So I recorded the top 11 lists before my BCP disappeared (meant top 10 but I snagged an extra one by mistake, so it's added to the pile!). There may be some mistakes/missing bits due to the pictures of the player's list uploaded to BCP having clipping errors. I don't remember the exact order of their placings, but here you go!
Battalion - KOK Field Officer - Warlord - Grand Strategist
Field Officer - Kurov's Aquila
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Alex Ing's NOVA Open List -This one is ENTIRELY handwritten and is probably the least decipherable of them all-
Spoiler:
Super-Heavy Detachment House Raven
Knight Castellan - Two Siegbreakers
Knight Gallant - Iron Spear Missile Launcher
Knight Gallant - Iron Spear Missile Launcher
Battalion - Blood Angels Captain - Jump Pack - Thunder Hammer - Storm Shield - Death Visions of Sanguinus
Captain - Jump Pack - Thunder Hammer - Storm Shield - Death Visions of Sanguinus
Scout Squad
Scout Squad
Scout Squad
Battalion - Cadian Company Commander - Kurov's Aquila
Company Commander - Warlord - Grant Strategist
Infantry Squad - Mortars
Infantry Squad - Mortars
Infantry Squad - Mortars
Heavy Weapons Team - Mortars
Jason Curtis's NOVA List
Spoiler:
Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment Mortarion
Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment Magnus
Battalion - Thousand Sons Ahriman - Disc of Tzeentch
Daemon Prince of Tzeentch - Malefic Talon - Warp Bolter - Wings - Warlord - Helm of the Third Eye
Sorcerer - Inferno Bolt Pistol
Chaos Cultists
25x Tzaangoers
25x Tzaangoers
BCP's picture has nothing else.
Nick Nanavati, King of Finlandia, Hunter of Trolls, Drinker of Drinks, Breaker of Models, Prophet of Fateweaver and Lord of the Warp Token Presents 'The NOVA Winning List' -Note: While it won many games, this list did not win NOVA, contrary to its name.
Spoiler:
Battalion - Prophet of Flesh Urien Rakarth
Haemonculus - Electro Whip (the heck font is that, Nick? I so cannot read it, haha)
7x Grotesques
7x Grotesques
5x Wracks
5x Wracks
5x Wracks
Battalion - Ynnari Yncarne - Warlord - +1 Attack on the Charge
Eldrad
Spiritseer
10x Guardians - 2x Shuriken Cannons
Rangers
Rangers
9x Shining Spears - Exarch - Star Lance - Biel Tan
Auxiliary Detachment 9x Kabalite Warriors - Kabal of the Black Heart)
Erik Illegible's NOVA List
Spoiler:
Catachan Jungle Brigade Col. Straken
Company Commander - Power Fist
Company Commander - Power Maul
Primaris Psyker
Primaris Psyker
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Astropath
Ogryn Bodyguard - Slab Shield - Ripper Gun
Ministorum Priest
Artemis Pattern Hellhound
Artemis Pattern Hellhound
Artemis Pattern Hellhound
Heavy Weapon Squad - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Squad - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Squad - Mortars
He did run Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquila but he didn't say on which Company Commanders (referencing what the models looked like, which I couldn't see from BCP). 1 Captain had Angel's Wing. 1 Captain had Veritas Vitae.
No Name Given's NOVA List -Seriously guys, put your names on your lists. I beg you.
I think there are a lot in common between these lists (Captain Slamguinuses, Catachans, Grand Strategist + Kurov's Aquila, Raven Knight Castellans, lack of Necrons/Tau at all) that show some problems with 40k's balance while the lack of a few things could point to some supposedly overpowered units actually being O.K. (Custodes Captains on Dawneagles, Ynnari/Soulburst). What do you all think?
while the lack of a few things could point to some supposedly overpowered units actually being O.K. (Custodes Captains on Dawneagles, Ynnari/Soulburst). What do you all think?
That's an insanely stupid conclusion.
There are maybe 100 Million lists possible in 40K (no idea, but it's a lot). A unit or list that is in the, say, top million is still insanely OP in the game as a whole, even if it perhaps doesn't cut the top 50,000 of the ITC tournament circuit.
The sample here is far too small and skewed to make a conclusion like that.
Oh look... Imperial Soup winning with tons of Infantry Squads and other units like Rough Riders and Hellhounds...
Yeah, thats proof that Infantry Squads are absolutely fine.
Also... soo much Dark Eldar. To be honest, this is probably the "TOP" of all the big tournaments we have had of 8th that I like the least. Everything was expected. Imperial Soup (IG+BA+AC+IK), DE, The Ahriman Bomb. No surprirses, not that much variety.
I'm hoping 2018 CA shakes up things a bit, slaping in the buttcheks DE, IG, Custodes with Vertus Praetors and Jetbike captains (I play custodes but normal Custodian Guard+Terminators, a couple Jetbikes, etc... and as much as people say they are absolutely fine for competitive play, they just don't make the cut for the big tournaments) and Imperial Knights. And a little here and there with BA Captain, Chaos, etc..
Really boring lists. Exactly what you would expect though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: While a certain streak can be found among all those lists, it is nice to see that they are not identical.
The BA detachment is always he same. Min scouts (because they are the cheapest option) and 2 Captain smash.
DE always includes Urien and 2 units of wrack + a BH detach with 3 ravager with dessie.
It's always a Raven Castellan.
The only real variety that exists is how many IG units make it into the imperial soup. Will it be a Straken batallion? Will it be hell hounds? Or just a min CP bat.
Lack of pretty much everything.
3x DE Prophet of Flesh medleys
7x guard batteries with a mix of smash captains, bikers, custode, and House Raven Castellans
And a morty and magnus list
Would not be in the least bit surprised to see chapter approved kill the cp battery... and quite possibly custodes.
IMO making command points apply only to the specific faction keyword that generated them would go a long way in balancing soup lists with the 3 from battleforged applying to your warlord's detachment.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: IMO making command points apply only to the specific faction keyword that generated them would go a long way in balancing soup lists with the 3 from battleforged applying to your warlord's detachment.
That would basically kill allies. Might as well just say no allies.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: IMO making command points apply only to the specific faction keyword that generated them would go a long way in balancing soup lists with the 3 from battleforged applying to your warlord's detachment.
That would basically kill allies. Might as well just say no allies.
Xenomancers wrote: That would basically kill allies. Might as well just say no allies.
Why? The the allied factions would have CPs to spend, just not any more than they had contributed.
Though i'm still of the opinion that CPs should be based on points and a couple paid out for detachments (similar to the support detachment cost) - kills two birds with one stone as the guard CP battery becomes something like -1 CP for a bunch of chaff rather than +5 CP.
I agree CP batteries are a problem. My solution is to handle it with points though. Bring back an allies matrix, but instead of saying "you can all with X, but not with Y" have it increase the points cost of your allies based on faction.
So Custodes could all with IG, but at 50% increased coat since they don't work together too often. Conversely, Imperial Knights can ally with Mechanicus with only a small 10% increase since they work together all the time.
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Is this trying to say "Heavy Weapons Squad"? Because HWTs aren't an option by themselves. If we could see the points, that'd make it a bit more clear.
There was another list that had a single one listed similarly, like Heavy Weapons Teams were being used as a Heavy Support choice--if these were individual teams, that is way hinky. It's a difference between a single team's points and full squads of 3 teams.
Given that the individual who wrote that list had 3 singles of Scout Sentinels it makes me wonder if he ran them this way.
Company Commander - Power Maul
Unless I've missed something somewhere, Power Mauls aren't an option in the codex. We get Power Swords and Power Fists. The only Mauls even in the book are Bullgryn Mauls. I've checked the official GWFAQs and can't find mention of Power Mauls.
All told, it stresses what I've been arguing for. DITCH MORTARS FROM INFANTRY SQUADS.
I think this is the final nail of the 4pt Infantryman coffin.
Like I've said, repeatedly now, it showcases that soup is a major issue. It also shows that damnit, we need to ditch Mortars as an option for Infantry Squads.
GW needs to start penalising soup in some way too. Otherwise we'll never see the end of these IK+IG+Slamguinius/Custodes/Wolftime lists.
Said it before, saying it again:
Force a declaration of a primary faction, remove the ability to purchase Relics as Stratagem boosters and instead tie it to filled out Detachments. Also remove the ability for anything to be taken outside of "Auxiliary" detachments.
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Is this trying to say "Heavy Weapons Squad"? Because HWTs aren't an option by themselves. If we could see the points, that'd make it a bit more clear.
There was another list that had a single one listed similarly, like Heavy Weapons Teams were being used as a Heavy Support choice--if these were individual teams, that is way hinky. It's a difference between a single team's points and full squads of 3 teams.
Given that the individual who wrote that list had 3 singles of Scout Sentinels it makes me wonder if he ran them this way.
Company Commander - Power Maul
Unless I've missed something somewhere, Power Mauls aren't an option in the codex. We get Power Swords and Power Fists. The only Mauls even in the book are Bullgryn Mauls. I've checked the official GWFAQs and can't find mention of Power Mauls.
All told, it stresses what I've been arguing for. DITCH MORTARS FROM INFANTRY SQUADS.
I think this is the final nail of the 4pt Infantryman coffin.
Like I've said, repeatedly now, it showcases that soup is a major issue. It also shows that damnit, we need to ditch Mortars as an option for Infantry Squads.
GW needs to start penalising soup in some way too. Otherwise we'll never see the end of these IK+IG+Slamguinius/Custodes/Wolftime lists.
Said it before, saying it again:
Force a declaration of a primary faction, remove the ability to purchase Relics as Stratagem boosters and instead tie it to filled out Detachments. Also remove the ability for anything to be taken outside of "Auxiliary" detachments.
Yeah, they we're Heavy Weapons Teams with Mortars in the HS slot.
Hi not important but annoyed point is that they were not Heavy Weapons Teams, which are a model, but Heavy Weapons Squads, a unit made up of Heavy Weapons Teams.
alextroy wrote: Hi not important but annoyed point is that they were not Heavy Weapons Teams, which are a model, but Heavy Weapons Squads, a unit made up of Heavy Weapons Teams.
Those people should be penalized or seriously should have their armies scrutinized at this point.
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Heavy Weapon Team - Mortars
Is this trying to say "Heavy Weapons Squad"? Because HWTs aren't an option by themselves. If we could see the points, that'd make it a bit more clear.
There was another list that had a single one listed similarly, like Heavy Weapons Teams were being used as a Heavy Support choice--if these were individual teams, that is way hinky. It's a difference between a single team's points and full squads of 3 teams.
Given that the individual who wrote that list had 3 singles of Scout Sentinels it makes me wonder if he ran them this way.
Company Commander - Power Maul
Unless I've missed something somewhere, Power Mauls aren't an option in the codex. We get Power Swords and Power Fists. The only Mauls even in the book are Bullgryn Mauls. I've checked the official GWFAQs and can't find mention of Power Mauls.
All told, it stresses what I've been arguing for. DITCH MORTARS FROM INFANTRY SQUADS.
I think this is the final nail of the 4pt Infantryman coffin.
Like I've said, repeatedly now, it showcases that soup is a major issue. It also shows that damnit, we need to ditch Mortars as an option for Infantry Squads.
GW needs to start penalising soup in some way too. Otherwise we'll never see the end of these IK+IG+Slamguinius/Custodes/Wolftime lists.
Said it before, saying it again:
Force a declaration of a primary faction, remove the ability to purchase Relics as Stratagem boosters and instead tie it to filled out Detachments. Also remove the ability for anything to be taken outside of "Auxiliary" detachments.
They take the mortars because they have some points left over - not because they are mandatory to the battery. Mortars being 5 points is obviously the problem with mortars.
They take the mortars because they have some points left over - not because they are mandatory to the battery. Mortars being 5 points is obviously the problem with mortars.
They take Mortars because they're better than other options. They're cheap and were able to be used even when a unit is hidden out of LOS.
Mortars being 5pts doesn't mean jack when they can only be taken on a Heavy Support choice.
Kanluwen wrote: Like I've said, repeatedly now, it showcases that soup is a major issue. It also shows that damnit, we need to ditch Mortars as an option for Infantry Squads.
There is a prevalence of Infantry Squads at the top tables. Not just for CP farming either.
It's a problem and at this stage, an obvious one.
Soup is another issue but still an issue nonetheless.
Mortars in Infantry squads feels like a distraction.
Xenomancers wrote: That would basically kill allies. Might as well just say no allies.
Why? The the allied factions would have CPs to spend, just not any more than they had contributed.
Though i'm still of the opinion that CPs should be based on points and a couple paid out for detachments (similar to the support detachment cost) - kills two birds with one stone as the guard CP battery becomes something like -1 CP for a bunch of chaff rather than +5 CP.
That could be a solution. I posted a CP change a while back. Every army starts with equal CP - taking allied detachments cost command points and taking anything but battalion and brigades cost command points.
Kanluwen wrote: Like I've said, repeatedly now, it showcases that soup is a major issue. It also shows that damnit, we need to ditch Mortars as an option for Infantry Squads.
There is a prevalence of Infantry Squads at the top tables. Not just for CP farming either.
It's a problem and at this stage, an obvious one.
Soup is another issue but still an issue nonetheless.
Mortars in Infantry squads feels like a distraction.
That's your problem then. Because it is a problem and part of why I kept harping on the change for Conscripts+Commissars being a bad idea back when it happened. I flatout called this crap in that the soup would just shift from Conscripts+Commissars to Infantry Squads and a CC.
Why do people take Infantry Squads instead of Conscripts right now?
-Cost
-Options
I can take an Infantry Squad of 10 guys with a HWT that can hunker down out of LOS on an objective and huck a mortar shot at you--Conscripts can't do that.
Why Infantry Squads instead of Scions as groundpounders?
-I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone.
That's your problem then. Because it is a problem and part of why I kept harping on the change for Conscripts+Commissars being a bad idea back when it happened. I flatout called this crap in that the soup would just shift from Conscripts+Commissars to Infantry Squads and a CC.
Why do people take Infantry Squads instead of Conscripts right now?
-Cost
-Options
I can take an Infantry Squad of 10 guys with a HWT that can hunker down out of LOS on an objective and huck a mortar shot at you--Conscripts can't do that.
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
People are shocked that GT lists are not original?
Well colour me surprised, who would have thought the most competitive players would make the most boring lists to eliminate all random chance, call it "Strategy" and people are wanting to be surprised?
It's always been this way, look at every edition in the past.
If someone brings a mono-Night Lord list and wins a GT like this then I'll be surprised and take that scene more seriously.
alextroy wrote: Hi not important but annoyed point is that they were not Heavy Weapons Teams, which are a model, but Heavy Weapons Squads, a unit made up of Heavy Weapons Teams.
Those people should be penalized or seriously should have their armies scrutinized at this point.
That was a me thing not a them thing. We aren't ALL encyclopedic AM players and it is fairly minor.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Relics being free was quite possibly GW's dumbest decision to date. Make them purchased items again.
Honestly, making them purchased items might be just as bad.
Gonna harp on it again, I like AoS' relic system better. You get one to start with and need to have Warscroll Battalions to add another one.
I'd need a better descriptor of how that works for AoS. As is, YEAH purchasing might be bad, and GW never repriced Relics in 7th.
However, you can always reprice a Relic per how effective it is. I can straight tell you that it's kinda silly that I would pick The Spartean over Teeth of Terra or The Shield Eternal when all these items are free. GW with Chapter Approved shows that they aren't afraid to put new prices on various items.
Let's even assume that the Aquila works so that you only get 1Cp from it max a turn. You're not gonna choose the Power Sword relic ever because they have the same cost: 0 points.
Well colour me surprised, who would have thought the most competitive players would make the most boring lists to eliminate all random chance, call it "Strategy" and people are wanting to be surprised?
It's always been this way, look at every edition in the past.
If someone brings a mono-Night Lord list and wins a GT like this then I'll be surprised and take that scene more seriously.
.
People bring the best lists that are most likely to win. Get over it. "Take seriously" like you would've ever done anything competitively.
If anything, those odd ball lists that do only well on occasion aren't healthy because people will just assume the game is balanced when it isn't. How else do you expect GW to know there's problem units?
