns and if you take nothing but firepower you're going to struggle to control objectives and win the game.
Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...
I would be fine with removing vehicle squadrons entirely, or at least re-imposing the old 5th edition restrictions where squadrons had to act as a single unit instead of being multiple independent units taken in a single slot. And yes, tank commanders would let you take an additional two LRBTs, but remember that HQ slots are a 1-2 choice for your entire army. Taking those tank commanders would mean not having any company commanders issuing FRFSRF to your infantry squads, and suddenly the amazing efficiency of guardsmen looks a lot less impressive.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...
Huray, also what are knights f.e and ynnari going to do?
Die off?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...
I would be fine with removing vehicle squadrons entirely, or at least re-imposing the old 5th edition restrictions where squadrons had to act as a single unit instead of being multiple independent units taken in a single slot. And yes, tank commanders would let you take an additional two LRBTs, but remember that HQ slots are a 1-2 choice for your entire army. Taking those tank commanders would mean not having any company commanders issuing FRFSRF to your infantry squads, and suddenly the amazing efficiency of guardsmen looks a lot less impressive.
Mhm and nobody ever would use a leman russ, not to mention that the squadron rules were utter gak.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...
I would be fine with removing vehicle squadrons entirely, or at least re-imposing the old 5th edition restrictions where squadrons had to act as a single unit instead of being multiple independent units taken in a single slot. And yes, tank commanders would let you take an additional two LRBTs, but remember that HQ slots are a 1-2 choice for your entire army. Taking those tank commanders would mean not having any company commanders issuing FRFSRF to your infantry squads, and suddenly the amazing efficiency of guardsmen looks a lot less impressive.
Mhm and nobody ever would use a leman russ, not to mention that the squadron rules were utter gak.
You're talking about a specific set of problems that would need to be revisited if the old FOC is reintroduced. Nobody's pretending you can just replace all the current detachments with the old FOC and call it done. You still need to look at the balance of individual units and probably look at various other rules around army selection too. All these specific examples you keep brining up are completely missing the point that the old FOC imposes balance through restricting options and forcing players to take something that actually resembles an army. Once you have a basic, fixed framework in place balance is much easier to achieve.
Not Online!!! wrote: Huray, also what are knights f.e and ynnari going to do?
Die off?
Both were idiotic ideas and should die. I won't miss them.
Mhm and nobody ever would use a leman russ, not to mention that the squadron rules were utter gak.
Counter-argument: plenty of people took LRBTs in 5th edition, and plenty of people take single LRBTs (which would not be hurt by the loss of squadron rules) in 8th.
Fun diverse factions means asymmetry. Allowing a competitive player to tailor an army across multiple factions means maxing out on overpowered units that aren't overpowered in their intended context. No brainer right?
Analogy time: lets take this back to chess since that comes us enough. Knights play chess with the king having the same moveset as the queen. Guard play with pawns able to give sideways one square. Craftworlds replace 2 pawns with rooks, drukhari replace 2 pawns with bishops, harlies replace 2 pawns with knights. Mono faction there is a lot going on but it's maybe balanced enough, combine all these specials at no penalty and things get soupy fast.
40K isn't quite that drastic, but the principle applies. I'm not allowed to play Eldar with T'au because it's supposedly too powerful to give an army that was meant to be absurdly good at shooting, due to lacking 2 phases, units that are absurdly good at psychic.
However, drukhari who also lack a psychic phase, compensating with movement, get to have those craftworld psychers at no penalty.
Khorne armies have no psy and compensate with melee, but can throw Ahriman and 2 DPoT in without penalty.
IG vehicles lack invulns and buff strats and so they choose to add a knight, who lack obsec and bodies.
Fluff wise, some of these are at greater odds than others. I don't understand why naughty and haughty elves get along so well. I don't think tiny humans and ultimate mechanical power should see eye-to-eye either. There should probably be some drawback to these kinds of combos. Yes, that means that lists that were never optimum could get worse. We will learn to adapt or choose to ignore rules for friendly play.
As a separate issue some factions are just underperforming (necron i think, grey knights certainly, astartes somewhat). These factions and even units in top tier factions should be adjusted. The specifics of which are for other threads.
So yes, soup is an issue. Infantry squads should be 5ppm to give conscripts a reason to exist and balance better for their core rules to other factions. Castellans should never have been given a 3++, though I do think some other defense is appropriate. Aeldari need to be less flexible between detachments. Exceptional abilities should be contained, or mixed with counterbalances.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Those things are only weaknesses as long as the models remain bad. In this sense, are you saying it's good for certain models to remain bad?
