I see only a Rule Of Three update as likely. The deep strike rule may be refined, but I doubt they will drop entirely. The rest are Chaper Approved topics IMHO.
Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
I had previously thought it was March FAQ, and Christmas Chapter Approved - but I've heard people mention a second FAQ prior to Chapter Approved, so it's a thing?
I think this Chapter Approved will be far more important and will set the stage for what the game will be in the future. If it's aggressive to fix/balance...good. If they just patch a few of the latest codices, it'll be a bad sign for the game.
SemperMortis wrote: Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.
SemperMortis wrote: Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.
Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?
SemperMortis wrote: Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.
Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?
SemperMortis wrote: Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.
Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?
-3 to hit flyers
besides that 3++ knight requires both a relic, warlord trait AND stratigium. just ya know.... kill the other knights.
The Deep Strike Beta rules will be made legit, because GW don't care that it totally destroys already weak armies, they want to give the illusion of doing something.
The Beta Battle Brothers rule will be made legit, because GW don't care that it totally destroys already weak armies, they want to give the illusion of doing something.
Ynnari will get another nerf where Soulburst causes the players kidney to explode.
No points tweaks will happen, that's for Chapter Approved.
Battalions will be changed to give +12 CP because that means more Astra Copywritum sales.
Oh, and not a single issue in my signature will be addressed or fixed, despite some of them being known from Day 0 of 8th edition.
SemperMortis wrote: Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
Presumabiy you mean knights as titans are some of the worst models in game thanks to resin point hike. Warhound 2000 pts and opponent doesn't even have to shoot at it to win. Or do even single wound
SemperMortis wrote: Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.
Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?
-3 to hit flyers
besides that 3++ knight requires both a relic, warlord trait AND stratigium. just ya know.... kill the other knights.
Not relic actually.
Though unless that's lone knight it's easy to bybass anyway
I'd hope something to do with the battery guard batallion. The fact that codexes that were clearly designed to be low on CP can just spam Strategems out the wazoo thanks to a tiny guard detachment is ridiculous and completely screwd up the balance of half the codexes in the game. If GW doesn't touch it in any way something is seriously screwed up.
The simplest solution is that cp is limited to the <keyword> that generates it. It not only kicks all the shenanigans other codexes are pulling in the head but can even help reign in things like IG armies souping regiments.
If not that, they'll directly Nerf our warlord trait and relic, but that doesn't really do much to curb it.
From there? Not sure. That's the major stickler here that I could see GW tweaking with the FAQ. Anything else would be tweaking the proposed beta rules or going to chapter approved.
There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Those goals were:
1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.
2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.
3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.
There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Those goals were:
1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.
2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.
3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.
It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.
so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists
Beta tactical reserves rule confirmed but mitigated, like it happened with the smite beta rules.
Rule of 3 confirmed and further enforced to address things like the demon princes. It worked wonderfully, no reason not to keep it.
Fix to the soup CP sharing.
Nerf of the most prominent units like in the previous FAQ. This means increased cost of dissie cannons and some points more for knights, probably nothing else.
No other point changes, in particular no changes to underperforming units, that's something that only Chapter Approved does. An underperforming unit doesn't break the game, an overperforming one does. The FAQs are there to fix issues and so will nerf stuff that cannot wait for CA, don't expect it to buff anything.
That said, even the CP fix would warp the meta so much that i would be really careful in changing anything else before seeing the results.
ERJAK wrote: 2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.
BAO was won by a list with 10 terminators and zero cultists, so...
so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists
Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"
...How would getting rid of the rule of 3 fix that problem, exactly? If you want a Kabal brigade you're still running 3 archons, no questions asked. It sounds more like your problem is with the chapter tactics system.
so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists
Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"
what you would suggest to fix spam without the rule of 3? just curious
Arachnofiend wrote: ...How would getting rid of the rule of 3 fix that problem, exactly? If you want a Kabal brigade you're still running 3 archons, no questions asked. It sounds more like your problem is with the chapter tactics system.
True. Though would allow at least using 2 kaballite battallions without SC's...
CP farms and some confusion on cross-faction stratagems should be addressed.
A (matched-play only) beta rules trying to tackle this in some way would be welcome (e.g. you only unlock stratagems for your warlord's faction or you can only use stratagems once per matched-play-battle for all stratagems period, or something like this).
I'd also love to know if requiring a full battle-forged Black Heart Detachment for AoV is an AoV-specific thing or if it's intended you need battleforged sub-factions to unlock sub-faction-stratagems in general (e.g. do you need a battle-forged Saim Hann detachment to unlock their specific strat, or is a general mix/Ynnari Eldar Detachment good enough?).
By and large, I think this would go some way to address Imperial Knights too. Imperial Knights aren't that bad, if it's just ~8 CP and no farming. IKs (like the Raven Castellan) just become insane with the Guard battery (with optional BA-supercharger) doing everything every turn what (I think) was largely intended as a once-per-game trick like Rotate Ion Shields on a Valiant or the Character-Missile or the Raven-strat.
A "any stratagem just once per game" would also naturally make the current beta-deep-strike redundant (and give units with natural DS abilities and/or stuff like Drop Pods at least a place in theory).
Sunny Side Up wrote: CP farms and some confusion on cross-faction stratagems should be addressed.
A (matched-play only) beta rules trying to tackle this in some way would be welcome (e.g. you only unlock stratagems for your warlord's faction or you can only use stratagems once per matched-play-battle for all stratagems period, or something like this).
I'd also love to know if requiring a full battle-forged Black Heart Detachment for AoV is an AoV-specific thing or if it's intended you need battleforged sub-factions to unlock sub-faction-stratagems in general (e.g. do you need a battle-forged Saim Hann detachment to unlock their specific strat, or is a general mix/Ynnari Eldar Detachment good enough?).
I can't see the only being able to use a strategum once per game that would be so bad for many factions that arr relying on strategums.
I believe rules as intended from the writers reaction is that sub faction strategums are only unlocked by detachments with the keyword.
No points tweaks will happen, that's for Chapter Approved.
It's difficult to tell what in your post was sarcasm, but I'm taking this one at face value. Are you sure? There were point changes in the last Big FAQ. Not many admittedly, but some.
I would like to see fixes to points, Giving terminators the relentless special rule to move and shoot heavy weapons (otherwise there is no freaking reason to take terminators)
While also decreasing costs around the board, and not rewarding command point spamming and limiting it so that only your faction will get those command points generated by its command points.
I am also pretty sure the movement rules might get a tweak similar to how they are worded in the Kill Team rules, with Advance explicitly an alternative movement action that replaces the "normal move".
SemperMortis wrote: Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.
if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.
There really aren't that many other units that are "Tougher" then a Knight. But with that said, I agree my army is a problem. unfortunately GW hasn't given us a reliable anti-tank weapon .....ever. In fact, our best anti-vehicle...hell anti-everything weapon from 4th to 7th was a Nob or Warboss with a Power Klaw who just walks across the board and punches it to death. So I don't really expect GW to give me any better solutions since they seem to have failed to do so for the better part of a couple decades.
Asherian Command wrote: I would like to see fixes to points, Giving terminators the relentless special rule to move and shoot heavy weapons (otherwise there is no freaking reason to take terminators)
While also decreasing costs around the board, and not rewarding command point spamming and limiting it so that only your faction will get those command points generated by its command points.
I don't think relentless helps Termies much to be honest. I would give them a rule that they can't be reduced below 1 wound if they have more than 1 wound. Basically it will always take a minimum of 2 failed saves to kill them, regardless of damage.
chimeara wrote: What if they made the deep strike rule also included "no man land"? So you'd be able to deep strike anywhere except opponents deployment on T1.
At the very least it would be nice if units could deep strike out to their movement from your deployment zone on the first turn, so at least they do not lose out on how far they could have gone if they started on the table instead of in deep strike.
I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.
Wayniac wrote: I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.
Seeing soup means profit you surprised ?-)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: CP farms and some confusion on cross-faction stratagems should be addressed.
A (matched-play only) beta rules trying to tackle this in some way would be welcome (e.g. you only unlock stratagems for your warlord's faction or you can only use stratagems once per matched-play-battle for all stratagems period, or something like this).
That would be illogical rule. Marines don't forget how to use auspex just because warlord is ig(or different marine). Now detachment cp usable only by that det i couid get behind but alas gw likely thinks that's too complicated for players
I would expect nerfs to Knights and Drukhari and possibly Aeldari.
Drukhari: Expecting a price increase for the Disintegrator Cannon.
Expecting Agents of Vect stratagem to go 'once per battle' instead of once per phase.
Knights: Expecting a price increase for the Conflagration Cannon.
Expecting a price increase for the Avenger Gatling Cannon.
Craftworld Eldar/Ynnari: Expecting a price increase for Dark Reapers.
Expecting a price increase for Shining Spears.
General: Everything that is currently weak will not get any buffs.
If they nerf CP farms, then I would expect something like Allied Detachments that don't match the primary Detachment keywords provide fewer CP's while keeping the Battle Brothers limitations as well for Keywords.
That would be illogical rule. Marines don't forget how to use auspex just because warlord is ig(or different marine). Now detachment cp usable only by that det i couid get behind but alas gw likely thinks that's too complicated for players
Which is why I said matched-play, where they dropped such concerns for play balance anyhow (why can Terminators teleport to this side of the hill, but not the other, except a minute later they can? Why is it harder for one Farseer to smite if the Spiritseer over there did it a second ago, but other spells or enemies smiting are irrelevant? Etc..).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Conf cannon? You nerf weaker of big knights and leave better one untouched?
House Raven Strat should arguably be 3CP and probably once-per-game if the current CP farming stays mostly intact. I don't think it's the Knight itself that is so much an issue. The Raven Strat on Knight Porphyrion, etc.. is just as insane (just fewer people spend the cash, I suppose).
FW Knights with Rotate Ion Shields to 3++ in close combat could be another thing the FW side of FAQ might wanna look at.
Can we get multiple options on this poll OP, kinda misleading if you can't.
At a guess: beta rules refined and made part of main FAQ.
I don't think we'll be seeing a lot of points changes. We didn't see a lot in april and they said then they hadn't planned any but saw some were needed at adepticon.
I don't think we'll be seeing a lot of points changes. We didn't see a lot in april and they said then they hadn't planned any but saw some were needed at adepticon.
That is true. And they said they'll watch NOVA for this FAQ, and we already know that half of the invitational is playing Castellan+Guard+BA Smash Captains. So the exposure will clearly be there.
Which is why I said matched-play, where they dropped such concerns for play balance anyhow (why can Terminators teleport to this side of the hill, but not the other, except a minute later they can? Why is it harder for one Farseer to smite if the Spiritseer over there did it a second ago, but other spells or enemies smiting are irrelevant? Etc..).
But why for example CP from faction A detachments being only usable by faction A would be worse? That way CP farm would also go away. No more IG battallion supplying CP for knights/blood angels and all that cheap IGCP would go for less hot IG strategems.
Just because it's matched play doesn't have to mean you have to deliberately go for least logical rule. Okay that's GW style alright but we aren't GW designers so are free to think up more logical solutions.
Which is why I said matched-play, where they dropped such concerns for play balance anyhow (why can Terminators teleport to this side of the hill, but not the other, except a minute later they can? Why is it harder for one Farseer to smite if the Spiritseer over there did it a second ago, but other spells or enemies smiting are irrelevant? Etc..).
But why for example CP from faction A detachments being only usable by faction A would be worse? That way CP farm would also go away. No more IG battallion supplying CP for knights/blood angels and all that cheap IGCP would go for less hot IG strategems.
Just because it's matched play doesn't have to mean you have to deliberately go for least logical rule. Okay that's GW style alright but we aren't GW designers so are free to think up more logical solutions.
Sure. Many ways to spin this. And it probably should go through a Beta-phase either way, as have past changes like this, to refine.
Separate CP pools sounds tedious to me. Personally, if I'd go down this route, I'd probably advocate only unlocking stratagems for your warlord's faction only period (incl. extra Relic strat). But it's just brainstorming at this stage.
Or maybe it'll be smaller changes like no-double farming (e.g. no Grand Strategist AND BA relic) and possibly changing Grand Strategist to a 6+ per CP spend or to only one die per strat on 5+).