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue: It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to completely bypass the obviously intended mechanism of the "Auxiliary" Detachments. It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to bring anything larger than a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead as an "Allied" detachment. Anyone who had any actual fricking clue as to the mechanisms of what was going on with Guard lists being allied in at the start of 8th could see the writing on the wall once Conscripts got nerfed. It literally is because of this garbage that we're having this dumpsterfire of a "debate" how long after the Codex dropped?
Remove the ability to take ANY army outside of a Patrol, Outrider, Vanguard, Spearhead, or Auxiliary Detachment. Remove the ability for Guard Infantry Squads to take Mortars to shut the whiners up.
Then let's see how long we keep seeing Infantry Squads versus Conscripts in light of the existence of that ridiculous Custodes with Banner.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Relics being free was quite possibly GW's dumbest decision to date. Make them purchased items again.
Honestly, making them purchased items might be just as bad.
Gonna harp on it again, I like AoS' relic system better. You get one to start with and need to have Warscroll Battalions to add another one.
I'd need a better descriptor of how that works for AoS. As is, YEAH purchasing might be bad, and GW never repriced Relics in 7th.
You get to take a single Relic for a character in your army by default. There's usually multiple tables worth of Relics, with certain types of characters only able to take certain ones.
In order to take any further Relics, you need to have paid the points to organize some of your units into a Warscroll Battalion. For every Warscroll Battalion you field, you get an extra Relic. Since you pay for the units initially and pay for the Warscroll Battalion proper.
A good parallel here would be taking any non-Patrol Detachment I guess? It's a bit hard to do a 1:1 comparison since Battalions are more like the Formations of 7th than they are Detachments, despite what some people like to argue.
However, you can always reprice a Relic per how effective it is. I can straight tell you that it's kinda silly that I would pick The Spartean over Teeth of Terra or The Shield Eternal when all these items are free. GW with Chapter Approved shows that they aren't afraid to put new prices on various items.
Let's even assume that the Aquila works so that you only get 1Cp from it max a turn. You're not gonna choose the Power Sword relic ever because they have the same cost: 0 points.
Let's be fair, even if the Aquila was pointed while the Power Sword relic wasn't? Almost nobody would take the Power Sword relic as Guard unless it really was good. Especially not if it's some goon who isn't actually playing Guard but rather is just taking them for the Aquila or filling out CP generation.
Dude...mortars in infantry squads is not even a problem. 5 point mortars and 4 point infantry squads IS the issue.
Among other issues. Captain slamquinius is also an issue. 130 point modles shouldn't 1 shot 400 point ones. Prophets of the flesh...also an issue. 15 point Dessie - also an issue - it's a 25 point weapon.
The main reason IMO people are bringing the minimum infantry squads when they used to take conscripts is because they buffed the CP of a battillion to 5, and you want as cheap a battillion as possible to fuel other factions that have trouble generating CP.
Mortars probably are a few points undercosted, but how 3 of them on 3 infantry squads is ruining anyone's day isn't something I understand.
Well colour me surprised, who would have thought the most competitive players would make the most boring lists to eliminate all random chance, call it "Strategy" and people are wanting to be surprised?
It's always been this way, look at every edition in the past.
If someone brings a mono-Night Lord list and wins a GT like this then I'll be surprised and take that scene more seriously.
.
People bring the best lists that are most likely to win. Get over it. "Take seriously" like you would've ever done anything competitively.
If anything, those odd ball lists that do only well on occasion aren't healthy because people will just assume the game is balanced when it isn't. How else do you expect GW to know there's problem units?
Actually confused here. If you see earlier comments you can see people are also bored of the unoriginal. I just made a comment on that people are surprised that other people will bring the most boring lists with no originality to win a game of plastic man-dollies. I just found that quite funny as I thought people would have been used to it by now after years of GW repeating the power creep cycle that will probably never end.
What I think is more toxic to the forum and the community as a whole is people like you who immanently jump down peoples throats after expressing opinion rather than seeing it as a point of discussion. I personally have little respect for the competitive scene because to be quite honest any idiot could grab a list from the internet take it to a tourney and win for some of those sweet ITC points. I've seen it happen on too many occasions. I mean if you wanted that theirs chess. 0 Possibility of random outcomes since all movements are fixed and can be "Pre-measured" per say in spaces Play with some guts! Bring the units that you like rather than the ones that "work", adapt around random elements rather than eliminate it all together. Makes a much more intense game which true competitive gamers thrive for.
Yes this is my own interpretation of how I think competitive games should be played. Yes not everyone thinks the same way. I really, really don't care. You can stick your nose up at me and get anal-retentive in semantics as much as you want and I couldn't give a flying . At the end of the day all armies and sub-factions should have a decent chance to stand on their own and win tourneys with a good, skilled player behind them. No one should be ever be penalised for taking the "wrong army/sub-faction" especially in a tournament. 40k still isn't there which is unfortunate, but using GT's as a testing ground for what should be a finished product isn't acceptable either because, quite frankly I think competitive gamers would feel a lot better knowing they got there to the top because of how they played rather than because they chose "List X, Y or Z".
Well colour me surprised, who would have thought the most competitive players would make the most boring lists to eliminate all random chance, call it "Strategy" and people are wanting to be surprised?
It's always been this way, look at every edition in the past.
If someone brings a mono-Night Lord list and wins a GT like this then I'll be surprised and take that scene more seriously.
.
People bring the best lists that are most likely to win. Get over it. "Take seriously" like you would've ever done anything competitively.
If anything, those odd ball lists that do only well on occasion aren't healthy because people will just assume the game is balanced when it isn't. How else do you expect GW to know there's problem units?
Actually confused here. If you see earlier comments you can see people are also bored of the unoriginal. I just made a comment on that people are surprised that other people will bring the most boring lists with no originality to win a game of plastic man-dollies. I just found that quite funny as I thought people would have been used to it by now after years of GW repeating the power creep cycle that will probably never end.
What I think is more toxic to the forum and the community as a whole is people like you who immanently jump down peoples throats after expressing opinion rather than seeing it as a point of discussion. I personally have little respect for the competitive scene because to be quite honest any idiot could grab a list from the internet take it to a tourney and win for some of those sweet ITC points. I've seen it happen on too many occasions. I mean if you wanted that theirs chess. 0 Possibility of random outcomes since all movements are fixed and can be "Pre-measured" per say in spaces Play with some guts! Bring the units that you like rather than the ones that "work", adapt around random elements rather than eliminate it all together. Makes a much more intense game which true competitive gamers thrive for.
Yes this is my own interpretation of how I think competitive games should be played. Yes not everyone thinks the same way. I really, really don't care. You can stick your nose up at me and get anal-retentive in semantics as much as you want and I couldn't give a flying . At the end of the day all armies and sub-factions should have a decent chance to stand on their own and win tourneys with a good, skilled player behind them. No one should be ever be penalised for taking the "wrong army/sub-faction" especially in a tournament. 40k still isn't there which is unfortunate, but using GT's as a testing ground for what should be a finished product isn't acceptable either because, quite frankly I think competitive gamers would feel a lot better knowing they got there to the top because of how they played rather than because they chose "List X, Y or Z".
You shouldn't blame competitive players for wanting to bring the best list possible. You should blame GW is the best lists don't create a fun playing environment for the game. This game is so complicated that it's very difficult to foresee issues before releasing things. At least they are actively recruiting test players and releasing FAQs to fix these issues ASAP.
I also think it's silly to think that anyone could take the winning list and go 8-0 just from the strength of the list. Tons of lists similar to the winning list were beaten by other lists from many factions over the course of the event, and it still takes a top player to have that kind of performance.
Personally hoping to see CA 2018 further restricts allies, especially of the two previously stated. Mono lists and limited allied I personally believe will bring more variety.
4ppm guard and 5 point mortars are NOT the problem. The fact that every Imperial Soup army spams this combo IS the problem.
If you saw a mono-guard army list with these units you wouldn't even bat an eyelid. Because on their own they get wiped off the board pretty easy when there aren't huge threats like baby titans and super hero humans.
Take away CP regen and even reduce the CP of allied detachhments and you wont see anyone take them, even if they are good value at 4ppm.
You know, the fact that a number of lists are a bunch of Guard, a couple Space Marines and a Knight kinda warms my fluff heart. It's not the exact makeup I'd go for, but it is something.
Honestly, do we really care that much? The lists are the result of the current meta with what works. Organizers of these large events need to put their big boy pants on and make some harsh requirements instead of leaving it to GW if they want more variety..
Or, maybe the players who actually go to these events like it and it really is just the armchair generals that have a problem.
The game can be played a multitude of ways. Don't want to play vs these kind of lists, then sit with your opponent and lay out some ground rules. Opponent not interested? Move on.
Dismissing what you don't understand doesn't make it so.
A "Metagame" is different everywhere you go, but tends to be similar at the top of competitive gaming. My personal metagame is mostly mono-armies, because that's what we like to play. Sometimes two factions will be mixed... whooo! But it's still a metagame. The tendency of certain units to perform better than their points would suggest because of the opponents you face. If all I faced were Orks, Little Nids and Guardsmen without Tanks, Heavy Bolters would be king. You wouldn't ever use something else! And if all I ever faced were Knights, I'd be farming Lascannons as cheaply and plentifully as possible.
The Imperial Soup lists are all "Gear Check" lists. Do you have enough punch to nail down a Knight... while mowing down all the infantry... and have the ability to "snipe" out the BA commanders? If you answer no to any of those questions, the Soup player has a component to his list you have no counter for, and will (through skill and experience) create a game state in which that item will be a key to success. They are TAC lists, that can only be answered by similarly *efficient* TAC lists. They ask all the questions, and have all the answers. If you list doesn't do the same, it will defeat you.
The #1 issue in 40k is the CP being connected to the detachments. All armies should get a flat amount. Now armies with cheap HQ and troops have a huge advantage.
All competitive games eventually develop a rigid meta. The rise of the Internet and easy access to information has just turbocharged that process.
So far the 8E meta has been pretty fun to follow since it seems to change all the time with all of the rules updates and new releases. It feels like a lot of armies have had their time in the sun this edition. Guilliman gunlines, malefic lords/brimstones, ynnari soulburst, flyrants, the DE meta, custodes, and now knights/catachans/hellhounds have all been creating a lot of interesting new scenarios for players to deal with. At this point we really just need an Ork meta, a Necron meta, and maybe a Tau meta and we'll have most of our bases covered. Oh and Grey Knights could also use a buff.
Make CP usable only by the faction or just detachment that generated it, and we'll see a lot fewer issues. The mix'n'match different armies thing is always going to cause problems. If that IGCP battery generates 20 CP to use on naked a couple dozen guardsmen, while leaving only a couple for the allied combo beatstick unit, then a lot of these issues go away.
As a Tyranid player I want all this gak to go the way of the Tyranids. Nerf it to the ground and throw the babies out with the bathwater. And do away with Allies while at it.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue:
It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to completely bypass the obviously intended mechanism of the "Auxiliary" Detachments. It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to bring anything larger than a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead as an "Allied" detachment. Anyone who had any actual fricking clue as to the mechanisms of what was going on with Guard lists being allied in at the start of 8th could see the writing on the wall once Conscripts got nerfed. It literally is because of this garbage that we're having this dumpsterfire of a "debate" how long after the Codex dropped?
Remove the ability to take ANY army outside of a Patrol, Outrider, Vanguard, Spearhead, or Auxiliary Detachment. Remove the ability for Guard Infantry Squads to take Mortars to shut the whiners up.
Then let's see how long we keep seeing Infantry Squads versus Conscripts in light of the existence of that ridiculous Custodes with Banner.
I'm choosing to ignore your points because they are completely bogus and biased.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
If your proposed 'fix' effectively replaces Infantry with Conscripts I hate to tell you but it isn't a fix.
Make Infantry 5 or 6 ppm.
Make conscripts armour save 6+.
Then look at soup.
Smirrors wrote: 4ppm guard and 5 point mortars are NOT the problem. The fact that every Imperial Soup army spams this combo IS the problem.
If you saw a mono-guard army list with these units you wouldn't even bat an eyelid. Because on their own they get wiped off the board pretty easy when there aren't huge threats like baby titans and super hero humans.
Take away CP regen and even reduce the CP of allied detachhments and you wont see anyone take them, even if they are good value at 4ppm.
Mono Guard is one of the best performing mono factions, able to compete at the top tables without souping. We saw this at the last GT.
Also there's a reason every Imperial soup list contains many Infantry units (they aren't all the same combo). (It's because they are too points efficient aka too cheap).
The aquilla/ability to regen CP needs to be fixed too.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
These soup Imperium lists are boring.
Soup needs to be restricted.
Atm, you can take 3 detachments each of which from another codex, say, IK, BA, and AM.
How about restricting to two (or one) codex?
wuestenfux wrote: Atm, you can take 3 detachments each of which from another codex, say, IK, BA, and AM.
How about restricting to two (or one) codex?
Removes imperial soups from tournaments at the cost of everyones allied army becoming colateral damage.
Doesn't address any of the underlying problems of armies that are a couple of strong units proping up the rest, or armies that simply don't have all the tools in-codex, or the fact that many books synergize or support themselves so badly that cherry picking is better than pure lists despite unit taxes and incompatible aura/rules.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.
The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.
Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.
How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.
What about the following for matched play:
At least half of your detachments must share the same detachment level faction keyword. So only 1 allied detachment at 2000 pts.
To benefit from the subfaction traits (chapter, craftworld, etc) the detachment faction must be (or counts as, to allow in things like commisars) that subfaction's. So you can mix in 1 other subfaction, but that counts as your 1 allied detachment.
You may only take relics from your warlord's faction. No additional relic stratagems from other factions.
I'm not sure exactly what the solution is to all this soup but I know roughly what that solution would feel like when selecting your army. Using allies or not should always feel like a meaningful choice, with pros and cons to be considered. Right now, especially on the Imperial side, there's simply no disadvantage to taking a soup army. The opportunity cost is basically 0 because the allies will cover each other's weaknesses and the advantages are huge, in the form of extra CPs, more bodies and access to the best individual elements from each allied force.
Man all those "solutions" to soup... That only kill allies and wont make the meta better because people will find the hole in the new ally sistem.
As one of the 8 players in the world that plays fluffy imperial soup with a ton of different combinations because I have the attention spawn of a 3 years old (Custodes without bikes+Tempestus on Tauroxes and Bullgryns+ Imperial Knight Valiant and Warglaive+Celestine Patrol+Sisters of Silence+Vindicares) Im actually afraid of having all my imperial stuff expect for my Dark Angels, invalidated for matched pkay unless I spent a ton of money in doing all of those into 2000 point armies.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.
The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.
Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.
How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.
You are ignoring why they are taking Guard in the first place. Yes, guardsmen are points efficient...at being bodies. So are Tyranids, with the ability to revive 10 hormagaunts a turn for every Tervigon they have-and the other 20 bodies in those 30 man swarms can have guns, too. You don't see Tyranids at the top list because they can't ally in a Slamguinus or a Knight. People take infantry squads for their cheap points, but they wouldn't take Guard at all if they couldn't use the CP. Guard need cheap bodies to function on their own. They aren't Custodes or in power armor. Flooding the board with a stationary gunline is their schtick, and other people are taking that because it is cheap.
Fix the ally problems first, THEN propose a change to the points of Guard. If they're still around after the change to CP batteries, then you will be correct. I doubt it though - skitarii has better statlines for troops and are basically cheaper marines.
One thing that jumped out to me are all these Knights in Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachments listing households. Are they allowed them given the codex (pg106) says they're excluded
So are they just putting them down because Battlescribe forces you to put one in, or are they actually using the traditions on top of strategems...
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.
The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.
Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.
How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.
You are ignoring why they are taking Guard in the first place. Yes, guardsmen are points efficient...at being bodies. So are Tyranids, with the ability to revive 10 hormagaunts a turn for every Tervigon they have-and the other 20 bodies in those 30 man swarms can have guns, too. You don't see Tyranids at the top list because they can't ally in a Slamguinus or a Knight. People take infantry squads for their cheap points, but they wouldn't take Guard at all if they couldn't use the CP. Guard need cheap bodies to function on their own. They aren't Custodes or in power armor. Flooding the board with a stationary gunline is their schtick, and other people are taking that because it is cheap.