Yes. If GW stubbornly insists on giving an army a unit that it shouldn't have then that unit should have weak rules so that you are not encouraged to make it a major part of your army. But having bad rules is only a last resort thing. For example, storm troopers and rough riders can have decent rules because their mobility doesn't really address the IG weakness in question. They can go places fast, sure, but they're also glass cannon units that are easily wiped off the table when your opponent wants to clear an objective. That makes them more equivalent to a Basilisk, delivering firepower anywhere on the table but contributing little to scoring objectives, and not something you take as a reliable way to hold objectives.
So my next question is should these units be toned down the moment they are marked for Khorne?
Yes. You could even make it a thematic thing, that Khorne marked units get +1 WS and -1 BS.
Also you talk about vehicles not being inherently broken, but the editions of them being too good and too powerful say otherwise.
Do you understand the difference between inherent balance issues and individual unit balance issues? Vehicles being too good in the past has been a result of specific vehicles having point costs that were far too low, not something inherent to the concept of vehicles that will be true no matter how well you write the individual unit rules.
You're complaining about external balance when you say you can pick and choose the best units from each codex. That's because those are problem units. They shouldn't be broken when they're used in pure armies in the first place, so why not fix them instead of complaining about allies so you can keep your broken units?
Because, as I keep trying to explain to you (and people like you), even if all units are balanced within their own codex the ability to take units outside the context of their codex makes balance issues almost inevitable. For example, guardsmen have a value of X ppm in an pure IG army as objective holders, screening meatshields, and efficient small arms fire. They have little value as CP farms because pure IG armies can easily fill out detachments even if CP didn't exist at all and have relatively weak stratagems and a low CP per turn need. Obviously that value is not zero, but it's far down the list of why you're taking the unit. In an IK army guardsmen have a higher value per model because, in addition to the things that guardsmen do well in a pure IG army, they provide an extremely efficient CP battery for an army that has powerful stratagems and wants to burn a ton of CP every turn but has very limited ability to generate CP without allies. So what per-model cost do you set for guardsmen that makes them balanced in both armies? No such cost exists. You either make them overpowered as IK support or cripple pure IG armies with overpriced core troops.
And of course it only gets worse when you insist on "fuffy" rules where Imperial players get to choose units from half the game while Tau players are stuck with a single codex. It's virtually impossible to have a balanced game when some factions have so many more options than others.
You know what would really suck about being forced back into the old FOC is that it punished armies with expensive units and bad troops, and advantages armies with good troopa or cheap troops.
Old 5th FOC is absurd with the price points of units in 8th. Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.
The old FOC was always inferior to Warhammer Fantasy way to build armies in all aspects. The fact the game was full with snowflake exceptions to allow most of the actual fun armies is a proof of that.
Galas wrote: Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.
This sounds like a feature, not a bug.
If most armies had something like 6-7 different troops maybe but when you have armies that have 1-2 troops choices it becomes bland very fast. And I love spamming troops, they are my favourite type of unit and models, both to build and play.
But at the end of the day the bread and butter of Warhammer, what keeps things exciting for most people are the heroes, the elite units, the big guns. I have 0 problems with a Deathwing or a Ravenwing army or a Spirit Host Eldar army. The old FOC didn't did anything to prevent abusing OP units. It only make the armies with stronger troops (Or special snowflake exceptions to use something like bikers as troops) even more strong.
Galas wrote: Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.
This sounds like a feature, not a bug.
If most armies had something like 6-7 different troops maybe but when you have armies that have 1-2 troops choices it becomes bland very fast. And I love spamming troops, they are my favourite type of unit and models, both to build and play.
But at the end of the day the bread and butter of Warhammer, what keeps things exciting for most people are the heroes, the elite units, the big guns. I have 0 problems with a Deathwing or a Ravenwing army or a Spirit Host Eldar army. The old FOC didn't did anything to prevent abusing OP units. It only make the armies with stronger troops (Or special snowflake exceptions to use something like bikers as troops) even more strong.
So much this. Not all Troops are created equal, the current FOC hamstrings too many builds that are fluffy and not overly powerful. This could/should have been addressed in the new detachments. Instead of costing a CP, they should have given CPs if x amount of specific units taken. For example, the RW detachment could have remained as is but required 1 HQ with Ravenwing keyword, plus 3+ Ravenwing Bike sqds, 1+ landpseeder sqd, and awarded +3 CPs for that detachment in lieu of +1 for being Outrider. Instead, you get someone making a Ravenwing detachment and taking 3 non Ravenwing scout sqds to get the +5CP because the army is strat hungry and the detachment already costs you 1CP. It's poor execution.
1.keeping track of 3 CP pools is no harder than tracking the wounds on 3 tanks. If you can't handle that amount of bookkeeping you are playing the wrong game
Maybe for you, but not for your opponent. How can I be sure you pulled the right CP from the proper pool?
I can tell a tanks wounds from the marker next to it. There is nothing preventing 3 pools of CP from getting abused in a face paced game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Those things are only weaknesses as long as the models remain bad. In this sense, are you saying it's good for certain models to remain bad?