I don't think relentless helps Termies much to be honest. I would give them a rule that they can't be reduced below 1 wound if they have more than 1 wound. Basically it will always take a minimum of 2 failed saves to kill them, regardless of damage.
How about a flat -1 wound minimum 1. Your proposal means that they take two hits from titan killing weapons. This is too much imo. -1 means they take two hits from Autocannon and more importantly Plasma. They also sometimes live through 1d3 and 1d6 weapons.
As far as the FAQ goes I wouldn't expect much in the way of pts changes. This is a FAQ not an Errata. I'd like to be proven wrong with something that helps Space Marines other than specific models be competitive. I hope the Deep Strike rules get adjusted.
Orks should wait for their Codex to drop before deciding what is a problem for the Army. I believe they will get a much bigger Codex and model release than most other armies in 8th edition. It may still be an issue after, but it may not.
Biasn wrote: Hopefully some weapon stat adjustments. Some weapons are straight up garbage like the Tesla Annihilator from Crons.
Tesla Cannon is still worse. I'd choose a Guass Cannon any day of the week, even against horde armies.
Well it just proves my point.
I wonder if they will ever change the stats from stuff in FAQs.
I doubt they'll make changes like that. FAQs are not intended to make large changes. They're mostly to clarify rules and answer people's questions. There might be some balance changes in Chapter Approved in December, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any large changes. Probably just a couple points changes.
Biasn wrote: Hopefully some weapon stat adjustments. Some weapons are straight up garbage like the Tesla Annihilator from Crons.
Tesla Cannon is still worse. I'd choose a Guass Cannon any day of the week, even against horde armies.
Well it just proves my point.
I wonder if they will ever change the stats from stuff in FAQs.
I doubt they'll make changes like that. FAQs are not intended to make large changes. They're mostly to clarify rules and answer people's questions. There might be some balance changes in Chapter Approved in December, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any large changes. Probably just a couple points changes.
I still believe in their "living ruleset" stuff. Maybe just maybe they will adress some major issues with a lot of factions.
I could see Rule or Three being a keyword thing once it's finalized. It'd keep things like Daemon Princes from getting spammed from multiple datasheets. They could even do a list of keywords that are restricted to the 0-3 limit.
That said, considering their backpedal on alpha strike nerfs (allowing stuff on the board to still alpha) I could see that change. I don't see the reserve limits changing though.
I feel like CP generation (or at least regeneration) will see an address in the beta, though they might wait to pull that trigger in the CA instead.
Wayniac wrote: I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.
I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'
D6Damager wrote: I would expect nerfs to Knights and Drukhari and possibly Aeldari.
Drukhari: Expecting a price increase for the Disintegrator Cannon.
Expecting Agents of Vect stratagem to go 'once per battle' instead of once per phase.
Knights: Expecting a price increase for the Conflagration Cannon.
Expecting a price increase for the Avenger Gatling Cannon.
Craftworld Eldar/Ynnari: Expecting a price increase for Dark Reapers.
Expecting a price increase for Shining Spears.
General: Everything that is currently weak will not get any buffs.
If they nerf CP farms, then I would expect something like Allied Detachments that don't match the primary Detachment keywords provide fewer CP's while keeping the Battle Brothers limitations as well for Keywords.
Why would they increase the avenger, it just went down. It's good, but not good enough for a nerf. I'd say it's about where it should be.
Getting rid of the supreme command detachment would accomplish most of the goals the “rule of three” was intended to fix (as well as some it can’t) in my opinion.
Wayniac wrote: I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.
I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'
FWIW, this doesn't actually affect the way the guard farm works.
Wayniac wrote: I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.
I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'
FWIW, this doesn't actually affect the way the guard farm works.
True, it really should be "one roll per turn". Even if it was "one roll per turn per source" it'd still slow the farm way down to a crawl compared to the gallop it helps regain CP at.
Wayniac wrote: I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.
I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'
FWIW, this doesn't actually affect the way the guard farm works.
It stops the doubling up of the Guard Farm with Veritas Vitae.
Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
No. But it would allow future codexes to get (more sensible) CP regeneration on their own without designers worrying they'll create abusable situations like the Veritas Vitae. The current way to just not give newer books like Space Wolves any CP-regen whatsoever isn't really helping either in making those 200 points of guard less attractive.
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
Grand strategist specifically (outside of other general rules on CP regeneration) should probably be either 6+ on every CP spend or a 5+, but roll only one die per Stratagem played.
Having it on an army that can field Battalions and Brigades more easily than .. say .. Eldar or Space Marines .. would be balancing enough compared to (current versions) of Labyrinthine Cunning, the Marines Master Strategist or whatever it's called, etc...
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
No. But it would allow future codexes to get (more sensible) CP regeneration on their own without designers worrying they'll create abusable situations like the Veritas Vitae. The current way to just not give newer books like Space Wolves any CP-regen whatsoever isn't really helping either in making those 200 points of guard less attractive.
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
Grand strategist specifically (outside of other general rules on CP regeneration) should probably be either 6+ on every CP spend or a 5+, but roll only one die per Stratagem played.
Having it on an army that can field Battalions and Brigades more easily than .. say .. Eldar or Space Marines .. would be balancing enough compared to (current versions) of Labyrinthine Cunning, the Marines Master Strategist or whatever it's called, etc...
CPs have to be limited, right now imperium lists have unreasonable amounts of them and this is creating situations with factions and models that are perfectly fine on paper, but are overboosted by abundance of resources and become problems.
so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists
Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"
what you would suggest to fix spam without the rule of 3? just curious
"we reccomend the supreme command detachment not be used in matched play"
Seriously, 90% of the worst spam I hear about would be fixed by simply not allowing that one detachment.
so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists
Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"
what you would suggest to fix spam without the rule of 3? just curious
"we reccomend the supreme command detachment not be used in matched play"
Seriously, 90% of the worst spam I hear about would be fixed by simply not allowing that one detachment.
Nonsense. Some of the worst offenders were the 9-10 plaguecrawler lists, Dark Reapers obviously, etc.., etc..
It's not even only about balance. Encouraging players to switch things up and not go gimmicky quite so easy is a good thing in itself for the health of the game.
CPs have to be limited, right now imperium lists have unreasonable amounts of them and this is creating situations with factions and models that are perfectly fine on paper, but are overboosted by abundance of resources and become problems.
Not really. Everyone has the ability to generate 13 CP pretty trivially these days apart from probably Necrons. The ugly thing about the Guard farm is:
1) Grand Strategist being strictly better by getting a die for each CP spent instead of each strategem
and
2) The Aquila providing a way to efficiently steal CP in an army that can also regenerate it.
CPs have to be limited, right now imperium lists have unreasonable amounts of them and this is creating situations with factions and models that are perfectly fine on paper, but are overboosted by abundance of resources and become problems.
Not really. Everyone has the ability to generate 13 CP pretty trivially these days apart from probably Necrons. The ugly thing about the Guard farm is:
1) Grand Strategist being strictly better by getting a die for each CP spent instead of each strategem
and
2) The Aquila providing a way to efficiently steal CP in an army that can also regenerate it.
And 13 is probably fine in a 2000 point list with limited regen.
Guard-battery + Veritas Vitae with a Castellan/Smash-Captain list routinely spend 30 - 40 CP in a game. More if they mirror-match.
greyknight12 wrote: Getting rid of the supreme command detachment would accomplish most of the goals the “rule of three” was intended to fix (as well as some it can’t) in my opinion.
agreed when you look at most of the spam lists out there, most involve HQ spam. be it Hive Tyrants, custodes Bike captains. etc
greyknight12 wrote: Getting rid of the supreme command detachment would accomplish most of the goals the “rule of three” was intended to fix (as well as some it can’t) in my opinion.
agreed when you look at most of the spam lists out there, most involve HQ spam. be it Hive Tyrants, custodes Bike captains. etc
then you will find again 9 Pbc 15 obliterators and 6 flyrants anyway, no thx that kind of enviroment is unhealthy for the game.
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP >Blue dice detachment two CP >Green Dice Detachment three CP Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.
2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP >Blue dice detachment two CP >Green Dice Detachment three CP Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board
Because not all strategums are owned by a detachment, is a CP re-roll from the IG battalion CP, the Slamguinius battalion CP or the Castellen CP?
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems this would certainly reduce the amount of Company commanders ordering around Blood Angles Captain's.
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.
2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes
1) Mono AM lists aren't competitive really anyway, so I don't care how many CP they have. 2 AM Battalions +1 jump captain? Cool... I'm alright with that. A single knight? again, totally cool with that. Giving up your 3rd detachment for a single models seems perfectly ok to me, if you really think that makes the list super competitive.
2) Except 3 detachments means 3 daemon princes total unless you are choosing to not go with battle forged lists, yes?
It's certainly better than what we have today, and much better than the nonsensical triple token tracking ideas
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.
2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP >Blue dice detachment two CP >Green Dice Detachment three CP Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board
Because not all strategums are owned by a detachment, is a CP re-roll from the IG battalion CP, the Slamguinius battalion CP or the Castellen CP?
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems this would certainly reduce the amount of Company commanders ordering around Blood Angles Captain's.
That's easy what are you using the reroll on.
If you're rerolling a shot.... what detachment shot it
If you're rerolling an armor save..... what detachment is the save going to
If you're rerolling a spell...... what detachment rerolled it
It's actually super easy
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So you've managed to not fix any of the problems, create a number of WORSE problems, and double down on a rule that didn't work in the first place.
1. All this does is kill off any chance of ever seeing a non-guard imperial army, a chaos army, or any of the smaller faction xenos army from ever doing better than 2-2 at events again. You might as well burn all the various flavors of space marines alongside Custodes for how god awful they would end up in this situation. Meanwhile Ynnari+Dark reapers+ Altaioc only needs slight tweaks to be basically unaffected at the same time that every list in the game that could compete with it gets DECIMATED.
2. This is the single worst idea ever suggested in the history of 40k. This is a gimmick 1-off tournament rule, not a way to build a game. Firstly WHY THE feth would you have troops and transports ignore the rule? That doesn't make any sense! We've already had MANY instances of troops AND transports being broken AF so far THIS EDITION and you want to kill off any option to counter them? How THE HELL are you supposed to counteract 6 units of 30 boys with ONE mortar squad? You've just made any cheap, good, or spammable troop so broken they would make 7 flying hive tyrants look like 3 squig herders. Secondly, the majority of units are pointless as a one off, and even the ones that ARE good as one offs preclude bringing OTHER one offs. I would never bring 1 predator and 1 dev squad and 1 stormhawk, I would bring 120 ork boyz, since the only thing in the ENTIRE GAME that can deal with 120 ork boyz at that point is ANOTHER 120 ork boyz.
Thirdly, You'd absolutely destroy smaller factions. Custodes would be unplayable. Sisters of battle would have to bring EVERY UNIT in their index to even be able to field 2000pts and wouldn't EVER be able to bring more than 2 detachments because they only have 3 HQs and they'd have to run a brigade just to have enough troop slots to be able to hit 2k points.Grey knights go from the worst army in the game to the worst army in ANY game EVER created. They'd be so far off the powercurve you'd have the freakin Yu-Gi-Oh people going 'yeesh, at least none of the stuff we made is THAT bad.' Deathguard become unplayable, Thousands sons goes from memeing about being Tzaangor and friends to actually BEING just Tzaangor. It would be a catastrophy. Oh, and it STILL doesn't hurt altaioc+Dark reaper+shining spears much.
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.
2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP >Blue dice detachment two CP >Green Dice Detachment three CP Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board
Because not all strategums are owned by a detachment, is a CP re-roll from the IG battalion CP, the Slamguinius battalion CP or the Castellen CP?
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems this would certainly reduce the amount of Company commanders ordering around Blood Angles Captain's.
That's easy what are you using the reroll on.
If you're rerolling a shot.... what detachment shot it
If you're rerolling an armor save..... what detachment is the save going to
If you're rerolling a spell...... what detachment rerolled it
It's actually super easy
Cool, try to actually keep track of your opponent doing that in a tournament game. It opens the door to a lot of unintentional and intentional cheating, creates stupidly unnecessary book-keeping and will just be worked around anyway. It also still ONLY addresses IMPERIAL armies. Eldar armies would change maybe 200pts of their lists and Altaioc/DE/Ynnari would still work basically the same.