Fix the ally problems first, THEN propose a change to the points of Guard. If they're still around after the change to CP batteries, then you will be correct. I doubt it though - skitarii has better statlines for troops and are basically cheaper marines.
Guard are tye constant in every imperial list, but people keep saying that they arn't the problem, the constant member of the soup is the problem.
If they removed Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the guard codex tomorrow, I think the amount of IG warlords would flatline, but detachments would still be around in soup lists.
The simple fact is Guard are the cheapest source of CP for these lists at a points spent per CP generated that no other faction can come close to.
But guard are also the strongest point per point Infantry battalion in the imperial faction.
gingerlord wrote: One thing that jumped out to me are all these Knights in Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachments listing households. Are they allowed them given the codex (pg106) says they're excluded
So are they just putting them down because Battlescribe forces you to put one in, or are they actually using the traditions on top of strategems...
They don't get TRAIT. Ie raven's don't advance and shoot at penalty, no 6+++ for Taranis etc...
...however they do get strategems just like any other faction. Say hello raven castellan rerolling 1's.
They ARE raven's. Auxiliary doesn't remove that. They just don't get the faction trait. 2 different things.
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue: It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. It just makes you wrong in multiple threads.
Mitch Pelham, a top 10 ranked ITC player, and probably the most iconic Guard player in the world, with multiple AM lists even been named after him (The Pelham Special, for example), and the first person to gain notoriety with this list (this list here already being coined as "Caspelham Guard") said recently on podcast that he is taking the maxed out Guardsmen for almost he exact reasons that An Actual Englishman and others have stated - they are too cheap and control space extremely well.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.
The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.
Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.
How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.
You are ignoring why they are taking Guard in the first place. Yes, guardsmen are points efficient...at being bodies. So are Tyranids, with the ability to revive 10 hormagaunts a turn for every Tervigon they have-and the other 20 bodies in those 30 man swarms can have guns, too. You don't see Tyranids at the top list because they can't ally in a Slamguinus or a Knight. People take infantry squads for their cheap points, but they wouldn't take Guard at all if they couldn't use the CP. Guard need cheap bodies to function on their own. They aren't Custodes or in power armor. Flooding the board with a stationary gunline is their schtick, and other people are taking that because it is cheap.
Fix the ally problems first, THEN propose a change to the points of Guard. If they're still around after the change to CP batteries, then you will be correct. I doubt it though - skitarii has better statlines for troops and are basically cheaper marines.
Guard are tye constant in every imperial list, but people keep saying that they arn't the problem, the constant member of the soup is the problem.
If they removed Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the guard codex tomorrow, I think the amount of IG warlords would flatline, but detachments would still be around in soup lists.
The simple fact is Guard are the cheapest source of CP for these lists at a points spent per CP generated that no other faction can come close to.
But guard are also the strongest point per point Infantry battalion in the imperial faction.
Sounds like Tac Marines should have a cost decrease rather than the Guard Infantry needing an increase. If people can't play the models in their own Codexes, why should Imp Guard players get shafted? The problem is that everyone wants their super-elite named characters with all their buffs, and then they need some other bodies on the board just to stay legal/grab objectives. It's why you saw Mortarion fly around with poxwalker spam at the beginning of this edition, and why you still see Imperial Soup everywhere. You just need to penalize souping, not specific models. If Imperial Guard infantry truly is the problem, then you will see people specifically ally just for the troops - not Kurov's Aquilla, not Basilisks, not Manticores, not Wyverns, not CP batteries...nothing.
The fact of the matter is people are limited to 2 detachments at most tournaments, and they already have the Imp Guard book open, so they take everything they can get. Make them soup with someone else before you start complaining about guard.
It's not about TAC marines, who need a discount as well. Guardsmen will still be head and shoulders above every 4pt model in the game no matter where TAC marines sit. Not sure why you're making it about them.
Are people still pretending 4 ppm Infantry aren't broken? They are patently better than alternatives at the same points level, the maths on this has been done to death in another topic.
I'll say it again; at the last major tournament they were the second best mono faction. You DO see mono Guard at the top tables. You also see primary Guard at the top tables. Each and every list has a swathe of Infantry but people keep telling me their points are fine? It doesn't add up.
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue:
It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. It just makes you wrong in multiple threads.
Mitch Pelham, a top 10 ranked ITC player, and probably the most iconic Guard player in the world, with multiple AM lists even been named after him (The Pelham Special, for example), and the first person to gain notoriety with this list (this list here already being coined as "Caspelham Guard") said recently on podcast that he is taking the maxed out Guardsmen for almost he exact reasons that An Actual Englishman and others have stated - they are too cheap and control space extremely well.
So, let me get this straight:
Some guy who is running a KNIGHT/ROWBOAT GIRLYMAN/SLAMGUINUS soup ran out of points/viable options in their own codexes, and decided to soup to shore up the weak spots? So Imperial Guard needs to have the change?
5ppm Guard is not going to solve this problem, and since the next model up in points are Veterans, with 3+ BS, and NO ONE takes them...you can't really increase them further than that without breaking the entire balance and logical coherency of the Guard Codex. At 5ppm, those same guys running the "Flavour of the Week" are still going to take Guard - it's not the fault of the Infantry Squad. Souping simply needs to be nerfed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: It's not about TAC marines, who need a discount as well. Guardsmen will still be head and shoulders above every 4pt model in the game no matter where TAC marines sit. Not sure why you're making it about them.
What's wrong with Guardsmen being a good 4pt model? The only reason this is a problem is because no one runs space marines. Make Space marine scouts 8 pts, and Space Marines 10pts, and no one will fuss around with bringing Guardsmen. The problem isn't guardsmen, it's all the other options are poop.
Yeah, there's only been three or four posts pointing out how that demonstrably isn't true in this thread alone, so I can understand how it's easy to miss.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
The reason they're so awesome is because they're a cheap but still effective way to get a big chink of CPs. Don't get me wrong, 4ppm IG are too good for sure, but upping them to 5ppm won't change much since the value they bring in terms of CPs is so great players will find ways to drop 30 points from their lists to squeeze them in. The problem is the interaction of cheap models with the ally rules. Fixing one doesn't necessarily fix the other.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
You'd think a Guard apologist would be able to come up with a more convincing argument rather than saying Haywire is a problem, yet here we are.
Are the Guard apologists seriously running that low on defensive arguments? It's like 4th and 6th-7th Eldar players all over again!
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
You'd think a Guard apologist would be able to come up with a more convincing argument rather than saying Haywire is a problem, yet here we are.
Are the Guard apologists seriously running that low on defensive arguments? It's like 4th and 6th-7th Eldar players all over again!
Alright, lets change the cost of a guard infantry squad to 5ppm. In a battalion, that is 60pts. In a brigade, that is 120pts. This price increase won't affect the people who bring their super power models, and soup in guard. HOWEVER, it does prevent a mono guard player from bringing a Leman Russ chassis to the game - a chassis that has already been rendered pointless by the new Castellan Knight models and the haywire rules of the new Drukhari codex. This change only hurts regular guard, not the people who spam the flavor of the week. People who are just CP spamming will continue to bring guard, and you will continue to say 'pls nerf', and we'll end up with 8pt Infantry squads - and then the CP spammers will just take Space Marines. Or Inquisitor bs.
Galas wrote: Man all those "solutions" to soup... That only kill allies and wont make the meta better because people will find the hole in the new ally sistem.
As one of the 8 players in the world that plays fluffy imperial soup with a ton of different combinations because I have the attention spawn of a 3 years old (Custodes without bikes+Tempestus on Tauroxes and Bullgryns+ Imperial Knight Valiant and Warglaive+Celestine Patrol+Sisters of Silence+Vindicares) Im actually afraid of having all my imperial stuff expect for my Dark Angels, invalidated for matched pkay unless I spent a ton of money in doing all of those into 2000 point armies.
But the most common solution named was limiting CP to the faction that generated them. Wouldn't that keep your army intact?
So first of all... there's no particular issue whatsoever with the top 10 lists. They are a snapshot of the current status of the game - no more, no less. What is powerful and durable? What is cheap and spammable? What is mobile and numerous?
As someone said before, nothing about this is new - it's just that in the age of WhatsApp and the internet, someone comes up with the IG/BA/Castellan list and it gets shared around so loads of people take it.
GW have already showed that they can and will make amendments to the game based on what's clearly working a bit too well.
What would I change?
I really don't like the idea of having to track multiple sources of Command Points and strongly hope that doesn't happen. I also think that's not been thought through. Do we really want it so that you cannot usefully take an allied detachment, unless it's a Battalion or Brigade?
Taking a detachment which only has 1CP to use all game is pointless and would completely delete all utility from allied detachments.
I would do a softer limiter to soup by having multi-codex armies generate far less CPs, and cutting back on the use of CP regeneration.
Silentz wrote: So first of all... there's no particular issue whatsoever with the top 10 lists. They are a snapshot of the current status of the game - no more, no less. What is powerful and durable? What is cheap and spammable? What is mobile and numerous?
As someone said before, nothing about this is new - it's just that in the age of WhatsApp and the internet, someone comes up with the IG/BA/Castellan list and it gets shared around so loads of people take it.
GW have already showed that they can and will make amendments to the game based on what's clearly working a bit too well.
What would I change?
I really don't like the idea of having to track multiple sources of Command Points and strongly hope that doesn't happen. I also think that's not been thought through. Do we really want it so that you cannot usefully take an allied detachment, unless it's a Battalion or Brigade?
Taking a detachment which only has 1CP to use all game is pointless and would completely delete all utility from allied detachments.
I would do a softer limiter to soup by having multi-codex armies generate far less CPs, and cutting back on the use of CP regeneration.
<Braces for the GW triple-nerf>
Makes more sense than a guard nerf, and does keep guys like Grey Knights and Custodes in mind. Multi-codex armies essentially go back to the old CP numbers? Because that could work, just about.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I think it's very clear that the allies system is the crutch of the current meta in competitive. Of the top 10 lists, all 10 use allies in their lists. This should be the primary focus of any changes proposed for sure, and I think waiting until December to make any changes through Chapter Approved would be waiting until too late. The September FAQ might be the best option to hotfix the issue, but I don't think the FAQ is intended for major balance changes to be made.
I have an idea... lets not nerf anything, lets provide an incentive to playing 'pure'. If your armies key word is not imperium, chaos, or aeldari (and come up with a similar one for nids), then you gain 4CP.
IMO more cp in the game is better than less and makes the game more enjoyable (having some options is fun). This way those that want to soup, can do so, and gain the benefits of a wider selection of units, while those that dont, gain the benefits of some riskless CP.
Galas wrote: Man all those "solutions" to soup... That only kill allies and wont make the meta better because people will find the hole in the new ally sistem.
As one of the 8 players in the world that plays fluffy imperial soup with a ton of different combinations because I have the attention spawn of a 3 years old (Custodes without bikes+Tempestus on Tauroxes and Bullgryns+ Imperial Knight Valiant and Warglaive+Celestine Patrol+Sisters of Silence+Vindicares) Im actually afraid of having all my imperial stuff expect for my Dark Angels, invalidated for matched pkay unless I spent a ton of money in doing all of those into 2000 point armies.
But the most common solution named was limiting CP to the faction that generated them. Woulidn't that keep your army intact?
Yeah, it would, but it would be a little confusing to keep track of the diferent cp pools, but is a change I like. Other change that i like is only relics for the warlord faction. You want your kurovs aquila and grand strategist? Ok, no relics for your ba or ac captain or knight.
I was talking about the changes more like 50% of your army from one keyword, or only patrol detachments as allies.
Previously I used a vanguard detachment with Celestine, 3 SoS squads and 1 null maiden rhino. I cant anymore. I still run Celestine in - 1cp detachment but as I play always with 3 detachments max, I cant run anymore my Tempestus/Custodes+Celestine and SoS and Assassins +Imperial Knights.
Now SoS, Assassins and Celestibe need 3 detachments, no 1. I say this because I understood why the change and I believe is better for the healt of the game, even if it goes agaisnt my mediocre list. But I use it as an example of the collateral damage. I understand making lists from previous editions illegal, like full deepstrike terminatyor lists, but making lists from this edition illegal, that many people started, myself included, because they where possible now, always sucks.
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue:
It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. It just makes you wrong in multiple threads.
Mitch Pelham, a top 10 ranked ITC player, and probably the most iconic Guard player in the world, with multiple AM lists even been named after him (The Pelham Special, for example), and the first person to gain notoriety with this list (this list here already being coined as "Caspelham Guard") said recently on podcast that he is taking the maxed out Guardsmen for almost he exact reasons that An Actual Englishman and others have stated - they are too cheap and control space extremely well.
So, let me get this straight:
Some guy who is running a KNIGHT/ROWBOAT GIRLYMAN/SLAMGUINUS soup ran out of points/viable options in their own codexes, and decided to soup to shore up the weak spots? So Imperial Guard needs to have the change?
lulwut
The guy has a track record of killing events with solo IG, before the Knights. He understands the unit at a competitive level better than both you or I, he's taking IG with a Knight ally now because why wouldn't you, it's ridiculously strong? The removal of it does not make Guardsmen suddenly a balanced model at 4 pts. You may not recognize Pelham's name, but perhaps you've heard of Nick Nanavati, 40k's best player right? It was a chat between the two of them. They ALSO stressed that soup needs to be heavily nerfed.
Unlike you, they are capable of recognizing that the argument "but something is making the game even worse!" is not a logical rationality for leaving broken things in the game. 4 pt Guardsmen is something that goes hand in hand with nerfing allies. No army should have a 4pt 5+ GEQ with the options that Guardsmen get, it's just absurd.
SM Scouts and AM guardsmen are not the issue. Nerfing them would be madness.
They are just the cheapest way to achieve the desired result, which is dudes on the board and a hatful of command points to spend on the important models.
secretForge wrote: I have an idea... lets not nerf anything, lets provide an incentive to playing 'pure'. If your armies key word is not imperium, chaos, or aeldari (and come up with a similar one for nids), then you gain 4CP.
IMO more cp in the game is better than less and makes the game more enjoyable (having some options is fun). This way those that want to soup, can do so, and gain the benefits of a wider selection of units, while those that dont, gain the benefits of some riskless CP.
This is where I am, more or less. Buffing solo faction armies instead of nerfing soup or allied armies is probably a better approach. Still not sure on what would be the best approach, but considering the recent popularity of CP batteries, then granting additional CPs could be a good compromise. It might also make factions who struggle solo (GK, Custodes solo, Necrons) to be more enjoyable to play if not more powerful.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I understand the Grand Strategist and Kurov gripes, I just don't get how someone filling their points up with 40 or 80 points of guard is breaking the game. So they used 80 points for 20 lasguns at BS4. Would they have changed tactics if they had to use 100pts, or would they continue to use guard? At what point to do you stop the point increase, because if you keep moving up conscripts, then infantry, then the options no one even plays (Veterans)...then what? The power gamers will just switch codexes to whatever they can spam in the troop slot. Hell, they might go back to conscripts if you push it up enough, and then you will complain about them. Again. At BS5!
Once you guys start complaining about Orks being too powerful...you're just being gits.
Infantry at 4ppm are mathematically superior to everything else, even against anti infantry fire, and even compared with undercosted infantry like kabalites, firewarriors and skitari rangers.
I play regularly with 60 firewarriors. You dpnt see them in top tables, but at 7ppm they are too good. Compared witj a 9ppm SoB at 8ppm (the fw,) they where balanced. Now they are just too good. And they are worse than infantry squads
I'm running a UK tournament in February and have put in some army composition rules to address soup... I am not saying these are perfect and they are liable to be refined or change (particularly if GW make some changes) but here they are:
----------------------
Your army can consist of up to three detachments, and may include duplicate detachments, however:
One detachment in your army must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super-Heavy Detachment and will be marked as your “Primary Detachment”.
Your warlord must be in your Primary Detachment
Your Primary Detachment determines your "Army Keywords" - which will include all Faction and Subfaction Keywords. Some examples of Army Keywords might be: IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, CADIA or CHAOS, HERETIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD
You will only gain Command Points from detachments which exactly match your Army Keywords. You can take as many non-matching detachments as you like, but they will all give you a command benefit of 0 CPs. There are no exceptions to this rule.