Yes. If GW stubbornly insists on giving an army a unit that it shouldn't have then that unit should have weak rules so that you are not encouraged to make it a major part of your army. But having bad rules is only a last resort thing. For example, storm troopers and rough riders can have decent rules because their mobility doesn't really address the IG weakness in question. They can go places fast, sure, but they're also glass cannon units that are easily wiped off the table when your opponent wants to clear an objective. That makes them more equivalent to a Basilisk, delivering firepower anywhere on the table but contributing little to scoring objectives, and not something you take as a reliable way to hold objectives.
So my next question is should these units be toned down the moment they are marked for Khorne?
Yes. You could even make it a thematic thing, that Khorne marked units get +1 WS and -1 BS.
Also you talk about vehicles not being inherently broken, but the editions of them being too good and too powerful say otherwise.
Do you understand the difference between inherent balance issues and individual unit balance issues? Vehicles being too good in the past has been a result of specific vehicles having point costs that were far too low, not something inherent to the concept of vehicles that will be true no matter how well you write the individual unit rules.
You're complaining about external balance when you say you can pick and choose the best units from each codex. That's because those are problem units. They shouldn't be broken when they're used in pure armies in the first place, so why not fix them instead of complaining about allies so you can keep your broken units?
Because, as I keep trying to explain to you (and people like you), even if all units are balanced within their own codex the ability to take units outside the context of their codex makes balance issues almost inevitable. For example, guardsmen have a value of X ppm in an pure IG army as objective holders, screening meatshields, and efficient small arms fire. They have little value as CP farms because pure IG armies can easily fill out detachments even if CP didn't exist at all and have relatively weak stratagems and a low CP per turn need. Obviously that value is not zero, but it's far down the list of why you're taking the unit. In an IK army guardsmen have a higher value per model because, in addition to the things that guardsmen do well in a pure IG army, they provide an extremely efficient CP battery for an army that has powerful stratagems and wants to burn a ton of CP every turn but has very limited ability to generate CP without allies. So what per-model cost do you set for guardsmen that makes them balanced in both armies? No such cost exists. You either make them overpowered as IK support or cripple pure IG armies with overpriced core troops.
And of course it only gets worse when you insist on "fuffy" rules where Imperial players get to choose units from half the game while Tau players are stuck with a single codex. It's virtually impossible to have a balanced game when some factions have so many more options than others.
I love the pathetic defense you created for Rough Riders and Scions being fine by saying you can kill them. Spoiler alert: you can kill something on an objective with them just as well the other way around.
So the units need to be made bad. Speaking of which:
Your next point saying there should be useless models in the rules shows you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I agree with you on a lot of things, but I'm breaking Rule #1 by saying that's the dumbest thing I've ever read, you shouldn't be anywhere near a rules designing team, and you're so out of touch with reality I don't know why you post, even moreso than other people that have left the game.
Galas wrote: Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.
This sounds like a feature, not a bug.
If most armies had something like 6-7 different troops maybe but when you have armies that have 1-2 troops choices it becomes bland very fast. And I love spamming troops, they are my favourite type of unit and models, both to build and play.
But at the end of the day the bread and butter of Warhammer, what keeps things exciting for most people are the heroes, the elite units, the big guns. I have 0 problems with a Deathwing or a Ravenwing army or a Spirit Host Eldar army. The old FOC didn't did anything to prevent abusing OP units. It only make the armies with stronger troops (Or special snowflake exceptions to use something like bikers as troops) even more strong.
Bingo. The bug is always bad internal and external balance.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I love the pathetic defense you created for Rough Riders and Scions being fine by saying you can kill them. Spoiler alert: you can kill something on an objective with them just as well the other way around.
You're missing the point again. Rough riders and storm troopers can kill something on an objective, just like a Basilisk battery can kill something on an objective. But, just like the Basilisk, they are very poor at holding an objective. Storm troopers are a MSU glass cannon that dies to pretty much anything, and rough riders suck if they have to stand in one place and take a charge. So they help with delivering firepower to a target, but despite their speed they don't do much to address the intended weakness of IG: moving up and claiming objectives.
Your next point saying there should be useless models in the rules shows you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I agree with you on a lot of things, but I'm breaking Rule #1 by saying that's the dumbest thing I've ever read, you shouldn't be anywhere near a rules designing team, and you're so out of touch with reality I don't know why you post, even moreso than other people that have left the game.
In addition to your questionable wisdom in daring a moderator to ban you you're also wrong about this. If GW insists on making models for a faction that don't fit with that faction's intended strengths and weaknesses then those models need to be below average in power so that they don't eliminate the weaknesses and create a faction that is good at everything. It is better to not make those models in the first place, but sometimes the fluff and/or marketing department drives those decisions and you're stuck with them.