The one thing I'm expecting is no changes to my precious Grey Knights. They are perfectly balanced against other GreyKnight armies. Don't chance what's not broke.
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.
2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes
1) Mono AM lists aren't competitive really anyway, so I don't care how many CP they have. 2 AM Battalions +1 jump captain? Cool... I'm alright with that. A single knight? again, totally cool with that. Giving up your 3rd detachment for a single models seems perfectly ok to me, if you really think that makes the list super competitive.
2) Except 3 detachments means 3 daemon princes total unless you are choosing to not go with battle forged lists, yes?
It's certainly better than what we have today, and much better than the nonsensical triple token tracking ideas
You've just shown you have No idea of the actual issues effecting balance in a remotely competitive setting.
Your second response shows your totally out of touch with the game, you realise there is more than 1 deamon prince datasheet you can have something stupid like 17 demon princes and notnhave broken the rule of 3 so your rule doesn't stop them being spammed either.
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So you've managed to not fix any of the problems, create a number of WORSE problems, and double down on a rule that didn't work in the first place.
1. All this does is kill off any chance of ever seeing a non-guard imperial army, a chaos army, or any of the smaller faction xenos army from ever doing better than 2-2 at events again. You might as well burn all the various flavors of space marines alongside Custodes for how god awful they would end up in this situation. Meanwhile Ynnari+Dark reapers+ Altaioc only needs slight tweaks to be basically unaffected at the same time that every list in the game that could compete with it gets DECIMATED.
2. This is the single worst idea ever suggested in the history of 40k. This is a gimmick 1-off tournament rule, not a way to build a game. Firstly WHY THE feth would you have troops and transports ignore the rule? That doesn't make any sense! We've already had MANY instances of troops AND transports being broken AF so far THIS EDITION and you want to kill off any option to counter them? How THE HELL are you supposed to counteract 6 units of 30 boys with ONE mortar squad? You've just made any cheap, good, or spammable troop so broken they would make 7 flying hive tyrants look like 3 squig herders. Secondly, the majority of units are pointless as a one off, and even the ones that ARE good as one offs preclude bringing OTHER one offs. I would never bring 1 predator and 1 dev squad and 1 stormhawk, I would bring 120 ork boyz, since the only thing in the ENTIRE GAME that can deal with 120 ork boyz at that point is ANOTHER 120 ork boyz.
Thirdly, You'd absolutely destroy smaller factions. Custodes would be unplayable. Sisters of battle would have to bring EVERY UNIT in their index to even be able to field 2000pts and wouldn't EVER be able to bring more than 2 detachments because they only have 3 HQs and they'd have to run a brigade just to have enough troop slots to be able to hit 2k points.Grey knights go from the worst army in the game to the worst army in ANY game EVER created. They'd be so far off the powercurve you'd have the freakin Yu-Gi-Oh people going 'yeesh, at least none of the stuff we made is THAT bad.' Deathguard become unplayable, Thousands sons goes from memeing about being Tzaangor and friends to actually BEING just Tzaangor. It would be a catastrophy. Oh, and it STILL doesn't hurt altaioc+Dark reaper+shining spears much.
1) You only generate CP from the primary faction of the army (this strongly encourages mono-armies but doesn't prohibit soup).
2) Each Detachment can only have 1 of the same datacard in it. Troops and Transports ignore this rule.
That would go a long way to resolving the rule of 3. It also requires diversity outside of troops, and solves the CP farm issue completely.
So much no to this
1) no it does effectively kill soup which GW won't do, it also doesn't address the main problem which is starting with 15 CP and spending 35 CP over the game. Gaurd woulf still be the go to double battalion plus random bolt on and plowing through 30 CP on slamguinius or knight Castellen anyway.
2) so basically prohibit DE from any detachments, Ban Custodes from anything but batallion. You jumped the shark with that one and still haven't stopped people taking 9 demon princes
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
There are a lot of possible fixes to this:
1) CPs generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems unlocked by that detachment. This includes CP generated by traits and artifacts in that detachment.
2) Grand strategist can be used once per turn
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems
4) More drastic, all CP generating traits and artifacts can generate max 1 CP per turn.
Honestly i would prefer the first one, but i understand that it would be hard to keep trace of multiple CP pools.
I never understand why people think it would be hard to keep track of at most 3 different CP pools.
>red dice detachment one CP >Blue dice detachment two CP >Green Dice Detachment three CP Subtract from dice when using a strategem on said detachment. I just don't really see this as a valid complaint while we have no issue keeping wounds straight on multiple models moving around all over the board
Because not all strategums are owned by a detachment, is a CP re-roll from the IG battalion CP, the Slamguinius battalion CP or the Castellen CP?
3) Grand strategist affects only IG stratagems this would certainly reduce the amount of Company commanders ordering around Blood Angles Captain's.
That's easy what are you using the reroll on.
If you're rerolling a shot.... what detachment shot it
If you're rerolling an armor save..... what detachment is the save going to
If you're rerolling a spell...... what detachment rerolled it
It's actually super easy
Cool, try to actually keep track of your opponent doing that in a tournament game. It opens the door to a lot of unintentional and intentional cheating, creates stupidly unnecessary book-keeping and will just be worked around anyway. It also still ONLY addresses IMPERIAL armies. Eldar armies would change maybe 200pts of their lists and Altaioc/DE/Ynnari would still work basically the same.
I mean if you really can't keep track of three different resource pools I don't even know how you have the ability to play warhammer at all. I cannot grasp the idea of saying "yeah detachment A is going to use strategem B so that takes me from 5CP to 4CP for that detachment" is somehow too complicated. I mean I guess we have to change ever model in the game to 1 wound a piece..... heaven forbid you had to know which character was missing some wounds... it might be too much.
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't matter, it wouldn't solve the fact that those 200 points of guards are everywhere.
No. But it would allow future codexes to get (more sensible) CP regeneration on their own without designers worrying they'll create abusable situations like the Veritas Vitae. The current way to just not give newer books like Space Wolves any CP-regen whatsoever isn't really helping either in making those 200 points of guard less attractive.
I'd bet money that happened because SW are based on vanilla marines who also have no CP regeneration whatsoever, and not because GW recognizes CP regen as an issue.
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
I love my Guard, I have something like 8 or 10k points of them. But I'd really like a reason not to think whenever I make a list 'okay first lets start with 201pts of Guard'. But those 4 extra command points, and the extra bubble wrap, are just too good a combination.
Perhaps GW needs to consider writing each Codex with its own system of generating CP. This would further allow different armies to work differently on top of customizing how many cp you get for a 200pt chunk of army.
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
We have unbalanced junk that will keep unbalanced(GW doesn't even care about game being balanced) with more illogical rules that break suspension of disbelief all the time.
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
We have unbalanced junk that will keep unbalanced(GW doesn't even care about game being balanced) with more illogical rules that break suspension of disbelief all the time.
That is some mighty fine projection. GW cares about the game, and has even taken to playtesting it with 3rd party playtesters to try and make the game better. But no, somehow continued attempts at balance and testing don't mean they care but somehow don't care?
I'm sorry, you're just posting nonsense here. Go back to whatever game you apparently like to play because it doesn't look like you like to play this one.
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
Yeah, people seem to forget that if this wasn't a living ruleset edition, we would still have the following:
1) Horders of morale immune conscripts for 3 points
2) Hordes of 4++ horros for 3 points
3) 27 points dark reapers
4) Uber soulbursts
5( Flyrants everywhere
6) 10 points genestealers who could deepstrike turn 1 from a lictor
7) Full flyer armies with a big shot yelling at them
8) Smite spam from 30 point malefic lords
8th edition would be a cluster of broken things that somehow would keep the game together... think of 7th edition 40K, MtG (any format) or WMH MK2. That is not balance, that is deciding that balance has no place in your game.
8th right now a much better balance thanks to all these changes, and we can actually argue about internal balance of factions, which is something unheard of.
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
It's not a nerf. If one (or some) Codex(es) are played more often than others, it's clear there's a need to adjust things. If you look at a tournament, and, say, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights and Dark Angels are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If one Codex appears more often than the others combined, things need to change.
If you look at Astra Militarum armies/detachments across tournaments and all available Warlord Traits are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If Grand Strategist is suspiciously over-represented, it needs to change.
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
It's not a nerf. If one (or some) Codex(es) are played more often than others, it's clear there's a need to adjust things. If you look at a tournament, and, say, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights and Dark Angels are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If one Codex appears more often than the others combined, things need to change.
If you look at Astra Militarum armies/detachments across tournaments and all available Warlord Traits are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If Grand Strategist is suspiciously over-represented, it needs to change.
It's not rocket science.
Etc...
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
It's not a nerf. If one (or some) Codex(es) are played more often than others, it's clear there's a need to adjust things. If you look at a tournament, and, say, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights and Dark Angels are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If one Codex appears more often than the others combined, things need to change.
If you look at Astra Militarum armies/detachments across tournaments and all available Warlord Traits are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If Grand Strategist is suspiciously over-represented, it needs to change.
It's not rocket science.
Etc...
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
totally Agree
The other issue is if you give people the nerfs they are screaming for, congratulations you've just turned the knights codex into the next blood angles codex where they become a poor monobuild codex and are only represented by 1 or 2 datasheets from the entire codex in Astra Millsoup lists.
Play against someone with mono knights before you screem OMG OP NERF NERF NERF like a frothing mob.
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
We can't say that yet.
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
I'm really hoping that the Inquisition will get some mention. They where completly left out of the last FAQ and items that are used by both them and the adeptus ministrorum where tweaked for the ministrorum but not for the inquisiton. I fear gw will just let the inquisition phase out of the game, but I sincerly hope that will not happen. The day the inquisition isn't supported anymore is the day I quit warhammer.
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
And? They can still do some playtest against the weakest conceivable army lists like all-Kroot or White Scars all-Primaris or footslogging Slaanesh Daemons or whatever and adjust points until they are balanced.
IK aren't weak. BAO fight for second place was a pure Knight list without any Guard or anything. There're easily a Million mathematical unit combinations currently in the game that aren't getting anywhere close to that or even appear at a tournament.
Balance means they need to be balanced against every single one of those too.
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
I doubt a points adjustment would impact that TBH, the Gallent and Catellian are specialists, specialists generally being preferntial to generalists is a pretty common element of well.. every 40k army. So you can eaither over price those two units, or massivly underprice the multirole platforms.
I doubt a points adjustment would impact that TBH, the Gallent and Catellian are specialists, specialists generally being preferntial to generalists is a pretty common element of well.. every 40k army. So you can eaither over price those two units, or massivly underprice the multirole platforms.
X being preferential to Y is the definition of "not balanced".
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
And? They can still do some playtest against the weakest conceivable army lists like all-Kroot or White Scars all-Primaris or footslogging Slaanesh Daemons or whatever and adjust points until they are balanced.
IK aren't weak. BAO fight for second place was a pure Knight list without any Guard or anything. There're easily a Million mathematical unit combinations currently in the game that aren't getting anywhere close to that or even appear at a tournament.
Balance means they need to be balanced against every single one of those too.
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
And? They can still do some playtest against the weakest conceivable army lists like all-Kroot or White Scars all-Primaris or footslogging Slaanesh Daemons or whatever and adjust points until they are balanced.
IK aren't weak. BAO fight for second place was a pure Knight list without any Guard or anything. There're easily a Million mathematical unit combinations currently in the game that aren't getting anywhere close to that or even appear at a tournament.
Balance means they need to be balanced against every single one of those too.
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
Assessing the strength of something isn't hard. That's what you have the tournaments and other games for.
I agree, trying to finesse it down to individual placement is probably not a good idea, but you could easily do something along of:
- Take 10.000 or maybe even 50.000 tournament lists from different tournament formats from the last 6 months (all numbers just off the top of my hat examples for illustrating the concept).
- Units/equipment that didn't appear at all - 10% point reduction
- Units/equipment appearing in 1% - 10% of those lists stay the same.
- Units/equipment appearing in 11% - 20% of those lists, point increase by 10%
- Units/equipment appearing in 21% - 30% of those lists, point increase by 20%
- Units/equipment appearing in 31%+ of those lists, point increase by 30%
Rinse & repeat every 6 months ad infinitum alongside actual rule-changes/releases and adjustments through codexes, etc.. that help correct things points aren't necessarily able to fix.