If all detachments in your army have the same Army Keywords, you gain +3 CPs for being Battleforged. Otherwise, you do not gain the standard +3 CP for Battleforged. Note that your army must still be Battleforged (i.e. all detachments must share one keyword)
There are a few exceptions to this rule - e.g. to allow Death Guard and Nurgle to fight together, or to allow Drukhari armies to take Cults and Kabals together, or to allow AdMech to take a Questor Mechanicus Knight.
--------------
I'm also considering something like "you can only each CP regeneration relic/ability/trait once per player turn" to nerf GrandStrat/Kurov's/Veritas
The common cry when people read this is "but you can still take a guard brigade" plus 2 allied detachments...
Yes, but you drop from 18 command points to 12, which is a good start... and if you're taking a battalion then half your army is one faction already. It's not as bad as slotting in a cheapo battalion.
-----------
Another option I just thought of might be to move AM Heavy Weapons Teams from the Heavy Support slot into, say, Elites.
Having to take 3 "proper" heavy support options (rather than 33 pt ones) would make Brigades even more of a commitment.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I understand the Grand Strategist and Kurov gripes, I just don't get how someone filling their points up with 40 or 80 points of guard is breaking the game. So they used 80 points for 20 lasguns at BS4. Would they have changed tactics if they had to use 100pts, or would they continue to use guard? At what point to do you stop the point increase, because if you keep moving up conscripts, then infantry, then the options no one even plays (Veterans)...then what? The power gamers will just switch codexes to whatever they can spam in the troop slot. Hell, they might go back to conscripts if you push it up enough, and then you will complain about them. Again. At BS5!
Once you guys start complaining about Orks being too powerful...you're just being gits.
As has been proven time and again 4ppm guardsmen are the best chaff in the game. They should be 5ppm for internal guard codex balance and external codex balance.
Leaving them as they are would not change the meta, guard CP even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's is still the cheapest at 36p per CP and when those are some of if not the best infantry in the game that's a problem.
So far the unit that have been suggested that kill 4ppm guard reasonably efficently (stand a chance of making their points back over a game) are 400 point models and will be wipped from the board turn 1/2 never actually doing enough. Making them 5ppm makes that list far more reasonable.
The change also has finge benifita of adding 6 points to HW squads etc though they are another unit that needs looked at but that's probably more an ILOS mechanic issue.
Silentz wrote: I'm running a UK tournament in February and have put in some army composition rules to address soup... I am not saying these are perfect and they are liable to be refined or change (particularly if GW make some changes) but here they are:
Another option I just thought of might be to move AM Heavy Weapons Teams from the Heavy Support slot into, say, Elites.
Having to take 3 "proper" heavy support options (rather than 33 pt ones) would make Brigades even more of a commitment.
That could work, but that elites slot would be crowded...it would essentially force a Guard player to have a Brigade and a Battalion at all times, which isn't too bad since the minimum list is probably going to be 2 battalions anyway.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I understand the Grand Strategist and Kurov gripes, I just don't get how someone filling their points up with 40 or 80 points of guard is breaking the game. So they used 80 points for 20 lasguns at BS4. Would they have changed tactics if they had to use 100pts, or would they continue to use guard? At what point to do you stop the point increase, because if you keep moving up conscripts, then infantry, then the options no one even plays (Veterans)...then what? The power gamers will just switch codexes to whatever they can spam in the troop slot. Hell, they might go back to conscripts if you push it up enough, and then you will complain about them. Again. At BS5!
Once you guys start complaining about Orks being too powerful...you're just being gits.
As has been proven time and again 4ppm guardsmen are the best chaff in the game. They should be 5ppm for internal guard codex balance and external codex balance.
Leaving them as they are would not change the meta, guard CP even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's is still the cheapest at 36p per CP and when those are some of if not the best infantry in the game that's a problem.
So far the unit that have been suggested that kill 4ppm guard reasonably efficently (stand a chance of making their points back over a game) are 400 point models and will be wipped from the board turn 1/2 never actually doing enough. Making them 5ppm makes that list far more reasonable.
The change also has finge benifita of adding 6 points to HW squads etc though they are another unit that needs looked at but that's probably more an ILOS mechanic issue.
Have you taken into account morale? You only have to kill 7 guardsmen to kill the squad. After that, on a 3+ the rest of the squad is completely gone. Lower than that, and the guard player is left with, drumroll, 1 or 2 guardsmen. If that scares you, you need to be moving up the board into melee range so you can essentially get two rounds of attacks into a turn. That's all it takes to kill guard - any and all infantry can kill them with a round of shooting and a pile-in, and there are plenty of other codexes that can run up a field better than Guard (which is why they souped Celestine, then Slam, and now Knights).
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.
secretForge wrote: I have an idea... lets not nerf anything, lets provide an incentive to playing 'pure'. If your armies key word is not imperium, chaos, or aeldari (and come up with a similar one for nids), then you gain 4CP.
IMO more cp in the game is better than less and makes the game more enjoyable (having some options is fun). This way those that want to soup, can do so, and gain the benefits of a wider selection of units, while those that dont, gain the benefits of some riskless CP.
This is where I am, more or less. Buffing solo faction armies instead of nerfing soup or allied armies is probably a better approach. Still not sure on what would be the best approach, but considering the recent popularity of CP batteries, then granting additional CPs could be a good compromise. It might also make factions who struggle solo (GK, Custodes solo, Necrons) to be more enjoyable to play if not more powerful.
The best approach would have been to make Chapter tactics, relics and stratagems to require faction purity. Alas, that ship has sailed as now that people have those things in soup, it comes across as a nerf to take them away. But I felt at the beginning those things should have been tied to faction purity. I would have liked to see (and I guess they could do this with some "advanced" stratagems/tactics or something) things like IMPERIUM stratagems, that you get for being battleforged Imperium, Then, say ADEPTUS Astartes stratagems and Tactics that you get for being battleforged with all units having the adeptus astartes, Then "chapter" stratagems that you would get for being Chapter pure. That way there is a trade off of flexibility for specialized power.
They nerfed a lot of things with the rule of 3. Nothing stops them going after soup. When Imperial and Eldar soup is so dominant its obvious there is a problem. They need to be nerfed.
The best approach would have been to make Chapter tactics, relics and stratagems to require faction purity. .
Totally agree.
The stupid thing is.. . that ENTIRE system exists in Age of Sigmar, released before 8th edition.
You can be Allegiance: Grand Alliance Order and get "meh" benefits but have flexibility, or you can be Allegiance: A specific faction like Seraphon, get kickass benefits, but you can only take 20% of your total points as allies.
Weird that they haven't retained that - but it would not be a lot of work to retrofit. Just define three new sets of benefits... IMPERIUM, AELDARI and CHAOS... and say you only get to use the stratagems in your Codex if X% of your army is the same faction as your warlord.
Silentz wrote: I'm running a UK tournament in February and have put in some army composition rules to address soup... I am not saying these are perfect and they are liable to be refined or change (particularly if GW make some changes) but here they are:
----------------------
Your army can consist of up to three detachments, and may include duplicate detachments, however:
One detachment in your army must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super-Heavy Detachment and will be marked as your “Primary Detachment”.
Your warlord must be in your Primary Detachment
Your Primary Detachment determines your "Army Keywords" - which will include all Faction and Subfaction Keywords. Some examples of Army Keywords might be: IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, CADIA or CHAOS, HERETIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD
You will only gain Command Points from detachments which exactly match your Army Keywords. You can take as many non-matching detachments as you like, but they will all give you a command benefit of 0 CPs. There are no exceptions to this rule.
If all detachments in your army have the same Army Keywords, you gain +3 CPs for being Battleforged. Otherwise, you do not gain the standard +3 CP for Battleforged. Note that your army must still be Battleforged (i.e. all detachments must share one keyword)
There are a few exceptions to this rule - e.g. to allow Death Guard and Nurgle to fight together, or to allow Drukhari armies to take Cults and Kabals together, or to allow AdMech to take a Questor Mechanicus Knight.
I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.
You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.
I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.
You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.
Devil's advocate here...
Questor Mechanicus stuff can also be taken from the Mechanicus book proper. Everything that had been available at the time of its publishing was in the book with the Questor Mechanicus keywords.
Nurgle Daemons/Death Guard are in a similar situation where there's stuff in the Codex and stuff elsewhere too.
I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.
You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.
I appreciate the feedback and see where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree with your conclusion.
AM and Questor Imperialis or Blood Angels and AM are using 2 separate codexes entirely.
I think it's really hard to argue that units that are in the same physical codex should be penalised for fighting together e.g. Admech and Questor Mechanicus Knights, or Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus Scions, or Drukhari, with their own weird 3 ways to play Cults/Covens stuff.
They are in the same codex, they just have different faction keywords! I don't feel it's fair to classify them as "allies".
Death Guard and Nurgle aren't fully in the same codex, I agree - but it's hard to argue that a mono-god army is "soup", isn't it??
Even then, they are still being punished a bit... for example an army with both of those factions would not get CP for the detachments that don't exactly match their primary. You just keep the +3cp battleforged.
To be clear my aim is to encourage more thematic mono-codex armies and help the tournament be more accepting to more thematically pure armies, not to rebalance 40k.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
Just so you know - space marines have the same 5+ regen warlord trait - and some heros that grant you flat CP for being your warlord. Guilliman and Calgar for example. The issue is with IG batallion - you get a batallion for less than the price of friggen calgar and you get all of his command benefit too. That is not even remotely balanced.
Want to know whats crazy...in this situation...both sides remove the same number of MODELS per turn shooting at each other. One costs 4 points - the other costs 13...how gross is that?
I'll quote from your article and show you where they get it wrong.
"One of the big downsides of the ally system is that it allows players to build soup lists, where players can cherry pick the best units from several Codices to form a very powerful list."
The issue is not being able to pick from multiple codex - the issue is the unit in that codex is so much better than a comparable unit in your codex. There are issues where a unit doesn't exist in your codex so you go to another codex to get it - but I don't see any issue with that as long as that other unit is fairly costed.
"We’ve seem a pretty common form of this evolve lately, with the Loyal 32, backed up by a pair of Blood Angels Captains, 3 Scout squads, and some Knights. Individually these units aren’t necessarily overpowered but used in a crazy soup combo they become powerful enough to have people call for their nerfing."
Every unit involved in that is crazy OP except the scouts. To be fair - it's the BA super combos of relics/and stratagems that make them OP - but they are OP. Scouts are taken because how else are you going to get BA captains + get some CP at the same time? Scouts are actually garbage - BA captain is just that good. Knights? Crazy OP.
This article is obviously written by an IG fanboy. The loyal 32? LOLOLOL.
That article is still wrong. Saying that without Soup you don't need to nerf those units is plain wrong. "Na, you don't need to nerf BA captain because in a mono-BA army hes fine" yeah thats because BA are very weak. Just like Space Marines are very weak, but they can kinda of compete with Guilliman. Even in the context of a game without Soup those units are overpowered. The solution is to nerf the BA captain and buff the rest of the BA codex. And nerf Infanry Squads and buff the bad AM units (Like Chimeras, etc...).
If people thinks that a pure Adeptus Custodes Force of pure Captains in Jetbikes and Vertus Praetus isn't a problem, even more in the context of no-soup where everybody is weaker, then they are very wrong.
Allies is a problem. I agree. But OP units are OP units. If a unit is OP with allies, unless is OPness comes from some sinergy that can't be achieved without allies, it will be OP without allies.
Take Dark Reapers and Shining Spears from example. By themselves they are OP/Very powerfull. With Ynnary, specially pre Ynnari nerf, they are bonkers OP. Even if they are weaker without Ynnari they are still above what they should be. The same will happen with things like Imperial Knights. You can have a 12-CP pure Imperial Knight army without a problem.
Also, the "Nerfing units makes people play Soup" could be true, but his example is just absurd. "People stopped playing Dark Reapers because now they play Ravagers, because Dark Reapers where nerfed". No. People play Ravagers because they are OP and the Dark Eldar codex is relatively new.
The only thing that is right in that article is he fact that the Deep strike change killed mono-BA builds in the ultra-competitive meta.
The problems seem to be more about specific units than anything. The difference in power between the Castellian and the Valiant despite marginal price differences. The way Grand Strategist works better than its peers for no real reason. A single model with enough power to be worth bringing an entire battalion for. The brigade detachment itself really having no business being in 2000 pt games given there's really only one faction capable of using it. Also, Eldar stuff.
Large scale structural changes feel like they're going to do more harm than good, IMO. There are some obvious targets I'd go after first and see how the game responds.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?.
Literally in the OP.....
Okay rechecked. Loooots of bare minimum. 1 had 1 over minimum. Okay one had 2! Whoo!
Still most(including the winner...) had just minimum amount he needed for detachment. Don't see hordes of troopers dominating.
text removed.
Reds8n
You're moving the goalposts. Your argument was 'if Infantry are so strong, why are only the minimum numbers taken to fill a detachment?' The lists in this very topic prove this not to be the case.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.
We're not just talking about 2 brigades though. We're talking about 7 out of 11 of the top lists at a highly competitive event all having between 3 and 8 squads of infantry. That's a pretty high percentile.
The best approach would have been to make Chapter tactics, relics and stratagems to require faction purity. .
Totally agree.
The stupid thing is.. . that ENTIRE system exists in Age of Sigmar, released before 8th edition.
You can be Allegiance: Grand Alliance Order and get "meh" benefits but have flexibility, or you can be Allegiance: A specific faction like Seraphon, get kickass benefits, but you can only take 20% of your total points as allies.
Weird that they haven't retained that - but it would not be a lot of work to retrofit. Just define three new sets of benefits... IMPERIUM, AELDARI and CHAOS... and say you only get to use the stratagems in your Codex if X% of your army is the same faction as your warlord.
That is more than likely what is going to happen. Those of us that play AoS and 40k have noticed of late that they are testing things in AoS, and then rolling them to 40k in different variations, but very much in the spirit of the same rule.
Serioysly, from all OP things some of you complain about mortars?
Leave them alone, they were useless in 7ed and now are cheap and fluffy - people take them beacause they are cheap and add some pressure but its mostly psychological effect. Same with snipers - i always take them with 2pts, opponents often focus snipers and mortars beacause of that pressure. How much bolter costs? 1pts - its 2 shots S4 AP0. Mortar have average of 3.5shots with same stats for 5pts.
It have higher range and ignore LoS - okay, but its still ~2 bolter shots on 4+ BS platform. vs MEQ it.s ~0.3 casaulties and vs guardsman (on cover) its ~0.6. Of course people take them for cheap addition and sometimes to mitigate dmg/morale (2W in one model for morale test) - but they are not dealing any significant damage.
I totaly agree that battery is broken - simple fix Grand Strategist with "when you spend CP on <Astra MIlitarum> strategem..." and it's done. What is broken are Smashcapitans (and in less degree golden bikes). For some strange reason they given very strict restiction to Tau Commanders and imperial "commanders" can be spammed depsite multiple choices from <imperium>. They could recieve tau treatment and it's done.
Castellan's 3++ is just a joke and should be nerfed or limited 1/game. This is the thing that breaks game - you have LoW that you cannot hurt even with a *** Shadowsword and horde to deal. Castellan makes all other vechicles in game useless as he pops them and can't be hurt.
Bharring wrote: There were more PA Marines than there were Aspect Warriors in the top 11.
That's interesting.
That is interesting. Only 1 of these lists has spears (the only aspect warrior worth taking atm). I'd like to see the top 25 lists if possible. Does anyone have that?
The rest of the aspects are considered midling or bad, so they're not a surprise.
Craftworlders were taken the same way BA were taken - a way to take their HQs, and a cheap non-Craftworlder/Marine unit (Rangers or Scouts) taken for board space.
You're moving the goalposts. Your argument was 'if Infantry are so strong, why are only the minimum numbers taken to fill a detachment?' The lists in this very topic prove this not to be the case.
Hypocrite much? You made this statement to me:
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.
We're not just talking about 2 brigades though. We're talking about 7 out of 11 of the top lists at a highly competitive event all having between 3 and 8 squads of infantry. That's a pretty high percentile.