Of course if you remove soup then having below-average models isn't nearly as much of a problem. Say, IK get deliberately underpowered cannon fodder troops that are nowhere near as good as guardsmen/cultists/etc. If soup exists then those troops might as well not exist at all because every IK player will just take IG allies. But if you're committed to a single faction then you might use that weak troops unit because it's the only screening unit you've got.
Apple Peel wrote: If any of you silly Billys want to nerf Scions just because they are apart of the IG codex, just give us our old codex back instead.
You mean the 5th edition IG codex where they were called storm troopers as god intended and their idiotic torture-school fluff didn't exist? Sounds good.
Getting rid of soup won't make the game balanced. It'll just mean a new set of armies get all the top five placements. Bringing back FoCs will have the same effect. The only way to really combat the meta getting stagnant is constant re-balancing, which is difficult in a physical game where you have to keep track of every individual FAQ that comes out. They can't be putting out a new chapter approved every month, and that's about what it'd take to get any real rebalancing done.
Apple Peel wrote: If any of you silly Billys want to nerf Scions just because they are apart of the IG codex, just give us our old codex back instead.
You mean the 5th edition IG codex where they were called storm troopers as god intended and their idiotic torture-school fluff didn't exist? Sounds good.
No, I mean the Copyrightum Imperialis High Gothicus named special operations soldiers. Not the old Kasrkin Cadia babies, nor the old Inquisitional style. (I’d be fine however if they brought the original stormtroopers back in plastic. Those were pretty cool.)
cole1114 wrote: Getting rid of soup won't make the game balanced. It'll just mean a new set of armies get all the top five placements. Bringing back FoCs will have the same effect. The only way to really combat the meta getting stagnant is constant re-balancing, which is difficult in a physical game where you have to keep track of every individual FAQ that comes out. They can't be putting out a new chapter approved every month, and that's about what it'd take to get any real rebalancing done.
...Which is why FFG, CB, and Privateer have all moved entirely to free digital rules as the means of distributing rules for their game.
I think if they just went back to needing a platoon of infantry (2 groups of 10 and 1 group of 5 min per platoon) to fill a troops slot it would fix the CP point farm issue.
I don't get peoples nostalgia about 5th in this thread. You still spammed the best units in your relevant codex (An if you where a comp player you'd buy the best codex).
The whole anti-soup train is weird as it has nothing to do with competitive play. You can change the the rules all you like good job, the pros will work out the next best thing and people will complain again.
This will repeat forever in any game system. 40k is different because rule set is designed for ALL styles of play (Hobby) not some random best of the best TAILORED META ergo the ITC. Even if GW is focused on using information gathered from these events. It also pushes the idea people not talking to each other as to the types of games you want to play. As changing the entirety of the game just because some LVO event that 99.98% of the total Warhammer player base doesn't go to or can invalidate by just saying yeah "not playing that army/mission type/format etc"
I think this addition allows far more player types than any previous edition. If the community wants something to change in the event formats. That's should be on the back of the TO's and the community to work out.
The thing is if GW made books where each has good options to play with this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Soup is a problem first because it invalidates any mono codex, unless GW writes the siad codex to be better then soup in the first place. The stuff people see at tournaments trickle down to local tournaments, and finaly store games too.
I don't know how bad the game in the pas thad to to be, for we play with more units now to be true. There are whole books that are made out of 1-2 good units, some even don't have that. How do you play with a faction that is not worth souping to begin with, or which GW forgot to give an option tos oup up with something int he first place?
whitelion40k wrote: I think if they just went back to needing a platoon of infantry (2 groups of 10 and 1 group of 5 min per platoon) to fill a troops slot it would fix the CP point farm issue.
No, it wouldn't. Literally all that needs to be done is the same rule that Brood Brothers got where they provide half CPs in their Detachments.
1.keeping track of 3 CP pools is no harder than tracking the wounds on 3 tanks. If you can't handle that amount of bookkeeping you are playing the wrong game
Maybe for you, but not for your opponent. How can I be sure you pulled the right CP from the proper pool?
I can tell a tanks wounds from the marker next to it. There is nothing preventing 3 pools of CP from getting abused in a face paced game.
So use markers for your opponent's CP pools if you need to. CP pools are just not that much bookkeeping.
Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?
Karol wrote: Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?
Then the burden of proof is on them. It's not as if they can't do this already if they really want to. Keeping track of the CPs your opponent has left is pretty important so it should be something both players are aware of during the game. If you're already a TFG you won't have a problem making spurious claims over anything that currently exists. Anyone trying this on a regular basis should be quickly found out and banned if necessary.
Karol wrote: Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?
He can do the same thing with the wounds of a tank "Ey, that vehicle had 3 wounds remaining not 7, you just moved the dice!"
Karol wrote: Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?