There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Those goals were:
1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.
2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.
3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.
It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.
this post is so disconnected from reality that I was expecting you to end it with a complaint about GK being too OP
Sunny Side Up wrote: CP farms and some confusion on cross-faction stratagems should be addressed.
A (matched-play only) beta rules trying to tackle this in some way would be welcome (e.g. you only unlock stratagems for your warlord's faction or you can only use stratagems once per matched-play-battle for all stratagems period, or something like this).
That would be illogical rule. Marines don't forget how to use auspex just because warlord is ig(or different marine). Now detachment cp usable only by that det i couid get behind but alas gw likely thinks that's too complicated for players
Catachan don't forget how to be strong, but when allied in as GSC allies they have to.
Armies don't forget how to create a unit after bringing the 3rd one, but on the tabletop this isn't an option.
Psykers casting their smite equivalent doesn't get harder just because other psykers have cast it a few minutes ago, but in a turn of 40k it does.
This isn't a sim. Some decisions are made around balance.
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
Assessing the strength of something isn't hard. That's what you have the tournaments and other games for.
I agree, trying to finesse it down to individual placement is probably not a good idea, but you could easily do something along of:
- Take 10.000 or maybe even 50.000 tournament lists from different tournament formats from the last 6 months (all numbers just off the top of my hat examples for illustrating the concept). - Units/equipment that didn't appear at all - 10% point reduction - Units/equipment appearing in 1% - 10% of those lists stay the same. - Units/equipment appearing in 11% - 20% of those lists, point increase by 10% - Units/equipment appearing in 21% - 30% of those lists, point increase by 20% - Units/equipment appearing in 31%+ of those lists, point increase by 30%
Rinse & repeat every 6 months ad infinitum alongside actual rule-changes/releases and adjustments through codexes, etc.. that help correct things points aren't necessarily able to fix.
I did exactly that, many times actually. It takes some hour but you get some interesting results. The issue with that approach right now though, is in the way that lists are registered. Only the main faction is listed, and you don't even know how the "main faction" is decided.
You could be looking at 100 IK lists and no more than 5 of them were pure IK.
Also, the procedure you suggest doesn't work in practice. Not all models are meant to have an equal representation in game, some models are meant to be in every list, while other are very niche.
Even not considering troops (which many faction don't have enough of a choice so there will be always the same ones, and that's intended, Ork lists should have Boyz), take Tyranids for example.
Almost all nid lists do feature an Hyve tyrant, winged or not. That would be true even if the tyrant was slightly subpar, for fluff reasons and because at least one is needed due to it being a solid base for any list. It gives you a psy base, a good synaptic base and almost all traits and relics can only be given to a tyrant. Some units are just made to be the core of a faction.
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
We can't say that yet.
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
At my last big event, we had 10 IK armies with I believe 4 or 5 being pure IK. The others had IG battallion or BA detachment, one guy had Marauder Bombers supporting his knights. So from my experience about half the people that play IK run pure lists.
Archebius wrote: I'm mostly hoping for updated balancing. Too many units out there right now that don't get any love at all, and aren't even fun to play.
Unless they're tweaking the datasheet that'll likely be limited to CA for points changes.
Archebius wrote: I'm mostly hoping for updated balancing. Too many units out there right now that don't get any love at all, and aren't even fun to play.
Unless they're tweaking the datasheet that'll likely be limited to CA for points changes.
Basically this. I wouldn't be expecting any real balance changes with the FAQ. Even with Chapter Approved I wouldn't expect any new faction rules or anything, since every faction will receive changes. Some will just end up falling through the cracks, and many units I'm sure won't be touched as a result.
Archebius wrote: I'm mostly hoping for updated balancing. Too many units out there right now that don't get any love at all, and aren't even fun to play.
Unless they're tweaking the datasheet that'll likely be limited to CA for points changes.
Basically this. I wouldn't be expecting any real balance changes with the FAQ. Even with Chapter Approved I wouldn't expect any new faction rules or anything, since every faction will receive changes. Some will just end up falling through the cracks, and many units I'm sure won't be touched as a result.
I could see some rule tweaks or some new beta stuff, but generally points seem to be a CA thing. Though I hope they use CA to start introducing new stuff to armies (as a possible example of what they could do: break the vanilla marines up into chunks by giving each chapter their own relics for example).
- Units/equipment that didn't appear at all - 10% point reduction
- Units/equipment appearing in 1% - 10% of those lists stay the same.
- Units/equipment appearing in 11% - 20% of those lists, point increase by 10%
- Units/equipment appearing in 21% - 30% of those lists, point increase by 20%
- Units/equipment appearing in 31%+ of those lists, point increase by 30%
Rinse & repeat every 6 months ad infinitum alongside actual rule-changes/releases and adjustments through codexes, etc.. that help correct things points aren't necessarily able to fix.
Interesting. I do get the feeling though that an 1800pts eldar army would still destroy a 2200pts GK army. Am not saying that points drops or rises can't change the meta, they can of course, but some stuff is so good simple points changes just doesn't fix much. How many times were eldar being "fixed" ?
Who knows, maybe 380pts for 10 termintors would be good.
I think the idea would be that you'd do this 2-4 times a year.
If you did it regularly, things would even out. Although there would be odd points. For instance, if there were an option that just felt... ewww. Like, not necessarily bad, but compleletly unfun. As it'd keep getting that sweet, sweet 10% reduction each quarter, it'd be dirt cheap and OP. It'd eventually go up in popularity and change less, but the game would reach equilibrium where the points costs disincentivised taking units that were cool and fun in favor of units that sucked the joy out of life.
To this end, such a style should be manually curated. And perhaps weights put to different units - after all, I want to see more Marines and Guardsmen than Shining Spears and Vespids.
What we have instead kinda-sorta proxy's this by the way metas evolve, but not well.
Also, it's harder to tighten the feedback loop - and so much else changes each cycle, that the results would be imperfect. An improvement, but not fantastic.
(Another note - I'd only look at units/equipment in the top 25%, not everything - the one guy still trying to make Corsairs work at a tournament shouldn't impact the numbers at all.)
There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Those goals were:
1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.
2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.
3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.
It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.
this post is so disconnected from reality that I was expecting you to end it with a complaint about GK being too OP
Dude, just because you don't pay any attention to anything in the world doesn't mean I'm not correct. We're seeing less overall different units, the same exact (in some cases worse) level of faction balance, more constrained list building than ever and an INCREDIBLY strong incentive towards soup due to most factions being unable to field enough of their powerful units to not get a greater benefit out of the top unit from another faction.
I'm sure that if you had even a modicum of understanding about even the simplest aspects of how the game works, you'd have noticed this on your own. But since you clearly don't I can see how your perception might be this badly warped.
There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Those goals were:
1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.
2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.
3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.
It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.
this post is so disconnected from reality that I was expecting you to end it with a complaint about GK being too OP
Dude, just because you don't pay any attention to anything in the world doesn't mean I'm not correct. We're seeing less overall different units, the same exact (in some cases worse) level of faction balance, more constrained list building than ever and an INCREDIBLY strong incentive towards soup due to most factions being unable to field enough of their powerful units to not get a greater benefit out of the top unit from another faction.
I'm sure that if you had even a modicum of understanding about even the simplest aspects of how the game works, you'd have noticed this on your own. But since you clearly don't I can see how your perception might be this badly warped.
I pay attention to everything. I have my finger to the pulse of the competitive scene. I check the results of every single high end tournament, analyse the lists, and listen to multiple competitive podcasts every single week.
This isn't even subjective. You couldn't be more wrong, on every single account. Youve made it clear that you're upset about losing the ability to play with your collection, and that's why you get so ragey like this when someone disagrees with your tirades - it's coming from a place of emotion, not logic. The personal attacks just compound this. You need to take a step back and realise the fact that this is such an extremely rare sentiment means you already failed point 3, and point 1 and 2 are easily examinable and thus supportable, so if you are going to make extraordinary claims you should just support them with something. But you won't because you can't.
Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.
You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.
This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.
cuda1179 wrote: Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.
You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.
This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.
People would be upset, but it would be a good direction. Command points should be tied to common factions at some level. Whether that is the (chapter) or adeptus astartes level is a different question, but much like chaos/Imperium/aeldari don't count for battle forged in matched play perhaps those keywords shouldnt count for mingling of command points.
I would go so far to say the three you get for being battleforged go to your warlords detachment.
cuda1179 wrote: Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.
You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.
This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.
upset or not, it's more bookkeeping, requiring like 3 separate CP counters and awareness of which one is which, and difficult to keep an eye on both your own and your opponents. It's basically counter productive to their entire design goal this edition, so they won't do it.
cuda1179 wrote: What if CP can ONLY be used for your warlords faction? Sure, you could still make CP farms, but it would limit abuse without overdoing bookkeeping.
I can't believe deep strike & rule of 3 won't be here to stay. Its made the game a lot better. There might be some refinement to clarify things like being able to take lots of daemon princes - but this seems more of an ideological issue rather than an in game one.
The thing is FAQ tends to mean blanket game changes, rather than detailed points fixes they want to sell in CA.
Unfortunately I can't see any neat fixes on CPs via a one line rule. Limiting them to the detachment that generated them is administratively clunky. Binding them to warlord etc the same. It all requires reclassifying what an army is and how its formed from the relatively fluid system today.
Really I'd prefer to kill all CP farms and start again. I think its a blight on the game, that is essentially mandatory for any competitive list. There are almost no circumstances where a non-CP farm warlord trait/artefact is of comparable power.
So I'd make it so all the options, in every single codex, are changed from "on an X you get a CP" to "you get 2 extra CP" (potentially even just 1) and that would be that.
You want to go Grand Strategist, Kurov's Aquila, and Veritas Vitae? Okay, you get 6 extra CP and that's it. Full stop, the end.
I suspect this isn't a big enough nerf to alter the guard formation being basically mandatory in imperial lists - but it would be a start. If its still obnoxious you could then drop it down to 1CP.
Really this is a 2 step process. If you kill CP spam, and it becomes clear certain armies don't work without lots of CPs, you can then look at boosting their access to CPs organically. Right now though its a joke - and I don't know if its just me, but its probably the thing that pisses me off the most about the game.
"Oh I'm using a stratagem, oh do I get it back, oh I do and that was free. Oh are you using a stratagem? Well let me roll a dice, oh more CP for me. Lollollol." Just sod off.
If you wanted to go radical I would completely scrap the CP/stratagem system to be something more like Kill Team, where it was all re-balanced around the fact you are gaining a fixed number per turn (amended by certain things like your leader being dead) rather than this big pool which may or may not double over the game. Have the system designed - across all factions - to be roughly equal rather than the current system of making up how it works as they go along.
All in all the whole ally thing was a stupid thing. It makes good armies OP, makes weaker armies invalid. They should make it narrative game only, same with Inari etc. This would, at least in theory, give an entice for GW to fix bad armies. Just play IG and custodes in your GK army would no longer be an argument how to fix stuff.
An Actual Englishman wrote: God I would love it if they somehow nerfed CP batteries, souping and reinforced the rule of three.
Or even if they just forbade souping all together. How the community would squeal. How the meta would turn on it's head. It would be glorious.
All factions should be able to stand and fall alone by design. Give those factions without it a cheap chaff unit something to use and limit souping.
Of course GW will never do this because the current model encourages sales.
Souping actually gave us gakload of list variety that we NEVER saw under the influence of older editions. If you remove Soup, Competitive 40k immediately dies as 3/4 armies become unplayable
blackmage wrote: Rules of 3 Will stay, just need to be refined For issues Like the 9 dp's For example, ds For me too shoul stay, maybe with some exceptions
I actually hope they'd make rule of 3 a "full" matched-play rule and not just an event recommendation.
An Actual Englishman wrote: God I would love it if they somehow nerfed CP batteries, souping and reinforced the rule of three.
Or even if they just forbade souping all together. How the community would squeal. How the meta would turn on it's head. It would be glorious.
All factions should be able to stand and fall alone by design. Give those factions without it a cheap chaff unit something to use and limit souping.
Of course GW will never do this because the current model encourages sales.