Alan Blakerbough's list is a "Brigade" of Guard, with 3 Infantry Squads listed and a single Heavy Weapons Squad with Mortars. I'm assuming he's just bad at writing lists and there's supposed to be notations of the quantities of the squads. Shane Watt's list is a DKoK Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads. Battalions have 3 squads as mins. Alex Ing's list is Cadian Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads. Erik Illegible's list is Catachan Brigade with 7 Infantry Squads. That's a whopping one squad more than the minimum. No Name Given's list is just Astra Militarum Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads. Andrew Gonyo's list is a Catachan Brigade with 6 Infantry Squads. Unprinted Name's list is another Catachan Brigade with 8 Infantry Squads.
So TWO of the 7 lists featuring Guard that are completely available to us had more than the bare minimum units to fill out the Brigades. One of those lists has a single unit more than the minimums, the other had two units more.
Remind me again how "Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament"...?
Prepare for (justified) nerfs.
Funny how the Catachan Brigades are stuffed with Mortars on the Infantry Squads, eh?
I'd be interested to see how many times the "Vicious Traps" Stratagems saw use. Mortars parked in cover that force people to charge them giving D3 Mortal Wounds on charging units on a 4+ is a no-brainer stratagem for 1CP.
Wait, so if "taking" the minimun of one unit is proof that is fine... then single Knights and BA captains are fine, no? They are taken at the mininum number availible on the detachment.
The rest of the aspects are considered midling or bad, so they're not a surprise.
Craftworlders were taken the same way BA were taken - a way to take their HQs, and a cheap non-Craftworlder/Marine unit (Rangers or Scouts) taken for board space.
Well there is a reason people say DE is the best army in the game. Because it's even preferable to eldar. Hard to say what is better really. A crimson or a night fighter. I'd almost always take a crimson over the nightfighter - vector dancer is worth the additional points - plus you get better guns - not to mention the aliotac trait. I guess they just couldn't find the points.
Like I said - I'd like to see the top 25 results. I have a feeling a lot of eldar lists are in there. Or who knows - maybe it's just more of the same.
I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.
You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.
I appreciate the feedback and see where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree with your conclusion.
AM and Questor Imperialis or Blood Angels and AM are using 2 separate codexes entirely.
I think it's really hard to argue that units that are in the same physical codex should be penalised for fighting together e.g. Admech and Questor Mechanicus Knights, or Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus Scions, or Drukhari, with their own weird 3 ways to play Cults/Covens stuff.
They are in the same codex, they just have different faction keywords! I don't feel it's fair to classify them as "allies".
I see your reasoning. So why not call the duck a duck? Just tell everyone that their armies must come from one codex, done.
Death Guard and Nurgle aren't fully in the same codex, I agree - but it's hard to argue that a mono-god army is "soup", isn't it??
No matter what you are calling it, it's mostly cherry-picking superior troops, shooting units or Lords Of War from another codex. Nurgle Daemons want Mortarion, PBC and blight drones because they lack fast and shooting units. Death Guard want Plague Bearers because they are simply pox walkers +1. You have similar issues when mixing TS and Tzeench daemons. They basically just cherry-picking from each other. Note that neither the DG nor the TS codex can actually field a daemons deatchment without the help from an index or a codex, since neither contains a chaos daemons HQ. These daemons are meant to be summoned and not fielded in detachments - sadly summoning isn't worth anything.
The winner of that tournament is playing dark eldar and harlequins, something your rules are trying to discourage - in the past they used to share a codex, so hardly a "soup" either.
Even then, they are still being punished a bit... for example an army with both of those factions would not get CP for the detachments that don't exactly match their primary. You just keep the +3cp battleforged.
Tzeench daemons would probably not mourn the CP lost for their Ahriman+2DP+Magnus detachment though - or for the Mortarion Auxiliary in the nurgle dameons list
To be clear my aim is to encourage more thematic mono-codex armies and help the tournament be more accepting to more thematically pure armies, not to rebalance 40k.
If you want mono-codex armies, simply limit everyone to use just one codex. "Thematically pure armies" is something that is heavily influenced by personal bias. The only army with a questionable theme in that top 10 is the one with Mortarion and Magnus, since they would probably kill each other on sight. Guardmen holding the line with huge almost-titans firing from behind them and Blood Angel captains sacrificing themselves for the emprah is about as iconic as a mixed imperial army can be.
That said, you are by no means guaranteed to have more thematic lists by limiting choices. CSM could still bring Alpha Legion with Slanesh Oblits/Cultists plus Ahriman, and TSDPs and have Mortarion in an auxiliary detachment.
In the end, the only thing you can hope to archive is to shake up the meta. Every comp has some loophole, and competitive players will strive to find it. If that's your goal, go for it. If it's not, maybe just limit everyone to one codex and lock out soup for everyone. That one at least won't blow up in your face like some heavy-handed algorithm that might or might not fix the soup problem. Remember how GW tried to encourage thematically pure armies with Decurions? Yeah, that went well.
But only one of the two lists with Craftworlders was (probably) Alaitoc - the other was a Ynnari detatchement of Uthwe models. The probably-Alaitoc was barebones + Wraithfighter.
Getting rid of CP Regen altogether is not a solution under the current system of detachments giving CPs. If you keep that system, you have to balance CP Regen against an army's starting CP capability. That's what skews IG so much is they can easily put together multiple battalions or brigades to start with a ton of CPs and have fantastic CP Regen. Getting rid of CP Regen altogether hurts them a little but really penalizes armies that struggle to start with more than 8-9 CP but are still CP hungry so rely on regen to function beyond the first turn.
In short, balance Regen to the armie's needs and capabilities then limit the ability to Regen CPs spent for detachments with differing root keywords.
You're moving the goalposts. Your argument was 'if Infantry are so strong, why are only the minimum numbers taken to fill a detachment?' The lists in this very topic prove this not to be the case.
Hypocrite much? You made this statement to me:
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.
We're not just talking about 2 brigades though. We're talking about 7 out of 11 of the top lists at a highly competitive event all having between 3 and 8 squads of infantry. That's a pretty high percentile.
Alan Blakerbough's list is a "Brigade" of Guard, with 3 Infantry Squads listed and a single Heavy Weapons Squad with Mortars. I'm assuming he's just bad at writing lists and there's supposed to be notations of the quantities of the squads.
Shane Watt's list is a DKoK Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads. Battalions have 3 squads as mins.
Alex Ing's list is Cadian Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads.
Erik Illegible's list is Catachan Brigade with 7 Infantry Squads. That's a whopping one squad more than the minimum.
No Name Given's list is just Astra Militarum Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads.
Andrew Gonyo's list is a Catachan Brigade with 6 Infantry Squads.
Unprinted Name's list is another Catachan Brigade with 8 Infantry Squads.
So TWO of the 7 lists featuring Guard that are completely available to us had more than the bare minimum units to fill out the Brigades. One of those lists has a single unit more than the minimums, the other had two units more.
Remind me again how "Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament"...?
Prepare for (justified) nerfs.
Funny how the Catachan Brigades are stuffed with Mortars on the Infantry Squads, eh?
I'd be interested to see how many times the "Vicious Traps" Stratagems saw use. Mortars parked in cover that force people to charge them giving D3 Mortal Wounds on charging units on a 4+ is a no-brainer stratagem for 1CP.
I don't see any hypocrisy and to be honest any discussion with you is pointless because you are so biased you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit in your twisted view of what is broken and what isn't.
There is a reason your tag is a meme kanluwen. It's something you continue to propagate with your insane arguments and mental gymnastics.
We have proven that mathematically 4 ppm Infantry units are the most efficient infantry in the game.
We have seen countless evidence that top players believe Infantry units to be incredibly efficient.
We have seen an insurmountable amount of evidence to suggest that even amateur players believe this to be the case.
Everything, and I mean everything points to Infantry units being undercosted.
But you refuse to accept it, blaming the results of the unit instead on soup or, of all things, mortar squads.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Infantry units, mortars and certain stratagems and relics that IG have access to are all to blame? That the combination of these things makes them too efficient for their cost?
Forfiter wrote: Serioysly, from all OP things some of you complain about mortars?
Leave them alone, they were useless in 7ed and now are cheap and fluffy - people take them beacause they are cheap and add some pressure but its mostly psychological effect. Same with snipers - i always take them with 2pts, opponents often focus snipers and mortars beacause of that pressure. How much bolter costs? 1pts - its 2 shots S4 AP0. Mortar have average of 3.5shots with same stats for 5pts.
It have higher range and ignore LoS - okay, but its still ~2 bolter shots on 4+ BS platform. vs MEQ it.s ~0.3 casaulties and vs guardsman (on cover) its ~0.6. Of course people take them for cheap addition and sometimes to mitigate dmg/morale (2W in one model for morale test) - but they are not dealing any significant damage.
I totaly agree that battery is broken - simple fix Grand Strategist with "when you spend CP on <Astra MIlitarum> strategem..." and it's done. What is broken are Smashcapitans (and in less degree golden bikes). For some strange reason they given very strict restiction to Tau Commanders and imperial "commanders" can be spammed depsite multiple choices from <imperium>. They could recieve tau treatment and it's done.
Castellan's 3++ is just a joke and should be nerfed or limited 1/game. This is the thing that breaks game - you have LoW that you cannot hurt even with a *** Shadowsword and horde to deal. Castellan makes all other vechicles in game useless as he pops them and can't be hurt.
You know what you cannot do without seriously compromising yourself in a pure IK list play unlimited rotate ion to give a castellan a 3++. Its purely the Grand Strategists and Kurov's combo that gives the amount of CP to be able to spend 5+CP per turn to superpower the castellan.
I genuinely believe just requiring a Knight lance for strategums would fix the knight's codex.
The stupid thing is non BA smash captains are good and look broken next to the standard marine dex, but without the 7-8 CP pregame and for 3d6 charges etc aren't able to stack the strategums to be as broken and definataly not twice.
Scouts are wierd they have a strong ability, however as a unit they kinda suck.
Dawneagles are over powered but nerf them without improving the rest of codex golden boys and they will vanish.
The only part that qould probably stay even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's is the infantry squads and HWS as they are just so cheap for chaff clearing.
Maelstrom808 wrote: Getting rid of CP Regen altogether is not a solution under the current system of detachments giving CPs. If you keep that system, you have to balance CP Regen against an army's starting CP capability. That's what skews IG so much is they can easily put together multiple battalions or brigades to start with a ton of CPs and have fantastic CP Regen. Getting rid of CP Regen altogether hurts them a little but really penalizes armies that struggle to start with more than 8-9 CP but are still CP hungry so rely on regen to function beyond the first turn.
In short, balance Regen to the armie's needs and capabilities then limit the ability to Regen CPs spent for detachments with differing root keywords.
This just shows again the power of soup and CP batteries. There needs to be a downside of soup. IMO the easiest fix is CP is limited to the detachment that produces it. This way allies give you more unit flexibility but less army cohesion. Do this and remove CP regeneration from the game and you are going to see a lot more list diversity
I don't see any hypocrisy and to be honest any discussion with you is pointless because you are so biased you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit in your twisted view of what is broken and what isn't.
YOU chose to initially claim that there were multiple examples and that they were significant. Do you really think one or two extra squads are somehow significant additions over the minimums?
You still haven't answered that. You've just reverted to the defensive now that you've been called out.
There is a reason your tag is a meme kanluwen. It's something you continue to propagate with your insane arguments and mental gymnastics.
You chose to make the argument that there were significant numbers of lists in this event fielding more than the bare minimum of Infantry Squads. There were TWO lists that meet that criteria, and one of them meets it only by a single additional unit.
We have proven that mathematically 4 ppm Infantry units are the most efficient infantry in the game.
Boy must your face be red when you look at Genestealer Cultists.
We have seen countless evidence that top players believe Infantry units to be incredibly efficient.
We have seen an insurmountable amount of evidence to suggest that even amateur players believe this to be the case.
Everything, and I mean everything points to Infantry units being undercosted.
And yet how many mono-Guard lists were at the top for this tournament again?
But you refuse to accept it, blaming the results of the unit instead on soup or, of all things, mortar squads.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Infantry units, mortars and certain stratagems and relics that IG have access to are all to blame? That the combination of these things makes them too efficient for their cost?
Where were the mono-Guard lists again?
I've pointed at Mortars of late because, quite frankly, they're becoming a trend with regards to Infantry Squads in these soup lists. It lets the Infantry Squads park in cover on objectives and have a way to hit things they can't see while still letting them beef up a Brigade or Battalion. Mortar SQUADS are Heavy Support choices and don't really matter. They're 2W models with a Guard statline that can be wiped pretty easily once you're able to get at them.
Kurov's Aquila is powerful, never have I argued that it wasn't, and Grand Strategist is good as well--but again, if you want to deal with those for soup? Find a way to deal with soup.
Because paying 30 points more for your CP battery will make all the difference?
I just think its funny that people think a 30 point raise will stop what we saw...... Its the final nail in the coffin of CP farming and hopefully the addition of some sort of negative for souping or the addition of a bonus for mono lists. Also, why is the infantry squad noticed and not the huge knight in each one of these lists lol. If you attack specific units instead of addressing soup all you will eventually end up with is one single competitive soup build and half the codexes in the game that get stomped when they don't soup
Because paying 30 points more for your CP battery will make all the difference?
CC also needs to go to 40 points. So it's +50 on that battalion. Not a huge difference but that just goes to show you - these units will still be auto include. LOL.
I’m thinking GW needs to put out a new detachment… An Allies detachment.
You can only take an allies detachment after taking another detachment. If your allies detachment you can have up to 6 HQ, Troops, Fast Attack, Elites, Heavy Support, LOW from another Faction, You Warlord cannot be in this allies faction. You receive no CP from an allies Detachment. Any units in the allies Detachment cannot use CP generators, or CP retainers. No Stratagems can be used from any units in a Allies Detachment. You can have 2 Allies detachment, after taking a first normal Detachment if you choose. Allies detachment is the only way to add soup to your faction.
Because paying 30 points more for your CP battery will make all the difference?
I just think its funny that people think a 30 point raise will stop what we saw...... Its the final nail in the coffin of CP farming and hopefully the addition of some sort of negative for souping or the addition of a bonus for mono lists. Also, why is the infantry squad noticed and not the huge knight in each one of these lists lol. If you attack specific units instead of addressing soup all you will eventually end up with is one single competitive soup build and half the codexes in the game that get stomped when they don't soup
I like the idea of a penalty for allied detachments. Perhaps the +3 CP for battle forged should be forfeited and an additional -1 CP for each allied detachment (a detachment that doesn't share all keywords with your first detachment).
I don't see any hypocrisy and to be honest any discussion with you is pointless because you are so biased you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit in your twisted view of what is broken and what isn't.
YOU chose to initially claim that there were multiple examples and that they were significant. Do you really think one or two extra squads are somehow significant additions over the minimums?
You still haven't answered that. You've just reverted to the defensive now that you've been called out.
There is a reason your tag is a meme kanluwen. It's something you continue to propagate with your insane arguments and mental gymnastics.
You chose to make the argument that there were significant numbers of lists in this event fielding more than the bare minimum of Infantry Squads. There were TWO lists that meet that criteria, and one of them meets it only by a single additional unit.
We have proven that mathematically 4 ppm Infantry units are the most efficient infantry in the game.
Boy must your face be red when you look at Genestealer Cultists.
We have seen countless evidence that top players believe Infantry units to be incredibly efficient.
We have seen an insurmountable amount of evidence to suggest that even amateur players believe this to be the case.
Everything, and I mean everything points to Infantry units being undercosted.
And yet how many mono-Guard lists were at the top for this tournament again?
But you refuse to accept it, blaming the results of the unit instead on soup or, of all things, mortar squads.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Infantry units, mortars and certain stratagems and relics that IG have access to are all to blame? That the combination of these things makes them too efficient for their cost?
Where were the mono-Guard lists again?
I've pointed at Mortars of late because, quite frankly, they're becoming a trend with regards to Infantry Squads in these soup lists. It lets the Infantry Squads park in cover on objectives and have a way to hit things they can't see while still letting them beef up a Brigade or Battalion. Mortar SQUADS are Heavy Support choices and don't really matter. They're 2W models with a Guard statline that can be wiped pretty easily once you're able to get at them.
Kurov's Aquila is powerful, never have I argued that it wasn't, and Grand Strategist is good as well--but again, if you want to deal with those for soup? Find a way to deal with soup.