He can do the same thing with the wounds of a tank "Ey, that vehicle had 3 wounds remaining not 7, you just moved the dice!"
that is true, that is why adding more options and entice to do so is not a good thing to do. If one type of mechanic is creating problems, adding more of the same type is not going to fix stuff even at the best of times, and at any other times it will just create more problems.
Karol wrote: Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?
He can do the same thing with the wounds of a tank "Ey, that vehicle had 3 wounds remaining not 7, you just moved the dice!"
that is true, that is why adding more options and entice to do so is not a good thing to do. If one type of mechanic is creating problems, adding more of the same type is not going to fix stuff even at the best of times, and at any other times it will just create more problems.
If the people you play with are like that, then yes you are right.
Typically, if a player "cheated" once (moves the wound die) in a multi-day tournament, they made an unintentional mistake.
If a player "cheated" more than once (moves the wound die a couple times in different games) in a multi-day tournament, they are doing so deliberately, or at best out of a lack of capability.
So if someone cheats, call out the mistake ("You moved the die"), don't call them out as a cheater ("You cheated and moved the die"). That way, if it truly was an honest mistake, and rarely happens, you move on.
If you have to constantly "remind" them, then a TO should get involved - so there's record of the discord. If they argue that they didn't, call over a TO. Even if it's not provable which way it went, there's no record of this discord.
Point is, this is a small enough hobby where these things get noticed. Consider "If the first person you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, they're the problem. If everyone you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, you're the problem.".
The players who make careless mistakes once or twice get called out, and it gets fixed. The players who make careless mistakes all the time get called out frequently enough that (1) it gets fixed, (2) people know to watch them, and (3), most important for the person making the mistakes, they learn that they need to be more careful.
The person who cheats once or twice and gets called out gets identified as a cheater very quickly. They get punished by TOs, they get watched, and either they clean up or nobody plays them/they get kicked out of tournies.
So there's really no reason to need to prove any one individual case of cheating. Point it out. They'll be watched more closely. If they truly are a cheater, they'll continue to cheat. And other cases *will* get caught.
There have been cheaters in my meta (not many, though). I've known who they were and how they cheated. I avoided games with them. When I did play them, I took steps (which vary based on how they cheat) so they couldn't cheat. I didn't need to prove every cheating case.
(Oddly, one of the two biggest cheaters I've known tended to win most of his games, and the other, despite cheating, lost most of the time.)
Bharring wrote: Typically, if a player "cheated" once (moves the wound die) in a multi-day tournament, they made an unintentional mistake.
If a player "cheated" more than once (moves the wound die a couple times in different games) in a multi-day tournament, they are doing so deliberately, or at best out of a lack of capability.
So if someone cheats, call out the mistake ("You moved the die"), don't call them out as a cheater ("You cheated and moved the die"). That way, if it truly was an honest mistake, and rarely happens, you move on.
If you have to constantly "remind" them, then a TO should get involved - so there's record of the discord. If they argue that they didn't, call over a TO. Even if it's not provable which way it went, there's no record of this discord.
Point is, this is a small enough hobby where these things get noticed. Consider "If the first person you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, they're the problem. If everyone you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, you're the problem.".
The players who make careless mistakes once or twice get called out, and it gets fixed. The players who make careless mistakes all the time get called out frequently enough that (1) it gets fixed, (2) people know to watch them, and (3), most important for the person making the mistakes, they learn that they need to be more careful.
The person who cheats once or twice and gets called out gets identified as a cheater very quickly. They get punished by TOs, they get watched, and either they clean up or nobody plays them/they get kicked out of tournies.
So there's really no reason to need to prove any one individual case of cheating. Point it out. They'll be watched more closely. If they truly are a cheater, they'll continue to cheat. And other cases *will* get caught.
There have been cheaters in my meta (not many, though). I've known who they were and how they cheated. I avoided games with them. When I did play them, I took steps (which vary based on how they cheat) so they couldn't cheat. I didn't need to prove every cheating case.
(Oddly, one of the two biggest cheaters I've known tended to win most of his games, and the other, despite cheating, lost most of the time.)
This is pretty much spot on. Forgetting/misunderstanding a rule once, even in different games, doesn't necessarily mean someone is cheating. But all of these "cheaters" do it every game, sometimes more than once in the same game. If it happens frequently, then I agree you should call a TO so they are aware that this person *could* be cheating. That way the ones who do it often will be repeat offenders (TOs called continually to their table) and at that point it can be safely assumed they are doing it on purpose because if they are told the first two times they are doing it wrong and keep doing it, it's on purpose.
My round 5 opponent cheated outright. I didn't catch it until after, though, because I was getting sick and i was exhausted.
It is my responsibility to catch this. I went 5-1 at LVO because I didn't catch my opponent cheating. A better player than me catches this. Nanavati catches it. Gonyo catches it. inControl catches it.