Souping actually gave us gakload of list variety that we NEVER saw under the influence of older editions. If you remove Soup, Competitive 40k immediately dies as 3/4 armies become unplayable
I don't think Soup is the reason for a ton of list variety. Older editions were broken, we now know this thanks to the new edition. That is why they had little list variety - brokenly good things stayed broken for years. I completely disagree that if you remove soup 3/4 armies become unplayable too. Quite the opposite in fact. Currently the worst armies are those that can't soup.
blackmage wrote: Rules of 3 Will stay, just need to be refined For issues Like the 9 dp's For example, ds For me too shoul stay, maybe with some exceptions
I actually hope they'd make rule of 3 a "full" matched-play rule and not just an event recommendation.
An Actual Englishman wrote: God I would love it if they somehow nerfed CP batteries, souping and reinforced the rule of three.
Or even if they just forbade souping all together. How the community would squeal. How the meta would turn on it's head. It would be glorious.
All factions should be able to stand and fall alone by design. Give those factions without it a cheap chaff unit something to use and limit souping.
Of course GW will never do this because the current model encourages sales.
Souping actually gave us gakload of list variety that we NEVER saw under the influence of older editions. If you remove Soup, Competitive 40k immediately dies as 3/4 armies become unplayable
I don't think Soup is the reason for a ton of list variety. Older editions were broken, we now know this thanks to the new edition. That is why they had little list variety - brokenly good things stayed broken for years. I completely disagree that if you remove soup 3/4 armies become unplayable too. Quite the opposite in fact. Currently the worst armies are those that can't soup.
Soup is not bad per se. It is something that we always had since the old editions but started really spreading with 6th and 7th edition. Those editions were broken by this (and by other things), because they didn't have a keyword system, so a DA could deathstar with wolves.
8th edition handled this much better, at least now 1+1 equals around 2 in most case, if it returns more than that is because you were skilled in handling the limitations, taxes and such to transplant a unit that is worth X in a list where it can perform for more than X.
That is fine. Those kind of sinergies are good and not rewarding enough to generate balance issues.
Problem is that with the CP sharing, you know no longer have 1+1=2, because some factions are better at genetaring CPs and some are better at spending them.
If CP were locked in some form, then soups would be back to being an healthy part of the game.
Spoletta wrote: Side Up]Soup is not bad per se. It is something that we always had since the old editions but started really spreading with 6th and 7th edition. Those editions were broken by this (and by other things), because they didn't have a keyword system, so a DA could deathstar with wolves.
8th edition handled this much better, at least now 1+1 equals around 2 in most case, if it returns more than that is because you were skilled in handling the limitations, taxes and such to transplant a unit that is worth X in a list where it can perform for more than X.
That is fine. Those kind of sinergies are good and not rewarding enough to generate balance issues.
Problem is that with the CP sharing, you know no longer have 1+1=2, because some factions are better at genetaring CPs and some are better at spending them.
If CP were locked in some form, then soups would be back to being an healthy part of the game.
As a player of a "mono" faction, that has no option to soup with anything, I have to disagree. I don't think the problem is as extreme as with 6th and 7th (obviously) but I still think it's a problem. When a faction can pick and choose the best units from a suite of factions they are inherently stronger than a faction that cannot or chooses not to. As we can see, top players choose the best units from various factions and mix them.
It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.
Spoletta wrote: All the "beta rules" are de facto fully official.
The rule of 3 is not a beta rule. PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.
Then armies that simply cannot stand alone like Harlequins and Custodes become unusable in matched play.
I'd like something that assists melee armies. The current meta is super harsh on them. Every army I play against is either a gunline or 90% gunline with a squad or 2 of melee stuff.
Spoletta wrote: All the "beta rules" are de facto fully official.
The rule of 3 is not a beta rule. PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.
Then armies that simply cannot stand alone like Harlequins and Custodes become unusable in matched play.
Custodes might not be top table competitive mono, but they are far from unuseable. They might be limited in list variations but they can be played mono, same with harlequins though they probably suffer from rule of 3 a bit.
But limiting CP/Stratagems to the main/warlord-faction only and/or CP/CP-farming to the faction they originate from (with the 3 "free CP" getting the warlord's faction, for example) would certainly give each army more focus and a clearer distinction between "main force" and "allies".
Spoletta wrote: Side Up]Soup is not bad per se. It is something that we always had since the old editions but started really spreading with 6th and 7th edition. Those editions were broken by this (and by other things), because they didn't have a keyword system, so a DA could deathstar with wolves.
8th edition handled this much better, at least now 1+1 equals around 2 in most case, if it returns more than that is because you were skilled in handling the limitations, taxes and such to transplant a unit that is worth X in a list where it can perform for more than X.
That is fine. Those kind of sinergies are good and not rewarding enough to generate balance issues.
Problem is that with the CP sharing, you know no longer have 1+1=2, because some factions are better at genetaring CPs and some are better at spending them.
If CP were locked in some form, then soups would be back to being an healthy part of the game.
As a player of a "mono" faction, that has no option to soup with anything, I have to disagree. I don't think the problem is as extreme as with 6th and 7th (obviously) but I still think it's a problem. When a faction can pick and choose the best units from a suite of factions they are inherently stronger than a faction that cannot or chooses not to. As we can see, top players choose the best units from various factions and mix them.
It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.
A faction cannot pick and choose whatever it wants from multiple factions, there are detachments to consider. If you want something from a faction then you need to invest significantly in it, i cannot simply say "Oh ok, i'll add a dunecrawler to my GK", you would need to take 3 and an HQ, or 2 HQ and 3 troops. It isn't like it is a single faction with all datasheets available. Sure there are some factions, like guards, who are easier to add to your army, mainly because the HQs are really cheap. That is kind of intended though, guards are in almost every conflict.
Sure, even with limitations it is still a nice option to have, but it isn't nearly as powerful (without CP sharing) as people make it out to be.
Or at least as long as there aren't OP things around that you want to grab, but there aren't many OP models left in the game. Problems right now come from the combinations of models and stratagems, if i had to make a list of models that are clearly performing too well, it wouldn't reach the 10 entries. Those things have been heavily hammered down by CA and FAQs (sometimes too heavily). Ravagers, fire raptors, castellan knights, shadowswords, shield captains and probably a few more are the ones left. All the other ones like shining spears, dark reapers, grotesques, hive guards, hemlocks, other knights and similar models are perfectly fine, they are only a problem due to some unfortunate combination of powers/traits/stratagems.
A rule that says "Only the detachment with your warlord can use stratagems and benefit from factions traits", would kill 95% of current souping.
Spoletta wrote: A faction cannot pick and choose whatever it wants from multiple factions, there are detachments to consider. If you want something from a faction then you need to invest significantly in it, i cannot simply say "Oh ok, i'll add a dunecrawler to my GK", you would need to take 3 and an HQ, or 2 HQ and 3 troops. It isn't like it is a single faction with all datasheets available. Sure there are some factions, like guards, who are easier to add to your army, mainly because the HQs are really cheap. That is kind of intended though, guards are in almost every conflict.
If you want to add just 1 model/unit to your army you certainly can do so (twice) by using the Aux Detachment option. Sure it cost 1 CP per use but the option is there.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: For those of you who think soup is a recent thing- it was allowed in 2nd edition. In fact up to 25% of your army could be made up of allies back then.
And then it went away until 6th edition, with the exception of certain factions like daemonhunters who could take limited allies. 6th had the "allied detachment": 1 HQ, 2 troops, and 1 each of the other FOC slots, and it's expanded from there with the initial naysayers being proved more right each edition.
No they weren't?
It wasn't any different before allies, except that if a codex wasnt the best, it didn't see ANY play, and you had entire factions who practically didn't exist.
Sure man, we keep seeing those GK being played left and right, because they can ally in custodes, knights and IGCP farms. Oh wait, no one wants to play bad armies with or without ally. The best ally can do is someone builds a weak army, already with an ally detachment from the start, and then just brenches out in to the ally section. And soon something that started as custodes with IG, and some GK, turns in to IG with custodes.
Thing is in a non-soup enviroment Custodes can work. Most all lists in major tournaments are soup. So the level goes down a lot if you forbid soup in matched play.
Ice_can wrote: The rule of three being updated to be more like the Tau commander rule I can see.
The rest of your suggestions are all way off the reservation.
The biggest issue right now is CP farming and CP sharing.
Non of the stuff you claim as thing's needing fixed are problems they are design changes, you might not like them but they are here to stay.
Also its an FAQ not chapter approved why would they be addressing missions?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: You say that but you also kinda prove his point by using in your example of soup. Without allies Custodes wouldn't be seen at all.
For that matter Knights probably wouldn't see much play either, given that mono-Knights tend to lack the board presence necessary to hold objectives.
Depends on the process.
If Soup wasn't a thing I suspect mono Eldar, DE and IG would be top tier.
Nerf Alaitoc (major meta shift if its gone tbh), 5 point Disies, maybe something on Coven 4++ & IG need work, lots of work.
Once you have gone through that though, you should be in a pretty healthy place.
I don't see how mono Custodes would not be a thing - or mono Harlequins.
Whether they would be top tier as opposed to say mono Eldar/DE/IG/Knights/Tau/Tyranids etc through to possibly Marines & Admech is open to debate - but I am not seeing what makes them "unplayable" and I don't really get the claims that they are clearly "meant" to be an allied detachment.
As for the whole "you know, Allies were a thing since 2nd" - sure. Taudar was a thing until 8th edition. People don't look back on Wraithknight & Riptide Wings as a fun combination.
Spoletta wrote: All the "beta rules" are de facto fully official.
The rule of 3 is not a beta rule. PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS.
I was going to ask you to cite your source on this, then went back and looked at the Big FAQ PDF, and apparently the Rule of 3 was straight errata, not a beta rule.
On the other hand, it is errata to a suggestion for Matched Play events, not a rule which is expected to be used at all events, so I can see why people might get confused about it.
As an aside, and unrelated to the Big FAQ, I do hope that CA 2018 includes a list of all points value changes which are in effect, rather than just the additional changes that they'll no doubt be making.
As an aside, and unrelated to the Big FAQ, I do hope that CA 2018 includes a list of all points value changes which are in effect, rather than just the additional changes that they'll no doubt be making.
I hope they punish entirely new pages of all point values for all units in all codexes. It would take a good portion of the book, but a one stop reference would be really useful.
Best approach to CP farming that I can see is to make relics exclusive to the warlord's detachment and double the cost of stratagems from a faction other than your warlord's. You'd still have people taking min battalions, but that's inevitable as long as there's a benefit to taking battalions in the game. This way you might see Sororitas or AdMech instead of AM sometimes.
BoomWolf wrote: No they weren't?
It wasn't any different before allies, except that if a codex wasnt the best, it didn't see ANY play, and you had entire factions who practically didn't exist.
Aaaah yes that's why in tournaments you only saw one codex...Umm no.
If Soup wasn't a thing I suspect mono Eldar, DE and IG would be top tier.
Nerf Alaitoc (major meta shift if its gone tbh), 5 point Disies, maybe something on Coven 4++ & IG need work, lots of work.
Once you have gone through that though, you should be in a pretty healthy place.
I don't see how mono Custodes would not be a thing - or mono Harlequins.
Whether they would be top tier as opposed to say mono Eldar/DE/IG/Knights/Tau/Tyranids etc through to possibly Marines & Admech is open to debate - but I am not seeing what makes them "unplayable" and I don't really get the claims that they are clearly "meant" to be an allied detachment.
As for the whole "you know, Allies were a thing since 2nd" - sure. Taudar was a thing until 8th edition. People don't look back on Wraithknight & Riptide Wings as a fun combination.
This.
We have been told that armies are valued against their relative strength to others as a standalone force. This all falls apart when a player can soup. And players can literally pick one or two units as they wish - auxiliary detachments exist and certain keywords are so common they allow almost any combination of units.
Armies are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses - what IK lack in board presence they more than make up for in firepower. When they can throw in a ton of IG bodies at will for cheap it completely negates their weakness and balance is thrown out the window.
Harlies and Custodes would be absolutely fine if soup was removed. As would knights.
It's pretty impossible to say what the non-soup meta would look like since it'd be such a huge change from what we're used to. I expect a lot of people would immediately assume Guard would be the kingpins, but almost from the start of 8th Guard has relied on a fast and hard-hitting melee component to win at top tables, whether that be Celestine or Custodes Bike Captains; how strong is Guard if their best choice for filling that role is Bullgryns in a transport? Maybe they would be fine, or maybe their now one-dimensional play style would get run over by the armies that do still have a fast melee component to supplement their shooting. I really can't say for sure.