2 examples are multiple mate? One or two extra squads might not be much to you, because you refuse to hear anything that doesn't suit your rhetoric, but it is very telling to me.
As I've said like 3 or 4 times now. Mono guard is one of the best mono armies in the game. This has been evidenced at the GT prior.
You bring up mortars because you want to distract from infantry squads.
Just because GS Cultists exist it does not mean Infantry should too. Perhaps they both need a nerf?!
I cant believe this is even a thing. I genujnely expected Guard players to be like 'yea, we've had our fun but I guess its time infantry had a change.' 4ppm infantry cannot exist where 4ppm conscripts do too. They need an increase.
And yes to the other guy, 30 pts (along with other changes) might make a difference. Or 60 pts. Or 80 pts etc
Because paying 30 points more for your CP battery will make all the difference?
CC also needs to go to 40 points. So it's +50 on that battalion. Not a huge difference but that just goes to show you - these units will still be auto include. LOL.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that it's not necessarily the units themselves that are the "auto-include" but the CPs from the Battalion or the Brigade for armies that can't reliably get them?
You keep talking around it, but quite literally you miss the forest for the trees.
2 examples are multiple mate? One or two extra squads might not be much to you, because you refuse to hear anything that doesn't suit your rhetoric, but it is very telling to me.
One or two extra squads is not much to me because it shouldn't be appearing as much to anyone who isn't coming into this with confirmation bias.
The fact that you consider one to two extra squads in two lists to be "very telling" makes me question your argument even further. When the minimum Troops tax is 6 units and the highest someone goes is 8, you think that is "very telling"?
Call me when someone brings 10 or 12. Y'know a significant number.
As I've said like 3 or 4 times now. Mono guard is one of the best mono armies in the game. This has been evidenced at the GT prior.
So why wasn't it evidenced here?
You bring up mortars because you want to distract from infantry squads.
I bring up mortars because literally they're in the lists on infantry squads. There's very few of the Infantry Squads toting them.
I'd like to see them removed from the Infantry Squads before we go nerfing the Mortars or Infantry Squads. I'd like to see what impact that has because once again...Mortars let Infantry Squads camp in cover on objectives and remove the ability for them to take casualties while still possibly inflicting some themselves.
Just because GS Cultists exist it does not mean Infantry should too. Perhaps they both need a nerf?!
Cool, 6pt GSCs and 5pt IS. Done.
I cant believe this is even a thing. I genujnely expected Guard players to be like 'yea, we've had our fun but I guess its time infantry had a change.' 4ppm infantry cannot exist where 4ppm conscripts do too. They need an increase.
Conscripts never should have had their points increased. Their interaction with Commissars was gutted, their ability to take Orders was made dependent on a dice roll and the issues with them could be solved by bumping them to a 6+ save and giving them Autoguns or the Auxilia keyword.
Because paying 30 points more for your CP battery will make all the difference?
CC also needs to go to 40 points. So it's +50 on that battalion. Not a huge difference but that just goes to show you - these units will still be auto include. LOL.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that it's not necessarily the units themselves that are the "auto-include" but the CPs from the Battalion or the Brigade for armies that can't reliably get them?
You keep talking around it, but quite literally you miss the forest for the trees.
Nah man you are missing it - these units are base under-costed. It is 50% of the problem.
Because paying 30 points more for your CP battery will make all the difference?
CC also needs to go to 40 points. So it's +50 on that battalion. Not a huge difference but that just goes to show you - these units will still be auto include. LOL.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that it's not necessarily the units themselves that are the "auto-include" but the CPs from the Battalion or the Brigade for armies that can't reliably get them?
You keep talking around it, but quite literally you miss the forest for the trees.
Nah man you are missing it - these units are base under-costed. It is 50% of the problem.
And what happens when the cost goes up?
You literally JUST said that even if it goes to +50 on the Battalion it will "still be auto include".
So that suggests the issue is NOT the cost but rather the BATTALION consisting of those units.
I just spent 3 hours rolling dice to myself to prove a point. Who wins, a 10 man tac squad, or a bare bones Imp Guard Battalion? They came up pretty even, surprisingly.
Are the marines in cover? 2+ save buys you a couple turns. We'll say it's the first turn at 24in. range, and just do a make-believe battle report.
Marines get the option to go first, rolling a 2 vs a 2. The marines don't want to leave cover to get within 24in though, so they take turn two. Guard goes first, and they move up 6 inches to get in range. One Company Commander tells two guard squads to FRFSRF, the other gives that command to the last squad. That's 54 shots at BS4 (Sgts have pistols). 27 hits, wounding on 5's. 11 wounds. Rolling 2+ saves...pass. Space marine turn. They stay still because of missile launcher. Missile launcher targets one squad with frag, Sgt gives both barrels to a second squad, with everyone else. Missile gets 3 shots at BS3. 2 hits, wounding on 3's. 1 wound, rolling 5+ save for the guard being in the open to shoot...saves. Other shooting - Sgt hits with only plasma, wounds on 2, insta killing a guardsman. Special guy misses. Seven bolters - 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 saved. Guardsmen have taken 3 dead on one squad, rolling for morale...pass.
Points so far: 0pts dead space marine, 12pts dead guard. Turn 2.
Guard continue forward 6 inches - not within double tap range, because everyone starts just over 24in from each other at the start. Same FRFSRF, -3 guys. 48shots BS4, 24 hits, 8 wounds. Rolling for saves...all pass again with 2+ cover saves. Space marines turn. Move forward 6 inches into rapid fire range, fire frag at wounded squad, along with special and Sgt (both barrels). Frag: 5 shots, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Special: 2 hits, 2 wounds, instakill. Sgt: 1 hit plasma/1 hit bolter, 2 wounds, 0 saves (that squad took 5 casualties, down to 2 guys). Seven bolters at farthest squad within double tap range: 14 shots, 11 hits, 9 wounds, 2 saves (that squad is down to 3). Tactical squads charge: 9 inches, into the one with the most models. Rolling 11 attacks, 9 hits, 8 wounds...6 saves (that squad only lost 2)! Morale phase: 1st squad loses one more, down to one - 2nd squad rolls a one, is down to 2 guys - 3rd squad rolls a six and loses 1.
Attacks back! 10 attacks, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 4 saves on a 3+. Heroic interventions next: 8 attacks, 6 hits, 0 wounds (!). Rolling 2 saves anyway for statistics...pass!
Infantry squad totals: 1 sgt, 2 guys including sgt, 7 guys including sgt.
Tac Marines: 10 Angry men.
3rd turn. Stay in combat (so marines can't use plas or frag missile). Fire pistols in close combat: 3 shots BS4/2 shots BS3, 2 hits, no wounds. FIX BAYONETS! Infantry guys: 13 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds...two fails! Now for a commander (one ordered himself to fight twice). 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Into the combat phase! Big squad: 6 hits, 1 wound, saved. Space marines fight back on one of the commanders. 9 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 fails. Continuing: Rest of Infantry do nothing. Space marine turn. Fire bolt pistols to finish off commander. 8 shots, all hit, 2 wounds, 1 fail. Fight phase. Sgt calls out the wounded commander. 1 hit, no wound. Everyone else targets second commander. All hit, 4 wounds, 1 save. (That was probably a miscalculation at this point). Attacks back! Commanders kill one Marine. Sgts hit 8 times, one wound, saved. Other guys 1 hit, no wound.
Turn 4. Guard pistols kill 1 space marine. FIX BAYONETS HARDER! Commanders target themselves, do one wound that is saved. 7 dudes and 2 guys: Sgts do nothing, other guys get 2 kills (Space marines down to 4). Fight phase proper. Big squad does 4 hits, 1 wound...saved. Attacks back. Space marine Sgt fights the two wound commander, everyone else the 1hp one. It's now or never guys! 3 Marines: 1 hit, 1 wound...commander dies! Sgt: 2 attacks, 2 wounds, no saves. Both commanders are dead. All the other little guys go: 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Morale phase: Space marines roll a 4. They're good to go.
Space Marines shooting into largest Infantry squad. 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, no saves. Fight same guys: 3 hits, 2 wounds, no saves (guard down to 3sgts and 3 dudes). Attacks back: 12 attacks, 9 hits, 1 wound, saved (barely). Morale: Guard are fine on a 3.
Turn 5: This is ridiculous. 3 pistols, 1 hit, no wound. Sgt and 2 guys attacks first: 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 dead space marine. Attacks back: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Rest of guard: 7 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds...ALL SAVED! Entering the bottom of the last turn, this is the tally of guys left:
Guard: 3sgts, 2 guys.
Marines: 3 still quite angry men.
Shooting phase, into a sgt with a dude: 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Fight. Sgt fights a lone sgt, other guys choose another sgt. All of them do nothing this time. Attacks back: 10 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. 2 Marines left.
Final tally at turn 5:
26 points left Space marines, 16 points left Guard. So yeah, pretty even match ups, at least with my schizo dice. You just gotta learn to stay back on the first turn, weather it out, and charge them when they over-extend for objectives.
Because paying 30 points more for your CP battery will make all the difference?
CC also needs to go to 40 points. So it's +50 on that battalion. Not a huge difference but that just goes to show you - these units will still be auto include. LOL.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that it's not necessarily the units themselves that are the "auto-include" but the CPs from the Battalion or the Brigade for armies that can't reliably get them?
You keep talking around it, but quite literally you miss the forest for the trees.
Nah man you are missing it - these units are base under-costed. It is 50% of the problem.
And what happens when the cost goes up?
You literally JUST said that even if it goes to +50 on the Battalion it will "still be auto include".
So that suggests the issue is NOT the cost but rather the BATTALION consisting of those units.
I ment they would be auto include in an AM army. They might not be the go to soup generator though. Cause you can do it cheaper with admech and 5 man squads with worse CP generation though.
Here would would have a situation where getting better regen would cost you more points.
I ment they would be auto include in an AM army. They might not be the go to soup generator though. Cause you can do it cheaper with admech and 5 man squads with worse CP generation though.
Here would would have a situation where getting better regen would cost you more points.
First off: Good to see those goalposts are moving again! So what if "they would be auto-include in an AM army"? What the hell else do you expect them to take? Scions? Tempestor Primes? Maybe Commissars and Conscripts?
Pancakey wrote: Getting rid of CP Regen altogether is not a solution under the current system of detachments giving CPs.
I prefer simply getting rid of the roll.
Change a 5+ Cp roll (for the enemy or for yourself) to gets 1 extra CP for every 4 CPs or part in your starting total/the enemies starting total.
A 6+ roll would be gets 1 extra CP for every 7 CPs or part in your starting total/the enemies starting total.
This of course assumes you can only spend CPs generated by a detachment on strategems that detachments troops have access to (and wow, all those super efficient Guard units might suddenly dissapear).
I ment they would be auto include in an AM army. They might not be the go to soup generator though. Cause you can do it cheaper with admech and 5 man squads with worse CP generation though.
Here would would have a situation where getting better regen would cost you more points.
First off: Good to see those goalposts are moving again!
So what if "they would be auto-include in an AM army"? What the hell else do you expect them to take? Scions? Tempestor Primes? Maybe Commissars and Conscripts?
That last one really takes the cake, too. It's like expecting Orks to not take boys. Not everyone is a Space Marine army that can leave their Tac Squads at home, guys...
Ravemastaj wrote: I just spent 3 hours rolling dice to myself to prove a point. Who wins, a 10 man tac squad, or a bare bones Imp Guard Battalion? They came up pretty even, surprisingly.
Are the marines in cover? 2+ save buys you a couple turns. We'll say it's the first turn at 24in. range, and just do a make-believe battle report.
Marines get the option to go first, rolling a 2 vs a 2. The marines don't want to leave cover to get within 24in though, so they take turn two. Guard goes first, and they move up 6 inches to get in range. One Company Commander tells two guard squads to FRFSRF, the other gives that command to the last squad. That's 54 shots at BS4 (Sgts have pistols). 27 hits, wounding on 5's. 11 wounds. Rolling 2+ saves...pass. Space marine turn. They stay still because of missile launcher. Missile launcher targets one squad with frag, Sgt gives both barrels to a second squad, with everyone else. Missile gets 3 shots at BS3. 2 hits, wounding on 3's. 1 wound, rolling 5+ save for the guard being in the open to shoot...saves. Other shooting - Sgt hits with only plasma, wounds on 2, insta killing a guardsman. Special guy misses. Seven bolters - 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 saved. Guardsmen have taken 3 dead on one squad, rolling for morale...pass.
Points so far: 0pts dead space marine, 12pts dead guard. Turn 2.
Guard continue forward 6 inches - not within double tap range, because everyone starts just over 24in from each other at the start. Same FRFSRF, -3 guys. 48shots BS4, 24 hits, 8 wounds. Rolling for saves...all pass again with 2+ cover saves. Space marines turn. Move forward 6 inches into rapid fire range, fire frag at wounded squad, along with special and Sgt (both barrels). Frag: 5 shots, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Special: 2 hits, 2 wounds, instakill. Sgt: 1 hit plasma/1 hit bolter, 2 wounds, 0 saves (that squad took 5 casualties, down to 2 guys). Seven bolters at farthest squad within double tap range: 14 shots, 11 hits, 9 wounds, 2 saves (that squad is down to 3). Tactical squads charge: 9 inches, into the one with the most models. Rolling 11 attacks, 9 hits, 8 wounds...6 saves (that squad only lost 2)! Morale phase: 1st squad loses one more, down to one - 2nd squad rolls a one, is down to 2 guys - 3rd squad rolls a six and loses 1.
Attacks back! 10 attacks, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 4 saves on a 3+. Heroic interventions next: 8 attacks, 6 hits, 0 wounds (!). Rolling 2 saves anyway for statistics...pass!
Infantry squad totals: 1 sgt, 2 guys including sgt, 7 guys including sgt.
Tac Marines: 10 Angry men.
3rd turn. Stay in combat (so marines can't use plas or frag missile). Fire pistols in close combat: 3 shots BS4/2 shots BS3, 2 hits, no wounds. FIX BAYONETS! Infantry guys: 13 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds...two fails! Now for a commander (one ordered himself to fight twice). 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Into the combat phase! Big squad: 6 hits, 1 wound, saved. Space marines fight back on one of the commanders. 9 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 fails. Continuing: Rest of Infantry do nothing. Space marine turn. Fire bolt pistols to finish off commander. 8 shots, all hit, 2 wounds, 1 fail. Fight phase. Sgt calls out the wounded commander. 1 hit, no wound. Everyone else targets second commander. All hit, 4 wounds, 1 save. (That was probably a miscalculation at this point). Attacks back! Commanders kill one Marine. Sgts hit 8 times, one wound, saved. Other guys 1 hit, no wound.
Turn 4. Guard pistols kill 1 space marine. FIX BAYONETS HARDER! Commanders target themselves, do one wound that is saved. 7 dudes and 2 guys: Sgts do nothing, other guys get 2 kills (Space marines down to 4). Fight phase proper. Big squad does 4 hits, 1 wound...saved. Attacks back. Space marine Sgt fights the two wound commander, everyone else the 1hp one. It's now or never guys! 3 Marines: 1 hit, 1 wound...commander dies! Sgt: 2 attacks, 2 wounds, no saves. Both commanders are dead. All the other little guys go: 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Morale phase: Space marines roll a 4. They're good to go.
Space Marines shooting into largest Infantry squad. 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, no saves. Fight same guys: 3 hits, 2 wounds, no saves (guard down to 3sgts and 3 dudes). Attacks back: 12 attacks, 9 hits, 1 wound, saved (barely). Morale: Guard are fine on a 3.
Turn 5: This is ridiculous. 3 pistols, 1 hit, no wound. Sgt and 2 guys attacks first: 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 dead space marine. Attacks back: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Rest of guard: 7 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds...ALL SAVED! Entering the bottom of the last turn, this is the tally of guys left:
Guard: 3sgts, 2 guys.
Marines: 3 still quite angry men.
Shooting phase, into a sgt with a dude: 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Fight. Sgt fights a lone sgt, other guys choose another sgt. All of them do nothing this time. Attacks back: 10 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. 2 Marines left.