And allies aren't a problem, but there is one faction that exploits the current mechanics of the game pretty hard. The answer is to adjust that faction. But here come the monobirds, crying mono, when the game isn't a mono game in the first place.
Marmatag wrote: My round 5 opponent cheated outright. I didn't catch it until after, though, because I was getting sick and i was exhausted.
It is my responsibility to catch this. I went 5-1 at LVO because I didn't catch my opponent cheating. A better player than me catches this. Nanavati catches it. Gonyo catches it. inControl catches it.
And allies aren't a problem, but there is one faction that exploits the current mechanics of the game pretty hard. The answer is to adjust that faction. But here come the monobirds, crying mono, when the game isn't a mono game in the first place.
You sure it isn't mono codex? Necron, Tau, ork codex's say it's still a mono codex game?
But as to the largest offenders do you think the new brood brother's rule being just the flat CP rule for the problem child would be enough to unstagnate the current meta?
Marmatag wrote: My round 5 opponent cheated outright. I didn't catch it until after, though, because I was getting sick and i was exhausted.
It is my responsibility to catch this. I went 5-1 at LVO because I didn't catch my opponent cheating. A better player than me catches this. Nanavati catches it. Gonyo catches it. inControl catches it.
And allies aren't a problem, but there is one faction that exploits the current mechanics of the game pretty hard. The answer is to adjust that faction. But here come the monobirds, crying mono, when the game isn't a mono game in the first place.
You sure it isn't mono codex? Necron, Tau, ork codex's say it's still a mono codex game?
But as to the largest offenders do you think the new brood brother's rule being just the flat CP rule for the problem child would be enough to unstagnate the current meta?
Considering we're talking about deflecting to mono-codex to avoid balancing the two S-tier armies (Imperial Guard, Ynnari) and not the A-tier armies (Orks, Tau) or the B-tier armies (Necrons). Your comment is a non sequitor.
And that wouldn't change anything. The Imperial Guard list will still be incredibly dominant with a Shadowsword in place of a Knight. The army is too damn strong.
Having played variations of Guard throughout this ITC season I can assure you that Guard plus Shadowsword is not in the same zip code as Guard plus Castellan. I would rank it as Guard plus Castellan > Guard plus other shooty Knight >>> Guard with Guard super heavy.
I believe in another thread you referenced the Tau loss as being on account of terrain. As you mention cheating in this one any particular Tau perfidy that others should watch for?
Alpharius Walks wrote: Having played variations of Guard throughout this ITC season I can assure you that Guard plus Shadowsword is not in the same zip code as Guard plus Castellan. I would rank it as Guard plus Castellan > Guard plus other shooty Knight >>> Guard with Guard super heavy.
I believe in another thread you referenced the Tau loss as being on account of terrain. As you mention cheating in this one any particular Tau perfidy that others should watch for?
But if they are all >>> than Orks, Tau, Necrons who don't have allies while still mono they need rebalanced.
I still contend that soup not having a downside is a problem.
Having codex's like Astra Millicheese and Drukari and index free activities is a problem
Both need to be solved independent of the other, but solving one and not the other won't actually balance 8th edition.
The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"
I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.
The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"
I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.
The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"
I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.
Most of the garbage stripped out, right.....
I heard phosphex was fun and interactive.
They literally took care of that in the last errata.
The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"
I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.
Most of the garbage stripped out, right.....
I heard phosphex was fun and interactive.
They literally took care of that in the last errata.
After how long?
Don't get me wrong but something like that shouldn't have passed the internal playtesting.
Horus Heresy is the Pabst Blue Ribbon of wargames. There are some who legitimately think it is the superior option, but those of use with working taste buds wish you'd just shut the hell up about it stop bringing it to the party.
EnTyme wrote: Horus Heresy is the Pabst Blue Ribbon of wargames. There are some who legitimately think it is the superior option, but those of use with working taste buds wish you'd just shut the hell up about it stop bringing it to the party.
Not nice,
It does have some merit to bring it up, that said saying it is 7th with less "garbage" is simply also not true.
The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"
I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.
Most of the garbage stripped out, right.....
I heard phosphex was fun and interactive.
They literally took care of that in the last errata.
After how long?
Don't get me wrong but something like that shouldn't have passed the internal playtesting.
There's several things GW doesn't take care of very quickly. That doesn't shock me in the least.
A mostly dead, and very expensive game (enjoy buying multiple large, resin tank kits which cost £70+ - and let's not even talk about the rulebooks), with its own massive host of balance issues and problems.
Also no Xenos.
There's also an increasing number of 'No Longer Available' models.
cole1114 wrote: Getting rid of soup won't make the game balanced. It'll just mean a new set of armies get all the top five placements. Bringing back FoCs will have the same effect. The only way to really combat the meta getting stagnant is constant re-balancing, which is difficult in a physical game where you have to keep track of every individual FAQ that comes out. They can't be putting out a new chapter approved every month, and that's about what it'd take to get any real rebalancing done.