Arachnofiend wrote: It's pretty impossible to say what the non-soup meta would look like since it'd be such a huge change from what we're used to. I expect a lot of people would immediately assume Guard would be the kingpins, but almost from the start of 8th Guard has relied on a fast and hard-hitting melee component to win at top tables, whether that be Celestine or Custodes Bike Captains; how strong is Guard if their best choice for filling that role is Bullgryns in a transport? Maybe they would be fine, or maybe their now one-dimensional play style would get run over by the armies that do still have a fast melee component to supplement their shooting. I really can't say for sure.
Though it's not massively relevant to this thread I'd say its a solid guess to assume Guard would be the top dogs, closely followed by Craftworld and perhaps Tau. All of these factions manage to compete in the current, soup meta as mono builds so I don't think they'd have a massive issue in a mono meta that would, in theory, be easier for them. I don't think Guard has to have a fast and hard-hitting melee component to win st top tables either, there are quite a few strong Guard builds that do not have such a component and still do very well.
I remain surprised that they don't enact a similar system to Age of Sigmar where approximately 20% of your points can be spent on "allies" before your army stops being valid for a specific Allegiance. Which is where the powerful rules are.
So - for example - 1600 points of Catachan 400 points of soup can be a Catachan army. 1500 of Catachan and 500 of soup no longer gets catachan bonuses.
Pretty hard to retrofit to 40k now, though - and there would need to be exceptions otherwise no army could ever take a Knight unless it was pure knights.
Silentz wrote: I remain surprised that they don't enact a similar system to Age of Sigmar where approximately 20% of your points can be spent on "allies" before your army stops being valid for a specific Allegiance. Which is where the powerful rules are.
So - for example - 1600 points of Catachan 400 points of soup can be a Catachan army. 1500 of Catachan and 500 of soup no longer gets catachan bonuses.
Pretty hard to retrofit to 40k now, though - and there would need to be exceptions otherwise no army could ever take a Knight unless it was pure knights.
I do like the idea though but every time this something like this is brought up someone mentions that they play Inquisition and that they'd be unplayable. They could just add some exceptions though.
For knights it could be a singular knight or a squadron that could be added without breaking battleforged, since the squadrons can only be armigers.
So, after some thoughts I think CP farming could be toned down with a single sentence.
“If your army is battle forged, it may contain up to 1 source of Command Point regeneration.”
Alternatively, if you wanted to take a milder approach you could say
“Armies may contain up to 1 relic that regenerates Command Points.”
The difference between the two, is that the first one would restrict you to 1 WL trait or 1 relic, whereas the second one will allow you 1 WL trait AND 1 relic.
Personally, I’m all for the first option, as it allows other WL trait options and relics to be looked at, outside of the “standard” – though it’d have to be monitored as it might eventually mean the WL traits regenerating CP will need to be reworked in the future.
Additionally, I’d like to see a CP bonus be given to HQs like Chapter Masters (across all factions). Essentially a “If this model is your WL gain +1 CP”. Essentially like how Creed, Abaddon etc etc work. Units with this bonus already would be compensated by getting a +1 CP bonus in addition to their current bonus (with the exception of Bobby G).
As for the deep strike rule. I’m ok with it, but, I think it, and “what ability/stratagem counts as deep strike, or reserve or nothing” needs 100% clarification so there are no more instances of “well, it doesn’t say it goes into reinforcements so I can still …..”. I also think there should be very limited options to get around it. Drop pods potentially could do it, with the old rule in place saying only half of your drop pods can deep strike turn 1. Not sure how it’d work for other factions though.
I’d change the CP bonus on Supreme Command detachments as well. If it doesn’t contain a LoW it doesn’t give CP. A minor penalty, but nothing too devastating as I don’t think it is to “busted”.
Finally, I’d just bite the bullet and give everything access to their given Chapter Tactic in all codices, but, I’d also restrict to -1 to hit penalties capping out at -2.
Whether or not GW will do any of these though, is highly debatable.
Spoletta wrote: All the "beta rules" are de facto fully official.
The rule of 3 is not a beta rule. PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.
Then armies that simply cannot stand alone like Harlequins and Custodes become unusable in matched play.
Harlequins stand alone incredibly easily. They are so mobile that most armies are creamed on that alone. Using 4 models to prevent a tank from leaving combat, then leaving combat themselves before shooting that tank with melta pistols, and then following that up with charging another unit of any kind with 4 attacks a piece on a troupe...yeah, no. Sure, they can't take casualties well, but with just a decent amount of terrain on the board, they become unstoppable.
Arachnofiend wrote: It's pretty impossible to say what the non-soup meta would look like since it'd be such a huge change from what we're used to. I expect a lot of people would immediately assume Guard would be the kingpins, but almost from the start of 8th Guard has relied on a fast and hard-hitting melee component to win at top tables, whether that be Celestine or Custodes Bike Captains; how strong is Guard if their best choice for filling that role is Bullgryns in a transport? Maybe they would be fine, or maybe their now one-dimensional play style would get run over by the armies that do still have a fast melee component to supplement their shooting. I really can't say for sure.
A meta can usually be defined by pinch points. So right now for instance you need to be able to beat an Eldar Soup and Imperial Soup because odds are high in your games you will encounter these armies (variants may well represent half your games). If you change those pinch points (with buffs, nerfs, new datasheets) the meta evolves.
I don't think guard have to be a one dimensional gunline that doesn't shift. Buffed up Catachans, Ogryns, Hellhounds etc are reasonably mobile concerns that are not camping on the backline.
But really - if they nerfed Alaitoc (and maybe the other -1 to hit outside 12" abilities) and/or stripped the Lightning Reflexes Stratagem while nerfing DE damage output and this hurt Eldar competitiveness (soup or no soup) then I think gunlines would be more competitive than now. I might be wrong, but I think the fact Eldar soup is so good - and so prevalent - is a major limiter on mono guard/Tau winning tournaments - because its hard to beat these armies 20-0, and to be top you need to manage that. I think mono guard is mathematically superior to Tau, so without some nerfs they would be my meta pick. It doesn't mean they would be the winner of every tournament ever - but they would be the army you built to beat.
Eldar for instance didn't win every 7th tournament despite I think being the best codex - in fact, I think when you considered that they represented 33% of lists taken to events they did pretty badly. But because they were 33% of the lists you were almost certainly going to face one Eldar player, probably 2, potentially 3 in a tournament. If your list couldn't cope with scat bikes, spiders & knights you were in trouble. Which meant a lot of lists were never seen, because they had almost no chance.
Arachnofiend wrote: It's pretty impossible to say what the non-soup meta would look like since it'd be such a huge change from what we're used to. I expect a lot of people would immediately assume Guard would be the kingpins, but almost from the start of 8th Guard has relied on a fast and hard-hitting melee component to win at top tables, whether that be Celestine or Custodes Bike Captains; how strong is Guard if their best choice for filling that role is Bullgryns in a transport? Maybe they would be fine, or maybe their now one-dimensional play style would get run over by the armies that do still have a fast melee component to supplement their shooting. I really can't say for sure.
A meta can usually be defined by pinch points. So right now for instance you need to be able to beat an Eldar Soup and Imperial Soup because odds are high in your games you will encounter these armies (variants may well represent half your games). If you change those pinch points (with buffs, nerfs, new datasheets) the meta evolves.
I don't think guard have to be a one dimensional gunline that doesn't shift. Buffed up Catachans, Ogryns, Hellhounds etc are reasonably mobile concerns that are not camping on the backline.
But really - if they nerfed Alaitoc (and maybe the other -1 to hit outside 12" abilities) and/or stripped the Lightning Reflexes Stratagem while nerfing DE damage output and this hurt Eldar competitiveness (soup or no soup) then I think gunlines would be more competitive than now. I might be wrong, but I think the fact Eldar soup is so good - and so prevalent - is a major limiter on mono guard/Tau winning tournaments - because its hard to beat these armies 20-0, and to be top you need to manage that. I think mono guard is mathematically superior to Tau, so without some nerfs they would be my meta pick. It doesn't mean they would be the winner of every tournament ever - but they would be the army you built to beat.
Eldar for instance didn't win every 7th tournament despite I think being the best codex - in fact, I think when you considered that they represented 33% of lists taken to events they did pretty badly. But because they were 33% of the lists you were almost certainly going to face one Eldar player, probably 2, potentially 3 in a tournament. If your list couldn't cope with scat bikes, spiders & knights you were in trouble. Which meant a lot of lists were never seen, because they had almost no chance.
I have been keeping tabs on tournaments results for a while now, and let me tell you that aeldari faction have had the highest winning lists/partecipating lists ratio since the CWE codex has been released. They are simply the top faction/soup.
If CP farms were to be eliminated right now, my best bet would be on aeldari dominating the scene.
Luckily the aeldari don't have actually have overpowered codici, they just have an handful of OP units and stratagems.
A nerf to alaitoc and dissie cannons, and a lower squad limit on dark reapers and shining spears would be a serious hit.
I like the 20% rule, but 400 points feels rather limited.
One I heard and liked was:
You get a new detachment called Ally. The Ally detachment can have 6 of HQ,Troop, Elite, Fast, Heavy, LOW, Flyer. So basically anything you want in it. Ally detachments generate no CP, and you can't use Stratagems from army used in the Ally detachment.You can only have 1 Ally detachment. Any other detachments in your army have to have all the same Factional keywords.
Reemule wrote: I like the 20% rule, but 400 points feels rather limited.
One I heard and liked was:
You get a new detachment called Ally. The Ally detachment can have 6 of HQ,Troop, Elite, Fast, Heavy, LOW, Flyer. So basically anything you want in it. Ally detachments generate no CP, and you can't use Stratagems from army used in the Ally detachment.You can only have 1 Ally detachment. Any other detachments in your army have to have all the same Factional keywords.
Define faction keywords as that sounds exceptionally punishing to certain codex's where subfaction bonuses are important.
Like is Adaptes Astartes enough or is mixing salamander and ravenguard now now result in one of them having 0 CP?
Reemule wrote: I like the 20% rule, but 400 points feels rather limited.
One I heard and liked was:
You get a new detachment called Ally. The Ally detachment can have 6 of HQ,Troop, Elite, Fast, Heavy, LOW, Flyer. So basically anything you want in it. Ally detachments generate no CP, and you can't use Stratagems from army used in the Ally detachment.You can only have 1 Ally detachment. Any other detachments in your army have to have all the same Factional keywords.
Define faction keywords as that sounds exceptionally punishing to certain codex's where subfaction bonuses are important.
Like is Adaptes Astartes enough or is mixing salamander and ravenguard now now result in one of them having 0 CP?
Not to mention the various non-<REGIMENT> bits in the IG book - would taking an Enginseer or a Scions squad break your main detachment?
Earth127 wrote: i don't mind it as a base mechanic. It's just too uneven currently to work with soup.
Soup is a marketing tactic that isnt going away.
The base CP mechanic itself is extremely lazy.
I feel like the idea being CP is solid and even tying them to detachments is a neat idea. The problem is they implemented it poorly. I think they need to make more use of the negative cp on some detachments and on mixing keywords so allying increases your versitility for model usage, but penalizes you in your strategems.
I always wondered if they did something like you had to choose a "primary" keyword when creating an army. (with some keywords not being allowed as primary like Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari) This primary keyword defines which warlord traits/Relics/Strategems you get access to as others have noted. Then if you take any detachments that are not entirely comprised of models with that keyword you get -X command points (not sure what the right number would be). So you could take that guard allied detachment to get some more bodies into your elite custodes list, but maybe the battalion only gives you +2 CP instead of +5 since you have an "ally" tax. I remember Malifaux did something similar with soulstones where if you took mercenaries in a non mercenaries list they cost 1 additional soulstone (which are kindof like points and CP in that game).
Another potential, is instead of the CP penalty you could designate that only certain detachments are eliglble for your "non" primary keyword. So maybe you can only take a Patrol Detachment and/or an auxilery support detachment for allies.