Final tally at turn 5:
26 points left Space marines, 16 points left Guard. So yeah, pretty even match ups, at least with my schizo dice. You just gotta learn to stay back on the first turn, weather it out, and charge them when they over-extend for objectives.
I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRFIG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.
keep in mind I am rounding to the hundreds place.
111 x .5 = 55.5 x .333 = 18.5 x .333 = 6.15. 6.15 .That's how many marines die!
That is 60% of the squad. There is no point in even doing the marine calculation at that point.
The bolters kill less than 6 though if they shoot first. Plasma and rocket will kill less than 2 more. So 8 dead.
What if you could only use stratagems from your warlord's faction? It would be fluffy and might balance things out. If you can't rotate ion shields AND teleport slamguinius, one of them becomes much less effective.
Ravemastaj wrote: I just spent 3 hours rolling dice to myself to prove a point. Who wins, a 10 man tac squad, or a bare bones Imp Guard Battalion? They came up pretty even, surprisingly.
Are the marines in cover? 2+ save buys you a couple turns. We'll say it's the first turn at 24in. range, and just do a make-believe battle report.
Marines get the option to go first, rolling a 2 vs a 2. The marines don't want to leave cover to get within 24in though, so they take turn two. Guard goes first, and they move up 6 inches to get in range. One Company Commander tells two guard squads to FRFSRF, the other gives that command to the last squad. That's 54 shots at BS4 (Sgts have pistols). 27 hits, wounding on 5's. 11 wounds. Rolling 2+ saves...pass. Space marine turn. They stay still because of missile launcher. Missile launcher targets one squad with frag, Sgt gives both barrels to a second squad, with everyone else. Missile gets 3 shots at BS3. 2 hits, wounding on 3's. 1 wound, rolling 5+ save for the guard being in the open to shoot...saves. Other shooting - Sgt hits with only plasma, wounds on 2, insta killing a guardsman. Special guy misses. Seven bolters - 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 saved. Guardsmen have taken 3 dead on one squad, rolling for morale...pass.
Points so far: 0pts dead space marine, 12pts dead guard. Turn 2.
Guard continue forward 6 inches - not within double tap range, because everyone starts just over 24in from each other at the start. Same FRFSRF, -3 guys. 48shots BS4, 24 hits, 8 wounds. Rolling for saves...all pass again with 2+ cover saves. Space marines turn. Move forward 6 inches into rapid fire range, fire frag at wounded squad, along with special and Sgt (both barrels). Frag: 5 shots, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Special: 2 hits, 2 wounds, instakill. Sgt: 1 hit plasma/1 hit bolter, 2 wounds, 0 saves (that squad took 5 casualties, down to 2 guys). Seven bolters at farthest squad within double tap range: 14 shots, 11 hits, 9 wounds, 2 saves (that squad is down to 3). Tactical squads charge: 9 inches, into the one with the most models. Rolling 11 attacks, 9 hits, 8 wounds...6 saves (that squad only lost 2)! Morale phase: 1st squad loses one more, down to one - 2nd squad rolls a one, is down to 2 guys - 3rd squad rolls a six and loses 1.
Attacks back! 10 attacks, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 4 saves on a 3+. Heroic interventions next: 8 attacks, 6 hits, 0 wounds (!). Rolling 2 saves anyway for statistics...pass!
Infantry squad totals: 1 sgt, 2 guys including sgt, 7 guys including sgt.
Tac Marines: 10 Angry men.
3rd turn. Stay in combat (so marines can't use plas or frag missile). Fire pistols in close combat: 3 shots BS4/2 shots BS3, 2 hits, no wounds. FIX BAYONETS! Infantry guys: 13 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds...two fails! Now for a commander (one ordered himself to fight twice). 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Into the combat phase! Big squad: 6 hits, 1 wound, saved. Space marines fight back on one of the commanders. 9 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 fails. Continuing: Rest of Infantry do nothing. Space marine turn. Fire bolt pistols to finish off commander. 8 shots, all hit, 2 wounds, 1 fail. Fight phase. Sgt calls out the wounded commander. 1 hit, no wound. Everyone else targets second commander. All hit, 4 wounds, 1 save. (That was probably a miscalculation at this point). Attacks back! Commanders kill one Marine. Sgts hit 8 times, one wound, saved. Other guys 1 hit, no wound.
Turn 4. Guard pistols kill 1 space marine. FIX BAYONETS HARDER! Commanders target themselves, do one wound that is saved. 7 dudes and 2 guys: Sgts do nothing, other guys get 2 kills (Space marines down to 4). Fight phase proper. Big squad does 4 hits, 1 wound...saved. Attacks back. Space marine Sgt fights the two wound commander, everyone else the 1hp one. It's now or never guys! 3 Marines: 1 hit, 1 wound...commander dies! Sgt: 2 attacks, 2 wounds, no saves. Both commanders are dead. All the other little guys go: 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Morale phase: Space marines roll a 4. They're good to go.
Space Marines shooting into largest Infantry squad. 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, no saves. Fight same guys: 3 hits, 2 wounds, no saves (guard down to 3sgts and 3 dudes). Attacks back: 12 attacks, 9 hits, 1 wound, saved (barely). Morale: Guard are fine on a 3.
Turn 5: This is ridiculous. 3 pistols, 1 hit, no wound. Sgt and 2 guys attacks first: 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 dead space marine. Attacks back: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Rest of guard: 7 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds...ALL SAVED! Entering the bottom of the last turn, this is the tally of guys left:
Guard: 3sgts, 2 guys.
Marines: 3 still quite angry men.
Shooting phase, into a sgt with a dude: 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Fight. Sgt fights a lone sgt, other guys choose another sgt. All of them do nothing this time. Attacks back: 10 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. 2 Marines left.
Final tally at turn 5:
26 points left Space marines, 16 points left Guard. So yeah, pretty even match ups, at least with my schizo dice. You just gotta learn to stay back on the first turn, weather it out, and charge them when they over-extend for objectives.
I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRFIG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.
keep in mind I am rounding to the hundreds place.
111 x .5 = 55.5 x .333 = 18.5 x .333 = 6.15. 6.15 .That's how many marines die!
That is 60% of the squad. There is no point in even doing the marine calculation at that point.
The bolters kill less than 6 though if they shoot first. Plasma and rocket will kill less than 2 more. So 8 dead.
8x4 = 32 points
13x6 = 78 points
Don't roll dice...do math.
How do you get that math? At 24 inch range, FRFSRF only gives you 2 shots. You are a noob. There are only 9 lasguns in a barebones squad. That's 18. For 3 squads, that is exactly 54 shots. You need to read a rulebook.
I ment they would be auto include in an AM army. They might not be the go to soup generator though. Cause you can do it cheaper with admech and 5 man squads with worse CP generation though.
Here would would have a situation where getting better regen would cost you more points.
First off: Good to see those goalposts are moving again!
So what if "they would be auto-include in an AM army"? What the hell else do you expect them to take? Scions? Tempestor Primes? Maybe Commissars and Conscripts?
You can't be serious...How am I moving goalposts? The original subject is AM infantry point costs - the final subject is AM infantry point cost. Then I gave a practical example how a 50 point increase on Am infantry batallions could create interesting list choices when selecting a command point generating batallion. Choices are normal when things are balanced - that's why I brought that up. Also just to clarify - AM = astra militarium - AdMech = Adept Mechanicum.
Ravemastaj wrote: I just spent 3 hours rolling dice to myself to prove a point. Who wins, a 10 man tac squad, or a bare bones Imp Guard Battalion? They came up pretty even, surprisingly.
Are the marines in cover? 2+ save buys you a couple turns. We'll say it's the first turn at 24in. range, and just do a make-believe battle report.
Marines get the option to go first, rolling a 2 vs a 2. The marines don't want to leave cover to get within 24in though, so they take turn two. Guard goes first, and they move up 6 inches to get in range. One Company Commander tells two guard squads to FRFSRF, the other gives that command to the last squad. That's 54 shots at BS4 (Sgts have pistols). 27 hits, wounding on 5's. 11 wounds. Rolling 2+ saves...pass. Space marine turn. They stay still because of missile launcher. Missile launcher targets one squad with frag, Sgt gives both barrels to a second squad, with everyone else. Missile gets 3 shots at BS3. 2 hits, wounding on 3's. 1 wound, rolling 5+ save for the guard being in the open to shoot...saves. Other shooting - Sgt hits with only plasma, wounds on 2, insta killing a guardsman. Special guy misses. Seven bolters - 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 saved. Guardsmen have taken 3 dead on one squad, rolling for morale...pass.
Points so far: 0pts dead space marine, 12pts dead guard. Turn 2.
Guard continue forward 6 inches - not within double tap range, because everyone starts just over 24in from each other at the start. Same FRFSRF, -3 guys. 48shots BS4, 24 hits, 8 wounds. Rolling for saves...all pass again with 2+ cover saves. Space marines turn. Move forward 6 inches into rapid fire range, fire frag at wounded squad, along with special and Sgt (both barrels). Frag: 5 shots, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Special: 2 hits, 2 wounds, instakill. Sgt: 1 hit plasma/1 hit bolter, 2 wounds, 0 saves (that squad took 5 casualties, down to 2 guys). Seven bolters at farthest squad within double tap range: 14 shots, 11 hits, 9 wounds, 2 saves (that squad is down to 3). Tactical squads charge: 9 inches, into the one with the most models. Rolling 11 attacks, 9 hits, 8 wounds...6 saves (that squad only lost 2)! Morale phase: 1st squad loses one more, down to one - 2nd squad rolls a one, is down to 2 guys - 3rd squad rolls a six and loses 1.
Attacks back! 10 attacks, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 4 saves on a 3+. Heroic interventions next: 8 attacks, 6 hits, 0 wounds (!). Rolling 2 saves anyway for statistics...pass!
Infantry squad totals: 1 sgt, 2 guys including sgt, 7 guys including sgt.
Tac Marines: 10 Angry men.
3rd turn. Stay in combat (so marines can't use plas or frag missile). Fire pistols in close combat: 3 shots BS4/2 shots BS3, 2 hits, no wounds. FIX BAYONETS! Infantry guys: 13 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds...two fails! Now for a commander (one ordered himself to fight twice). 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Into the combat phase! Big squad: 6 hits, 1 wound, saved. Space marines fight back on one of the commanders. 9 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 fails. Continuing: Rest of Infantry do nothing. Space marine turn. Fire bolt pistols to finish off commander. 8 shots, all hit, 2 wounds, 1 fail. Fight phase. Sgt calls out the wounded commander. 1 hit, no wound. Everyone else targets second commander. All hit, 4 wounds, 1 save. (That was probably a miscalculation at this point). Attacks back! Commanders kill one Marine. Sgts hit 8 times, one wound, saved. Other guys 1 hit, no wound.
Turn 4. Guard pistols kill 1 space marine. FIX BAYONETS HARDER! Commanders target themselves, do one wound that is saved. 7 dudes and 2 guys: Sgts do nothing, other guys get 2 kills (Space marines down to 4). Fight phase proper. Big squad does 4 hits, 1 wound...saved. Attacks back. Space marine Sgt fights the two wound commander, everyone else the 1hp one. It's now or never guys! 3 Marines: 1 hit, 1 wound...commander dies! Sgt: 2 attacks, 2 wounds, no saves. Both commanders are dead. All the other little guys go: 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Morale phase: Space marines roll a 4. They're good to go.
Space Marines shooting into largest Infantry squad. 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, no saves. Fight same guys: 3 hits, 2 wounds, no saves (guard down to 3sgts and 3 dudes). Attacks back: 12 attacks, 9 hits, 1 wound, saved (barely). Morale: Guard are fine on a 3.
Turn 5: This is ridiculous. 3 pistols, 1 hit, no wound. Sgt and 2 guys attacks first: 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 dead space marine. Attacks back: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Rest of guard: 7 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds...ALL SAVED! Entering the bottom of the last turn, this is the tally of guys left:
Guard: 3sgts, 2 guys.
Marines: 3 still quite angry men.
Shooting phase, into a sgt with a dude: 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Fight. Sgt fights a lone sgt, other guys choose another sgt. All of them do nothing this time. Attacks back: 10 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. 2 Marines left.
Final tally at turn 5:
26 points left Space marines, 16 points left Guard. So yeah, pretty even match ups, at least with my schizo dice. You just gotta learn to stay back on the first turn, weather it out, and charge them when they over-extend for objectives.
I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRFIG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.
keep in mind I am rounding to the hundreds place.
111 x .5 = 55.5 x .333 = 18.5 x .333 = 6.15. 6.15 .That's how many marines die!
That is 60% of the squad. There is no point in even doing the marine calculation at that point.
The bolters kill less than 6 though if they shoot first. Plasma and rocket will kill less than 2 more. So 8 dead.
8x4 = 32 points
13x6 = 78 points
Don't roll dice...do math.
How do you get that math? At 24 inch range, FRFSRF only gives you 2 shots. You are a noob. There are only 9 lasguns in a barebones squad. That's 18. For 3 squads, that is exactly 54 shots. You need to read a rulebook.
The units have the exact same range - I think you need to look up what rapid fire weapons do. They shoot twice at 12 " - pistols have 12" range. You could just...divide by 2 to get the number of killed marines at 24".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pieceocake wrote: What if you could only use stratagems from your warlord's faction? It would be fluffy and might balance things out. If you can't rotate ion shields AND teleport slamguinius, one of them becomes much less effective.
Not a bad approach - though I think it's possibly too extreme. More than likely would just kill allies.
I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRFIG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.
FRFSRF changes your Lasguns to Rapid Fire 2 meaning it would go from 9 shots to 18 shots, outside of half(12") of their 24 inch range.
In Rapid Fire range, that gives you 36 shots. That means you're needing to have
RF1*9=9
RF2*9=18
9*3@over 9"=27
9*2@12"=18
18*2@12=36
18shots@anything over 12"*3=54
36 shots @12"*3=108
Your math is flawed from the beginning, but that sounds about right for your nonsensical rantings about FRFSRF. And please note the huge drop in shot output each step of the way.
keep in mind I am rounding to the hundreds place.
111 x .5 = 55.5 x .333 = 18.5 x .333 = 6.15. 6.15 .That's how many marines die!
That is 60% of the squad. There is no point in even doing the marine calculation at that point.
The bolters kill less than 6 though if they shoot first. Plasma and rocket will kill less than 2 more. So 8 dead.
8x4 = 32 points
13x6 = 78 points
Don't roll dice...do math.
says the guy whose math was flawed from the outset.
Pieceocake wrote: What if you could only use stratagems from your warlord's faction? It would be fluffy and might balance things out. If you can't rotate ion shields AND teleport slamguinius, one of them becomes much less effective.
Not a bad approach - though I think it's possibly too extreme. More than likely would just kill allies.
It is certainly the most simple solution that requires no additional book-keeping.
Ravemastaj wrote: I just spent 3 hours rolling dice to myself to prove a point. Who wins, a 10 man tac squad, or a bare bones Imp Guard Battalion? They came up pretty even, surprisingly.
Are the marines in cover? 2+ save buys you a couple turns. We'll say it's the first turn at 24in. range, and just do a make-believe battle report.
Marines get the option to go first, rolling a 2 vs a 2. The marines don't want to leave cover to get within 24in though, so they take turn two. Guard goes first, and they move up 6 inches to get in range. One Company Commander tells two guard squads to FRFSRF, the other gives that command to the last squad. That's 54 shots at BS4 (Sgts have pistols). 27 hits, wounding on 5's. 11 wounds. Rolling 2+ saves...pass. Space marine turn. They stay still because of missile launcher. Missile launcher targets one squad with frag, Sgt gives both barrels to a second squad, with everyone else. Missile gets 3 shots at BS3. 2 hits, wounding on 3's. 1 wound, rolling 5+ save for the guard being in the open to shoot...saves. Other shooting - Sgt hits with only plasma, wounds on 2, insta killing a guardsman. Special guy misses. Seven bolters - 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 saved. Guardsmen have taken 3 dead on one squad, rolling for morale...pass.
Points so far: 0pts dead space marine, 12pts dead guard. Turn 2.