This is the most intelligent thing I have seen written in this thread and the truth. Nothing else needs to be discussed after this. Can we please close soupisbad thread #984445 now?
So what soup players are suppose to get what they want, and people that want or can only play mono lists are suppose to either play soup themselfs or quit?
That is hardly a middle ground between both positions. I mean mono players could say that their problems would be fixed, if ally were just removed from the game.
So people that play mono lists get what they want, and soup players can't play with their models anymore? Allies have been a thing for the last three editions. They are not going away. The only people I feel slighlty sorry for are codexes that can't ally with anything as of right now. But I am pretty sure future releases will add things that those codexes will be able to ally with.
cole1114 wrote: Getting rid of soup won't make the game balanced. It'll just mean a new set of armies get all the top five placements. Bringing back FoCs will have the same effect. The only way to really combat the meta getting stagnant is constant re-balancing, which is difficult in a physical game where you have to keep track of every individual FAQ that comes out. They can't be putting out a new chapter approved every month, and that's about what it'd take to get any real rebalancing done.
This is the most intelligent thing I have seen written in this thread and the truth. Nothing else needs to be discussed after this. Can we please close soupisbad thread #984445 now?
Honestly the rules should be digital / subscription based or ap based like warmahordes. and treated like living rules. make a battle ap where games are submitted, keeps track of wounds etc and unit numbers providing actual performance data, then adjust points according to the results of all games. as things are rising above the rest an algorithm adjusts the points down, things under performing start to go down in points. update points quarterly with set limits to how much a things can be changed.
as for "soup is bad"... well it isn't "bad" per say, its just more difficult to balance a game around and all of the mono dex factions should either be given soup options themselves or given buffs to compete at that level of play.
cole1114 wrote: Getting rid of soup won't make the game balanced. It'll just mean a new set of armies get all the top five placements. Bringing back FoCs will have the same effect. The only way to really combat the meta getting stagnant is constant re-balancing, which is difficult in a physical game where you have to keep track of every individual FAQ that comes out. They can't be putting out a new chapter approved every month, and that's about what it'd take to get any real rebalancing done.
This is the most intelligent thing I have seen written in this thread and the truth. Nothing else needs to be discussed after this. Can we please close soupisbad thread #984445 now?
Honestly the rules should be digital / subscription based or ap based like warmahordes. and treated like living rules. make a battle ap where games are submitted, keeps track of wounds etc and unit numbers providing actual performance data, then adjust points according to the results of all games. as things are rising above the rest an algorithm adjusts the points down, things under performing start to go down in points. update points quarterly with set limits to how much a things can be changed.
as for "soup is bad"... well it isn't "bad" per say, its just more difficult to balance a game around and all of the mono dex factions should either be given soup options themselves or given buffs to compete at that level of play.
It's no more difficult than trying to balance the 50+ entries that exist in the Space Marine codex alone, even though most of those choices are poor.
The Salt Mine wrote: So people that play mono lists get what they want, and soup players can't play with their models anymore? Allies have been a thing for the last three editions. They are not going away. The only people I feel slighlty sorry for are codexes that can't ally with anything as of right now. But I am pretty sure future releases will add things that those codexes will be able to ally with.
This is a misnomer because allies, as it is now, is not the same as allies before. They are not even remotely close to the same thing to be comparable.
The Salt Mine wrote: So people that play mono lists get what they want, and soup players can't play with their models anymore? Allies have been a thing for the last three editions. They are not going away. The only people I feel slighlty sorry for are codexes that can't ally with anything as of right now. But I am pretty sure future releases will add things that those codexes will be able to ally with.
This is a misnomer because allies, as it is now, is not the same as allies before. They are not even remotely close to the same thing to be comparable.
Only by entry number. You'd be surprised how many points you could actually dedicate to said allies though.
This is a misnomer because allies, as it is now, is not the same as allies before. They are not even remotely close to the same thing to be comparable.
I kinda agree with this because allies in previous editions tended to be much more free-form. Ally Orks and Necrons together? No problem. Ally Tyranids and Space Marines? You go ahead buddy and make sure to buy enough termagants. Stuff like Taudar were legendary combos.
Good times, good times. Would be fun to have them back. Would at least make my friend happy who played Ork and Necron combo.
A mostly dead, and very expensive game (enjoy buying multiple large, resin tank kits which cost £70+ - and let's not even talk about the rulebooks), with its own massive host of balance issues and problems.
Also no Xenos.
There's also an increasing number of 'No Longer Available' models.
A massively thriving game that continues to have more and more people turn up to tournaments and had a big influx of players who didn't like the change to 8th that is incredibly expensive.
It has some balance issues but nothing on the scale of 40k that people put up with, but forge world is slow to resolve these.
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
Including Necrons and Tau?