Not likely to be addressed, more of a wishlist, but compared to the Imperial knights, shadowsword and primarchs (demons plus gorilla man) all other Titan, large vehicle models, and large kits are rather overcosted. There are several threads about it, riptides, wraithknights, stompas, tesserect vaults etc. that for the point they do not put out nearly the damage and are mostly less durable so points costs need to be put in line. Note I am not saying the imperial knights are undercosted (well maybe the 2 new big guys should be more points btu the rest seem ok) but rather the other large models need to be brought into more reflective points ranges.
I know what I would like to see... and in priority order.
1. Character targeting reverted to original, first print rules.
2. Carnifex 1) increase to 10 wounds. 2) add damage table.
2a. Increase points of Spore Cysts to a min. of 30
3. Rule of 3 expanded upon to effect some units in a more significant way (e.g. only 1 Hive Tyrant per detachment and only 1 Daemon Prince per detachment)
4. Battalion and Brigade detachments reverted to original, first print Command Point bonus.
cuda1179 wrote: Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.
You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.
This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.
upset or not, it's more bookkeeping, requiring like 3 separate CP counters and awareness of which one is which, and difficult to keep an eye on both your own and your opponents. It's basically counter productive to their entire design goal this edition, so they won't do it.
Take a piece of paper, draw three columns. Write down each faction and how many CP you started with. When you use some, cross out the old number and right the new number. As far as book keeping goes this is about the same as being able to count to ten in your head.
Players regularly keep track during the psychic phase playing as or against Eldar or Thousand Sons. Tracking 3 1 digit integers is not too much 'bookkeeping.'
Also, as I think many have said before, assign the battle forged bonus CP to the detachment with your warlord in it. If you roll to steal or regain the CP, it goes to the detachment that allowed you to steal or regain it.
Silentz wrote: I remain surprised that they don't enact a similar system to Age of Sigmar where approximately 20% of your points can be spent on "allies" before your army stops being valid for a specific Allegiance. Which is where the powerful rules are.
So - for example - 1600 points of Catachan 400 points of soup can be a Catachan army. 1500 of Catachan and 500 of soup no longer gets catachan bonuses.
Pretty hard to retrofit to 40k now, though - and there would need to be exceptions otherwise no army could ever take a Knight unless it was pure knights.
And then people just spend the minimum 180 points on Guard?
cuda1179 wrote: Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.
You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.
This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.
upset or not, it's more bookkeeping, requiring like 3 separate CP counters and awareness of which one is which, and difficult to keep an eye on both your own and your opponents. It's basically counter productive to their entire design goal this edition, so they won't do it.
Take a piece of paper, draw three columns. Write down each faction and how many CP you started with. When you use some, cross out the old number and right the new number. As far as book keeping goes this is about the same as being able to count to ten in your head.
It's really not though, because you have to calculate what options you have available by crossreferencing, even in your head, each column with the cost of strats to work out your optimal combos available at any given time. Then you should be doing the same with your opponent, it's not really a practical addition to a game where they are trying to remove all bloat.
Downplay it to being as easy as you like, but remember they removed the cover system for being too much, this stands zero chance.
I like a lot of the rules from Killteam, which unfortunately hasn't really built up a following where I play.
Im hoping some of the core rules get brought into 40k, maybe as Advanced rules or something. Units falling back OR Overwatch ing, 6s always hit, LOS being models Body only, hopping over, under barriers less than 1.5' doesent count against movement.
cuda1179 wrote: Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.
You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.
This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.
upset or not, it's more bookkeeping, requiring like 3 separate CP counters and awareness of which one is which, and difficult to keep an eye on both your own and your opponents. It's basically counter productive to their entire design goal this edition, so they won't do it.
Take a piece of paper, draw three columns. Write down each faction and how many CP you started with. When you use some, cross out the old number and right the new number. As far as book keeping goes this is about the same as being able to count to ten in your head.
It's really not though, because you have to calculate what options you have available by crossreferencing, even in your head, each column with the cost of strats to work out your optimal combos available at any given time. Then you should be doing the same with your opponent, it's not really a practical addition to a game where they are trying to remove all bloat.
Downplay it to being as easy as you like, but remember they removed the cover system for being too much, this stands zero chance.
It is pretty easy, after a few games a player should have memorized most of their given armies rules. Further how is this any different than having one big pool. You still need to reference what strat does what. This doesn't add bloat, it discourages a frankly unhealthy practice of encouraging every army to have a CP battary of chaff regardless of fluff or actual unit utility.
Look, I know people want to argue that it's not hard to do that kind of bookkeeping but ultimately it's clunky game design and would only make it harder for new players to learn the game in the long run.
Cut it down to a set number of points generated per turn based on unit comp and we'd have something to work with that would be a lot more fair. Limit how many uses you can use CP regeneration to being 1 per game each and we'd be just about perfect.
I'd actually be good with that or tie it to points. You get so many based on how big of a game your playing. That's a fair better game design than what GW has come up with so far.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd actually be good with that or tie it to points. You get so many based on how big of a game your playing. That's a fair better game design than what GW has come up with so far.
Kill Team has a 1 per turn, +1 if you have a leader on the board generation mechanic, but I'd likely add in something +1 for troop units (making taking them more important to take and to actually deal with instead of largely ignoring while you focus fire their bigger threats off the board) and change the leader thing to your Warlord. Leave the special characters who give you a bonus CP at the start of the game for taking them unchanged and I think the basic set up would be pretty good.
It is pretty easy, after a few games a player should have memorized most of their given armies rules. Further how is this any different than having one big pool. You still need to reference what strat does what. This doesn't add bloat, it discourages a frankly unhealthy practice of encouraging every army to have a CP battary of chaff regardless of fluff or actual unit utility.
It's different to having 1 big pool, because you have 3. And you are adding and removing from each individually. And you have to run calcs for three different pools instead of 1, and keep in mind what you need to save from each pool depending on game state, and calcing what your opponent can do from 3 different pools, lol, cmon stop pretending "you'll have it memorized after a few games" that doesn't even make sense. This is exactly the sort of complex and entirely unnecessary game system that GW wants gone.
Look I get you want the rule, but just saying it doesn't add bloat will not make it so. There's plenty of other ways to achieve exactly what this achieves and do an even firmer job of it too so you're not being honest to yourself if you think that adding this bookkeeping is going to be even a consideration. This was the team that considered Twin-linked needed to be streamlined. You're being unrealistic.
I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".
In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.
1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn. All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn. Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.
This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.
Spoletta wrote: I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".
In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.
1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn
Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn.
All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn.
Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.
This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.
This system would check all the right boxes in an attempt to balance the factions. It would also mean you can't have 7 relics in your 2000 point, 3 detachment army (which is a good thing).
The only thing it's missing is a reward/penalty for sharing/not sharing two faction keywords between all your detachments (trying to balance necrons with imperium, for example).
So, applying this system to a boring, reliable, and competitively common list right now (1 BN of AM, 1 BN of BA, and Super Heavy Aux).. you'd get 2 CP pregame plus 2 every turn. If you replace the BN of AM with a BDE, and knock the BA down to a Supreme Command, you'd start with 2 and get 3 per turn.
Spoletta wrote: I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".
In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.
1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn. All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn. Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.
This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.
I like this idea. It feels similar to the AOS style (which I really like) but designed for 40k.
I'd also like to see Imperium, Chaos and Aeldari not able to be used as keywords for Batle-forged (let's face it the change they already made to detachments did absolutely nothing as nobody was taking mixed detachments but mixed armies), but that I think means you can't use Harlequins or Custodes (maybe they need a special rule letting them count?) to fix soup.
Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.
A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.
What if you can only use the command points generated by the battalion on said battalion? Wouldn't that make sense. A guard battalion brought into a battle gets that extra 5 points but it can only be used by th guard
Spoletta wrote: I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".
ballzonya wrote: What if you can only use the command points generated by the battalion on said battalion? Wouldn't that make sense. A guard battalion brought into a battle gets that extra 5 points but it can only be used by th guard
Well then why would you bring a guard battalion? That would hinder sales...
ballzonya wrote: What if you can only use the command points generated by the battalion on said battalion? Wouldn't that make sense. A guard battalion brought into a battle gets that extra 5 points but it can only be used by th guard
Well then why would you bring a guard battalion? That would hinder sales...
Ideally, allies would be chosen because the units compliment your army. As opposed to just taken in minimum cost to fuel you with enough CP that you can practically ignore the cost of the mechanic.
stonehorse wrote: Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.
A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.
That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.
Starting CP: X+1 CP +2 per Battalion
+4 per Brigade
-1 for Auxiliary
No relics (one?) that regenerate CP can be used in Matched games.
You gain (X) CP per turn, -1 per detachment that is of an allied faction.
(X = 1 per 500 points) [Allied Factions need to be defined]
All of the numbers above could be adjusted to fit the balance of what the expected number of CP should be for a mono army over 5 turns. Allied would have to be defined and some armies could get exceptions to this.
Lemondish wrote: My hope is that they don't listen to a single arm chair generals on dakka and actually balance based on what's actually happening in 40k.
IMHO removing/nerfing the guard CP regen relics are what needs to happen, beyond that not a huge deal.
Lemondish wrote: My hope is that they don't listen to a single arm chair generals on dakka and actually balance based on what's actually happening in 40k.
Understandable, but I still hope that when we eventually see an update that they swap the fortification rule for IF for the Bolter Drill strategem. Make the army the shooty Marine build with a focus on bolters with a strategem you can pop the few games it comes up would make me pretty happy.
That said, I'm going to be playing these guys regardless so my wishlisting doesn't really matter and I don't expect it to be in the FAQ.
The only thing that I hope makes the FAQ is a tweaked version of the Rule of Three (maybe tie it to unit keywords and give us a list) and take CP regeneration effects to being once per game.
Lemondish wrote: My hope is that they don't listen to a single arm chair generals on dakka and actually balance based on what's actually happening in 40k.
They have high quality players like InControl at the very least as playtesters, so we can rest assured that people like w1zard and Kanluwen will never be listened to. The Emperor protects
Anyone else hear the rumor that terrain rules were getting a tweak. That would be awesome.
I want the free vertical charge range changed so that you actually measure base to base.
Only one source of CP regen per roll. Only on a 5+. Only one point returned per strat and only on CP you spend yourself. Don't double dip the chip.
Start with 20 CP. Reduce per detachment. -0 for brig, -2 for bat, -4 for anything else. If you want to adjust these numbers on a per army basis (thinking DE patrols) fine, special rule DE patrols are only a -2, DA/white scars -2, custodes patrols -2, knight super heavies -2.
Bonus to filling out detachments. Guard still have more than everyone else.
Spoletta wrote: I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".
can you explain what you mean?
A lot of the auras and bonuses of 8th edition, are based around rerolls to hit. This didn't tie in particularly well with a lot of weapons having rerolls to hit from the beginning. It made judging the effectiveness of those bonuses much harder, since in a lot of situations they would have no impact.
stonehorse wrote: Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.
A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.
That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.
Bland?
We have faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers, and every unit in the game has at least 1 or 2 special rules at bare minimum.
It is far from bland without strategems, in a lot of ways 8th feels like as much a bloated mess that 7th was, just the location of the bloat is now in Codexes as opposed to the main rule book.
Each edition another layer of special rules are being woven into the fabric. It is getting hard to keep track of what is what.
stonehorse wrote: Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.
A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.
That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.
Bland?
We have faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers, and every unit in the game has at least 1 or 2 special rules at bare minimum.
It is far from bland without strategems, in a lot of ways 8th feels like as much a bloated mess that 7th was, just the location of the bloat is now in Codexes as opposed to the main rule book.
Each edition another layer of special rules are being woven into the fabric. It is getting hard to keep track of what is what.
Except almost all those faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers. Are just copy pasts of the same mechanic as is in 2 other codex's, they arn't unique in any way.
While a number of strategums are also shared they at least mixed with other faction or subfaction rules to allow for some different interactions.
8th edition isn't deep or complicated, it's just spamming the same mechanics with different names and the same strategums with different names for the illusion of depth.
Remove one of those variables and you'd probably be surprised how little in the game is actually unique.
stonehorse wrote: Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.
A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.
That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.
Bland?
We have faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers, and every unit in the game has at least 1 or 2 special rules at bare minimum.
It is far from bland without strategems, in a lot of ways 8th feels like as much a bloated mess that 7th was, just the location of the bloat is now in Codexes as opposed to the main rule book.
Each edition another layer of special rules are being woven into the fabric. It is getting hard to keep track of what is what.
Except almost all those faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers. Are just copy pasts of the same mechanic as is in 2 other codex's, they arn't unique in any way.
While a number of strategums are also shared they at least mixed with other faction or subfaction rules to allow for some different interactions.
8th edition isn't deep or complicated, it's just spamming the same mechanics with different names and the same strategums with different names for the illusion of depth.
Remove one of those variables and you'd probably be surprised how little in the game is actually unique.
Sorry I was not clear enough, I am not trying to say that 40k is deep or complex, as it is not, what I am saying is that it is a mess. Far too many special rules with no real thought given to how they interact with one another. That isn't to say special rules are not vital to highlight certain elements, but rather a game system that relies on them almost exclusively is going to get bogged down in them.
If some of the rules are shared as you say, then shouldn't there be USR built into the rules?
I understand that a lot of these rules are to add flavour, it is just looking like the system has replaced flavour with substance. A bit like add 10 sauses to a bland meal.
Maybe it is because I am getting fed up of special rules being the main selling point and way to win. A few of my friends gave up on 40k back in 5th due to what they described being out special ruled, the opponents army had more and better special rules which is what won. I feel like I am starting to join them, which is a shame as I really like the ease of finding a 40k opponent and the setting is great.
Spoletta wrote: I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".
In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.
1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn
Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn.
All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn.
Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.
This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.
I like this idea. It feels similar to the AOS style (which I really like) but designed for 40k.
I'd also like to see Imperium, Chaos and Aeldari not able to be used as keywords for Batle-forged (let's face it the change they already made to detachments did absolutely nothing as nobody was taking mixed detachments but mixed armies), but that I think means you can't use Harlequins or Custodes (maybe they need a special rule letting them count?) to fix soup.
While I’m interested by the idea, you’d need to scale it up considerably in order for it to work across the board.
For example, a pure Custodes army will be looking at starting with 1 CP (maybe 2 if you run a battalion and supreme command/something else). So, at best you’d be pre-game at 2CP. If you want a 2nd relic, you’d be starting at 1CP and you wouldn’t be able to start the game with 3 relics at all.
In addition to that, you’d not be able to use any other pre-game stratagems, like Victor of the Blood Games or putting stuff in deep strike. Furthermore, with only 1 CP regen per turn, you won’t be using the 3CP charge stratagem, or any of the 2CP stratagems (maybe not even the 1CP stratagems if you need a re-roll) throughout the game because you’ll only ever have that 1 CP from the regen.
A Knight army wouldn’t be able to create an Exalted Court of 3 members, with 3 relics and then still have CP left to do anything in the game.
This also applies to every other army out there. A single battalion army with 2 single CP additional detachments would start the game with 3CP and gain 1 a turn. Hell, even a double battalion +1 detachment would still only start with 3CP and gain 2 a turn.
As it stands, this would essentially just remove stratagems from the game and go back to a “pre-codex” era where only the 3 basic stratagems exist.
Indeed i was thinking about the problem of pregame stratagems, so it would probably be necessary to score the recurring CPs at the start of the game AND at the start of each round. At least for first round you have a bit more CP.
Seeing as CPs are generated per turn, perhaps an all elite army could take a turn off from spending CP and gather for the next round. That might help to balance that fact that CP rerolling an invuln on a shield captain on a jetbike costs the same as rerolling a flak armor save on a guardsman.
Or, perhaps the general would actually have to choose between having 3 relics or having a perfectly reliable first turn of dice rolling (I know this is not a popular opinion).
It's fine there are some armies more reliant on CP than others. It becomes a problem when you can get the best of both (IGCP battery I am looking at you).
So a system where you are restrictied to your warlord for generating/ using CP is the way to go.
Or heavier restrictions on allies in general (AoS has a few good ideas here).
Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.
I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.
I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...
barboggo wrote: Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.
I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.
I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...
Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.
I expect no change to how CP batteries work. Because they don't need them. I don't expect any significant Guard changes at all. I do expect some updates to UMs, and Necrons. When the CA drops, then I expect some SLIGHT Guard changes, but mostly costs. To things like Tanks and HWs.
barboggo wrote: Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.
I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.
I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...
Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.
I brought screens every time. Literally everyone did. And I think that was the issue. Mandatory T1 screens was kinda boring. Nowadays you only have to T1 screen against stuff like GSC Cult Ambush, which feels a lot more fluffy and cool.
barboggo wrote: Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.
I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.
I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...
Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.
I brought screens every time. Literally everyone did. And I think that was the issue. Mandatory T1 screens was kinda boring. Nowadays you only have to T1 screen against stuff like GSC Cult Ambush, which feels a lot more fluffy and cool.
The bigger issue was it made the non deepstrikers turn 1 a total waste of time as they have no ability to interact with your force, Because you have no army on the board.
Or even worse they got to spend a turn smashing nurglings or scouts that where blocking them into their deployment zone. It's supposed to be a game thats fun and challenging not just fixed meta and counter meta cookie cutter that was.
The FAQ really needs sort out the Guard CP farm and Craftworld hide and seek.
CA could do with giving marines and crons some help.
Venom spam and the DE meta seemed to turn out ok though. Or is that just because knights came out right after? I still think the DE codex is a great book.
I still think the answer to CP is every army gets the same amount of CP per player turn, 3 per player turn use offensively or defensively. plus 1 for battleforged. Bonus 1 CP for batallions or 2 for Brigade. so larger model count armies can get more cp but even low model count armies get a decent amount over the course of the game.
barboggo wrote: Venom spam and the DE meta seemed to turn out ok though. Or is that just because knights came out right after? I still think the DE codex is a great book.
Knights seem like a hard counter to Dukari in some respects, I suspect that Drukari will bounce back once knights are less flavour of the month.
I also suspect that the Castellen knight is going to be over nerfed when it just needs Super Heavy Auxiliary detachments to not unlock strategums.
Yeah I think Druhkari will come back but definitely not as strong as their initial release since by then people will be bringing enough mass S6 to wreck their vehicles. Would be fun to see more covens and Talos spam on the table too. Their book really has so much variety.
Last time that GW was there to assist a scene like this, flyrants were triple nerfed. Do we seriously expect GW not to do something drastic again?
AM/Blood angles/IK nerf incoming but damn that AM,BA is cookie cutter now, they have just swapped Dawneagles for a Castellen.
I think the big problem here is that BA aren't actually broken. Slamguinius is definitely OP, but the rest of the army is pretty mediocre. But the only way to nerf the super-Captain would be to nerf 1 or more of the stratagems/relics that go together to make him so good. There are so many moving parts there, because GW never met a rules system they couldn't add ridiculous bloat to, that I sonder what the consequences of that would be to armies not running Slamguinius. I think situations like this are another example of how soup messes with the game. CPs aren't too plentiful in a pure BA army because a lot of the army's fancy tricks are very CP-intensive. Also, as a SM Codex it has a bunch of weaknesses that mean it's a long way from top tier despite having access to one of the most broken single models in the game. Yet the only way to balance Slamguinius without messing with the whole soup system would also screw over non-broken mono-BA armies.
I think the problem at the moment is a little more subtle than with Flyrants. They were, and still are, too good for their points, but there were several tools available to GW to fix that. Now, unless they do something to deal with soup, the problems are often coming from the integration of several different lists, often taking fairly powerful but not OP elements, and combining them into one super army where the whole is about 1000% greater than the sum of its parts.
Last time that GW was there to assist a scene like this, flyrants were triple nerfed. Do we seriously expect GW not to do something drastic again?
AM/Blood angles/IK nerf incoming but damn that AM,BA is cookie cutter now, they have just swapped Dawneagles for a Castellen.
I think the big problem here is that BA aren't actually broken. Slamguinius is definitely OP, but the rest of the army is pretty mediocre. But the only way to nerf the super-Captain would be to nerf 1 or more of the stratagems/relics that go together to make him so good. There are so many moving parts there, because GW never met a rules system they couldn't add ridiculous bloat to, that I sonder what the consequences of that would be to armies not running Slamguinius. I think situations like this are another example of how soup messes with the game. CPs aren't too plentiful in a pure BA army because a lot of the army's fancy tricks are very CP-intensive. Also, as a SM Codex it has a bunch of weaknesses that mean it's a long way from top tier despite having access to one of the most broken single models in the game. Yet the only way to balance Slamguinius without messing with the whole soup system would also screw over non-broken mono-BA armies.
I think the problem at the moment is a little more subtle than with Flyrants. They were, and still are, too good for their points, but there were several tools available to GW to fix that. Now, unless they do something to deal with soup, the problems are often coming from the integration of several different lists, often taking fairly powerful but not OP elements, and combining them into one super army where the whole is about 1000% greater than the sum of its parts.
It woukd hard screw over a lot of other lists because for some fefthing reason a Marine LT who specialises in CC can't take a Storm shield from the armoury but Vanguard vets can.
They just need to put a 0-1 per detachment limit on slamguinius.
Slamgunius only works because of the guard CP battery. He takes up to 8 cp to work and is so op because armies have like 30 effective cp with all the re-roll shenanigans.
Nerf the CP farm and captain slammy goes from OP to good. Can't afford the CP to run more than 1 and he only works for a turn or two.
If BA captains are as ubiquitous as scouts after that then try again in CA.
bananathug wrote: Slamgunius only works because of the guard CP battery. He takes up to 8 cp to work and is so op because armies have like 30 effective cp with all the re-roll shenanigans.
Nerf the CP farm and captain slammy goes from OP to good. Can't afford the CP to run more than 1 and he only works for a turn or two.
If BA captains are as ubiquitous as scouts after that then try again in CA.
I'm actually starting to worry that we will see points increases for scouts rather than Astra Millicheese.
Exact same pair, what are the odds. Well, given there are likely very few "pros" in this hobby...but still. Alex has to be like, really? This douchnozzle again?
Yeah, completely different Tony. It really isn't difficult to check this before spouting off rubbish in a forum - there like a 20-page thread about it on this very forum FFS.
my fear is they'll nerf the wrong thing if they nerf anything, I mean what needs to ber nerfed are guard CP batteries, my fear is they'll nerf knights instead
Slipspace wrote: Yeah, completely different Tony. It really isn't difficult to check this before spouting off rubbish in a forum - there like a 20-page thread about it on this very forum FFS.
Exactly this. This forum proves itself time and time again to be one of the scrubbiest places on the internet.
barboggo wrote: Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.
I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.
I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...
Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.
I brought screens every time. Literally everyone did. And I think that was the issue. Mandatory T1 screens was kinda boring. Nowadays you only have to T1 screen against stuff like GSC Cult Ambush, which feels a lot more fluffy and cool.
Before the deep strike change, screens weren't good enough, you needed screens with a forward deployment (IE, Scouts and Nurglings). Necrons for example just outright didn't have an option that could prevent us from getting boxed in turn one.
barboggo wrote: Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.
I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.
I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...
Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.
I brought screens every time. Literally everyone did. And I think that was the issue. Mandatory T1 screens was kinda boring. Nowadays you only have to T1 screen against stuff like GSC Cult Ambush, which feels a lot more fluffy and cool.
Under your logic, bringing anti-tank or AA is boring every game.
Only some pure armies aren't able to do it effectively but otherwise it was an essential. Once again, my Predators aren't my problem if you don't bring something to kill them.
Slipspace wrote: Yeah, completely different Tony. It really isn't difficult to check this before spouting off rubbish in a forum - there like a 20-page thread about it on this very forum FFS.
Exactly this. This forum proves itself time and time again to be one of the scrubbiest places on the internet.
If you're going to keep complaining about the place, the door is over there *points*
Slipspace wrote: Yeah, completely different Tony. It really isn't difficult to check this before spouting off rubbish in a forum - there like a 20-page thread about it on this very forum FFS.
Exactly this. This forum proves itself time and time again to be one of the scrubbiest places on the internet.
If you're going to keep complaining about the place, the door is over there *points*
Thanks, however I can have my complaints about the scrubby attitude from a lot of posters and still find enough reason within the quality ones to stay. Sorry if me pointing it out offends you. But you literally just witnessed two people trashing a great player's reputation for no other reason then the fact he shares a first name with someone else, with statements that are easily disproven within 10 seconds of googling, sooooo yeah.