They were around in 30k?
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
Including Necrons and Tau?
They were around in 30k?
Small Necron sighting I think from mostly Triarch stuff, but I think nothing from Tau.
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
Including Necrons and Tau?
They were around in 30k?
Small Necron sighting I think from mostly Triarch stuff, but I think nothing from Tau.
What I quoted makes it sound like ALL Xenos codexes are fair game and playable.
If that's not true, then it's a horrible description of the game.
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
Including Necrons and Tau?
They were around in 30k?
Small Necron sighting I think from mostly Triarch stuff, but I think nothing from Tau.
What I quoted makes it sound like ALL Xenos codexes are fair game and playable.
If that's not true, then it's a horrible description of the game.
It has the same rules as 7th edition, so you could use 7th edition 40k armies against horus heresy armies. Including the xenos ones.
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
Including Necrons and Tau?
They were around in 30k?
Yes including necrons and tau, all those codexs are playable in 30k due to sharing a similar ruleset, as for fluff reasons, i leave that to you, we have had a tau fleet lost in the warp in recent fluff, bam turns up in HH for "reasons" and necrons is easier, some woke up early, well thats already happened so its not much of a stretch.
A mostly dead, and very expensive game (enjoy buying multiple large, resin tank kits which cost £70+ - and let's not even talk about the rulebooks), with its own massive host of balance issues and problems.
Also no Xenos.
There's also an increasing number of 'No Longer Available' models.
A massively thriving game that continues to have more and more people turn up to tournaments and had a big influx of players who didn't like the change to 8th that is incredibly expensive.
It has some balance issues but nothing on the scale of 40k that people put up with, but forge world is slow to resolve these.
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
"A massively thriving"
A majority of forum goers (which has been most of the evidence for these claims) would not agree.
"Who don't like the change to 8th ed that is massively expensive"
?????
"It has some balance issues but nothing on the scale of 40k that people put up with, but forge world is slow to resolve these."
Thousand Sons, Custodes, etc. would have a word.
"Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations."
Which aren't intended to play against any of the HH forces. I also don't think you can claim balance with you're talking about books like the Tyranid and Ork codexes, or the Eldar and Tau codexes.
Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations.
They have discontinued several low selling sets or sets that have a plastic alternative from gw, but have also annoyingly discontinued several much needed sets for certain units, conversions for these units are incredibly easy however, they are continuing to add new units however but not on the scale of 40k due to having split resources and a low amount of staff.
Including Necrons and Tau?
They were around in 30k?
Yes including necrons and tau, all those codexs are playable in 30k due to sharing a similar ruleset, as for fluff reasons, i leave that to you, we have had a tau fleet lost in the warp in recent fluff, bam turns up in HH for "reasons" and necrons is easier, some woke up early, well thats already happened so its not much of a stretch.
People I've seen tend to treat Xenos that wouldn't technically be around (so that's mostly Tyranids, Necrons and Tau) as being one of the myriad of xenos races wiped out in the crusade.
So like T'au are normally played as proxy for the Interex or a similar more futuristic type race. Necrons could be the same, an alien races that used "robots" or something. Tyranids are usually some sort of alien bug/monster (e.g. the Megarachinids). So this fundamentally means you're doing a proxy army.
It is obvious that balancing units individually is the most important factor to fixing imperial and aeldari soup. However multiple codex mixed armies also need a small negative to balance out the advantage of having access to extra stratagems, relics, warlord traits, psychic abilities, and units which is very powerful. Monodex armies shouldn't have an inherent disadvantage, and we shouldn't balance units assuming they are soley used in synergistic soup armies so that the monodex options are at an even bigger disadvantage.
If we can have a little nerf for mixing codexes then these problem units may not have to be nerfed or at least not as bad.
A majority of forum goers (which has been most of the evidence for these claims) would not agree.
On this forum, 30k forums are thriving, this is a 40k forum
"Who don't like the change to 8th ed that is massively expensive"
?????
You misquoted me for some odd reason there, 40k is incredibly expensive, people still put up with it, heresy is more expensive than that.
"It has some balance issues but nothing on the scale of 40k that people put up with, but forge world is slow to resolve these."
Thousand Sons, Custodes, etc. would have a word
Yes they would and forge world is solving that issue, very slowly, exactly like i said ??
"Has the entire range of 7th ed xenos codex's to choose from with some slight adjustments to fit the force org chart and no formations."
Which aren't intended to play against any of the HH forces. I also don't think you can claim balance with you're talking about books like the Tyranid and Ork codexes, or the Eldar and Tau codexes.
Does not matter if they are intended to be used or not, they are compatible and if people want to use them they can, when introducing such books balance can be an issue, in favour of most 40k codexs, orks have a very hard time against legions though, eldar and tau laughably smash legion armies off the table, lack of formations mitigate this though.