Guard continue forward 6 inches - not within double tap range, because everyone starts just over 24in from each other at the start. Same FRFSRF, -3 guys. 48shots BS4, 24 hits, 8 wounds. Rolling for saves...all pass again with 2+ cover saves. Space marines turn. Move forward 6 inches into rapid fire range, fire frag at wounded squad, along with special and Sgt (both barrels). Frag: 5 shots, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Special: 2 hits, 2 wounds, instakill. Sgt: 1 hit plasma/1 hit bolter, 2 wounds, 0 saves (that squad took 5 casualties, down to 2 guys). Seven bolters at farthest squad within double tap range: 14 shots, 11 hits, 9 wounds, 2 saves (that squad is down to 3). Tactical squads charge: 9 inches, into the one with the most models. Rolling 11 attacks, 9 hits, 8 wounds...6 saves (that squad only lost 2)! Morale phase: 1st squad loses one more, down to one - 2nd squad rolls a one, is down to 2 guys - 3rd squad rolls a six and loses 1.
Attacks back! 10 attacks, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 4 saves on a 3+. Heroic interventions next: 8 attacks, 6 hits, 0 wounds (!). Rolling 2 saves anyway for statistics...pass!
Infantry squad totals: 1 sgt, 2 guys including sgt, 7 guys including sgt.
Tac Marines: 10 Angry men.
3rd turn. Stay in combat (so marines can't use plas or frag missile). Fire pistols in close combat: 3 shots BS4/2 shots BS3, 2 hits, no wounds. FIX BAYONETS! Infantry guys: 13 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds...two fails! Now for a commander (one ordered himself to fight twice). 4 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Into the combat phase! Big squad: 6 hits, 1 wound, saved. Space marines fight back on one of the commanders. 9 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 fails. Continuing: Rest of Infantry do nothing. Space marine turn. Fire bolt pistols to finish off commander. 8 shots, all hit, 2 wounds, 1 fail. Fight phase. Sgt calls out the wounded commander. 1 hit, no wound. Everyone else targets second commander. All hit, 4 wounds, 1 save. (That was probably a miscalculation at this point). Attacks back! Commanders kill one Marine. Sgts hit 8 times, one wound, saved. Other guys 1 hit, no wound.
Turn 4. Guard pistols kill 1 space marine. FIX BAYONETS HARDER! Commanders target themselves, do one wound that is saved. 7 dudes and 2 guys: Sgts do nothing, other guys get 2 kills (Space marines down to 4). Fight phase proper. Big squad does 4 hits, 1 wound...saved. Attacks back. Space marine Sgt fights the two wound commander, everyone else the 1hp one. It's now or never guys! 3 Marines: 1 hit, 1 wound...commander dies! Sgt: 2 attacks, 2 wounds, no saves. Both commanders are dead. All the other little guys go: 4 hits, 2 wounds, 2 saves. Morale phase: Space marines roll a 4. They're good to go.
Space Marines shooting into largest Infantry squad. 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, no saves. Fight same guys: 3 hits, 2 wounds, no saves (guard down to 3sgts and 3 dudes). Attacks back: 12 attacks, 9 hits, 1 wound, saved (barely). Morale: Guard are fine on a 3.
Turn 5: This is ridiculous. 3 pistols, 1 hit, no wound. Sgt and 2 guys attacks first: 4 hits, 3 wounds, 1 dead space marine. Attacks back: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Rest of guard: 7 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds...ALL SAVED! Entering the bottom of the last turn, this is the tally of guys left:
Guard: 3sgts, 2 guys.
Marines: 3 still quite angry men.
Shooting phase, into a sgt with a dude: 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. Fight. Sgt fights a lone sgt, other guys choose another sgt. All of them do nothing this time. Attacks back: 10 attacks, 5 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save. 2 Marines left.
Final tally at turn 5:
26 points left Space marines, 16 points left Guard. So yeah, pretty even match ups, at least with my schizo dice. You just gotta learn to stay back on the first turn, weather it out, and charge them when they over-extend for objectives.
I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRFIG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.
keep in mind I am rounding to the hundreds place.
111 x .5 = 55.5 x .333 = 18.5 x .333 = 6.15. 6.15 .That's how many marines die!
That is 60% of the squad. There is no point in even doing the marine calculation at that point.
The bolters kill less than 6 though if they shoot first. Plasma and rocket will kill less than 2 more. So 8 dead.
8x4 = 32 points
13x6 = 78 points
Don't roll dice...do math.
How do you get that math? At 24 inch range, FRFSRF only gives you 2 shots. You are a noob. There are only 9 lasguns in a barebones squad. That's 18. For 3 squads, that is exactly 54 shots. You need to read a rulebook.
The units have the exact same range - I think you need to look up what rapid fire weapons do. They shoot twice at 12 " - pistols have 12" range. You could just...divide by 2 to get the number of killed marines at 24".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pieceocake wrote: What if you could only use stratagems from your warlord's faction? It would be fluffy and might balance things out. If you can't rotate ion shields AND teleport slamguinius, one of them becomes much less effective.
Not a bad approach - though I think it's possibly too extreme. More than likely would just kill allies.
Except I just did that, you lunk. How are you getting 37 SHOTS EACH?!?
FRFSRF gives lasguns Rapid Fire 2. At 24 inch range, as they move up the field, each lasgun can only shoot TWICE. There are only NINE lasguns per squad, due to the Sgt. So that's...DING DING DING, 18 SHOTS! 18x3=54.
If you read what I did, you would understand that there is no point where you have to let someone get within 12 inches of you without charging them. I rolled dice to control for other variables than simple bs than that. A failed charge roll would have killed those tac marines in turn 2, but hey, since they made the 6in charge, they essentially got enough attacks to force a morale phase. You need to play the game, and stop playing math hammer. There is a battlespace, here.
I ment they would be auto include in an AM army. They might not be the go to soup generator though. Cause you can do it cheaper with admech and 5 man squads with worse CP generation though.
Here would would have a situation where getting better regen would cost you more points.
First off: Good to see those goalposts are moving again! So what if "they would be auto-include in an AM army"? What the hell else do you expect them to take? Scions? Tempestor Primes? Maybe Commissars and Conscripts?
You can't be serious...How am I moving goalposts? The original subject is AM infantry point costs - the final subject is AM infantry point cost. Then I gave a practical example how a 50 point increase on Am infantry batallions could create interesting list choices when selecting a command point generating batallion. Choices are normal when things are balanced - that's why I brought that up. Also just to clarify - AM = astra militarium - AdMech = Adept Mechanicum.
That is the goalposts being moved. You initially talked about them still being autoincludes in battalions and now you've moved it to "i meant to say...".
Again, do you not understand that there are 3 Troop choices for Guard? Conscripts(nerfed to hell and back again, no squad upgrades, very much the definition of what people whined they wanted them to be: meatshields), Scions(can't receive Orders from non-Scion Officers, can't choose Scions' Regiments, can't do anything with their Regimental rules unless you take them as a pure Scion Detachment), and Infantry Squads.
If you can't understand why Infantry Squads are the de facto Troop choice for anything other than a Scion Detachment, we can't continue this line of discussion. We just can't.
I don't think it would entirely kill allies. You can still farm CP with Guard. it would be similar to the way Genestealers ally in Guard (except that they'd get their sub-faction benefit for a pure detachment).
If CP regen was deleted and Relics costed straight CP (no more stratagem) with a limit of 3 total or something, you could still get some use out of the blood angels jet-pack and whatnot too.
Remember when GW said that the new edition was heavily playtesting and balanced?
Remember how we all laughed?
Honestly, those lists highlight how bad a system the current edition is. At the very least try out One Page Rules Grimdark, can use your 40k models and terrain, and the rules are free.
People really need to go play different systems to just see how much of a hot mess 8th is. It does come close to being a good game, but sadly has a lot of the old GW design mentality dragging it down.
I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRFIG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.
FRFSRF changes your Lasguns to Rapid Fire 2 meaning it would go from 9 shots to 18 shots, outside of half(12") of their 24 inch range.
In Rapid Fire range, that gives you 36 shots.
All getting very pedantic and nothing to do with the topic, but for clarity...
IG squad, 1 las pistol, 9 lasguns
Unordered
1"-12" - 19 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (0.5 dead tactical marines)
12"-24" - 9 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (1.1 dead tactical marines)
FRFSRF 1"-12" - 37 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (1.0 dead tactical marines)
12"-24" - 18 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (2.1 dead tactical marines)
Just from skimming over the last couple of pages, here's my input on how some particular issues could be approached.
1: Particular units such as Custodes Jetbikes and Slamguinius get a points hike, or a 0-1/detachment limit similar to Coldstar Commanders.
2: You only get your +3CP bonus if you are not running soup.
3: CP Regen abilities are either killed off entirely, or are limited to one CP per try, or you can only regen CP used on that particular army's Strategems.
I don't want to cut out soup completly, as this completly screws over fluffly armies. I like the allies concept; I can take a couple of squads of Deathwatch with my Guard, or some Custodians with my Marines, but there's a few repeat offenders that could be dealt with in their own way, rather than a blanket "No soup" rule.
Valkyrie wrote: Just from skimming over the last couple of pages, here's my input on how some particular issues could be approached.
1: Particular units such as Custodes Jetbikes and Slamguinius get a points hike, or a 0-1/detachment limit similar to Coldstar Commanders.
2: You only get your +3CP bonus if you are not running soup.
3: CP Regen abilities are either killed off entirely, or are limited to one CP per try, or you can only regen CP used on that particular army's Strategems.
I don't want to cut out soup completly, as this completly screws over fluffly armies. I like the allies concept; I can take a couple of squads of Deathwatch with my Guard, or some Custodians with my Marines, but there's a few repeat offenders that could be dealt with in their own way, rather than a blanket "No soup" rule.
Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
So AM = 18x3 = 54 54x.5x.333x.333 = 2.99 - 39 points destroyed
Marines = Bolters 8x.666x.666x.666 = 2.36 Plasma gun 1x.666x.83 = .54. Rocket = frag .77. For a total of 3.67 under 16 points destroyed.
In what word do marines beat IG infantry...not this one.
I can confirm that is BS with simple quick math.
FRFSRFIG squads have 37 shots each x3 = 111 shots.
FRFSRF changes your Lasguns to Rapid Fire 2 meaning it would go from 9 shots to 18 shots, outside of half(12") of their 24 inch range.
In Rapid Fire range, that gives you 36 shots.
All getting very pedantic and nothing to do with the topic, but for clarity...
IG squad, 1 las pistol, 9 lasguns
Unordered
1"-12" - 19 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (0.5 dead tactical marines)
12"-24" - 9 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (1.1 dead tactical marines)
FRFSRF 1"-12" - 37 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (1.0 dead tactical marines)
12"-24" - 18 str 3 shots hitting on 4+ (2.1 dead tactical marines)
Which still doesn't do anything highlight that Xenomancers fudges the numbers. He didn't disclose that he was showcasing the numbers at Rapid Fire range, nor did he disclose that he was counting the Laspistol.
And THAT is why any and all arguments where he is involved tend to go this way. He throws out garbage about the math while not actually showcasing the math that he's doing. He hides it.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
The 10 marines are staying in cover then? LOL. I win. I take the objective and you can't even kill me in 6 turns. Game set match.
If only the table had board edges or objectives that required units to actually commit to an area. Maybe if GW adds something like that, Guardsmen won't be able to super-kite Marines anymore...
That was sarcasm.
As for the math vs experimentation: do some math, then experiment. If they agree, you're more likely right. If they disagree, you're likely missing something.
stonehorse wrote: Remember when GW said that the new edition was heavily playtesting and balanced?
Remember how we all laughed?
Honestly, those lists highlight how bad a system the current edition is. At the very least try out One Page Rules Grimdark, can use your 40k models and terrain, and the rules are free.
People really need to go play different systems to just see how much of a hot mess 8th is. It does come close to being a good game, but sadly has a lot of the old GW design mentality dragging it down.
Hot mess indeed!
CP is just a broken mechanic right now. What do you think tournament lists would look like WITHOUT CP?
Bharring wrote: If only the table had board edges or objectives that required units to actually commit to an area. Maybe if GW adds something like that, Guardsmen won't be able to super-kite Marines anymore...
That was sarcasm.
As for the math vs experimentation: do some math, then experiment. If they agree, you're more likely right. If they disagree, you're likely missing something.
Pretty sure we play on 4x6 tables and start 24" apart in typical games. Some games you even have 24" of deployment zone to fall back into.
Two lists took 1 and 2 more than minimum infantry squads in their brigades.
That's it. Two out of the 7 lists that had Guard Detachments had more than the minimum Infantry Squads in their Brigades.
I know man, I read all of the lists in the OP and you've said it multiple times.
To me it is telling and significant, as I said earlier to you directly.
Right I'm at home now so I can easier edit my posts so there aren't reams of quotations from us all.
Let me put it to all of you who believe *certain units* (not necessarily Infantry) are fine but they appear in these top 11 lists multiple times - what happens in a MOBA or online Strategy game when a particular unit, or hero etc is picked way, waaaaaaaaaaaay more than others? What happens when that unit, or hero etc is generally on the winning team? It's a rhetorical question of course, we know the unit or hero etc get's smashed in the face with the nerf bat.
The meta then shifts, another unit or hero etc is used way more than others and on the winning team and it is later smashed with the nerf bat. So on and so forth ad infinitum.
Conversely, what happens when a unit or hero etc is never picked? What happens to those units that, when picked, are generally on the losing team?
We can see, evidently, that *certain units* feature more heavily than others at the top tables. These *certain units* need to be hit with the nerf bat so the meta evolves. The units that don't feature much at the top tables need to be stroked with the buff brush so they see more play.
Soup is only a problem where a game is imbalanced. If there was no difference between the relative strength of units, the army stratagems and relics etc players would have no need to soup. Or, to be precise, soup would have no impact on the result of the game. Unfortunately we don't live in this utopia. 'Imperium' units are far too strong because so many of their units have a codex unto themselves, if not multiple. There is no Codex: Wraithknights. There is no Codex: Stompa. Yet there is a Codex: Imperial Knights. How can a WK or Stompa ever dream of being balanced against an equivalent unit that has a codex worth of rules?
Soup needs to be balanced for matched play, no question. Otherwise we might as well be playing Imperiumhammer 40k.
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
The 10 marines are staying in cover then? LOL. I win. I take the objective and you can't even kill me in 6 turns. Game set match.
That depends on where the objective is. If those marines are sitting on it, then...well, you are gak out of luck. I didn't even include the plasma and missile launcher above that was included in the original scenario. Sure, you could try to run up and fight in close combat with the marines...but they are armed with bolt pistols, too, and can stay locked in combat pretty much the whole game. If the objective is in the middle somewhere, you will be forced to advance towards it eventually. As long as it is in charge range, and they don't give you the opportunity to use FRFSRF at 12 inches, then Marines can still contest it. The more guard the marines kill at range, the FAR less likely it will be for the guardsmen to kill the marines. The statistics are not in their favor. 2+ saves over time win out against 4+/5+ saves, and 3+ saves by themselves are still decent.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
You want to explain how your maths is a fair example when you have baised the game state so heavily.
The marines magically get to be in cover
The Marines don't have to move out of cover for objective etc.
Yet your guardsmen are being played by a moron who's deployed them in clear line of sight, out of cover and it going to walk slowly towards the dug in enemy? Not to mention that those guard arn't use any of their 8 CP on strategums in your example. Whike the marines would have 0
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
You want to explain how your maths is a fair example when you have baised the game state so heavily.
The marines magically get to be in cover
The Marines don't have to move out of cover for objective etc.
Yet your guardsmen are being played by a moron who's deployed them in clear line of sight, out of cover and it going to walk slowly towards the dug in enemy? Not to mention that those guard arn't use any of their 8 CP on strategums in your example. Whike the marines would have 0
I included cover for both sides, if you look...and the point was to compare strict points on the battlefield. If you throw in strategems, and Cadian re-rolls, and Dark Angel -1 to hit, then it all becomes very different, and plays different. Stop trying to be 'right' and have some nuance. Marines with all their toys are just as capable of doing things as everyone else in a one-on-one mashup. They can make it happen if you just played the game rather than trying to 'game' the game.
The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.
So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
The 10 marines are staying in cover then? LOL. I win. I take the objective and you can't even kill me in 6 turns. Game set match.
That depends on where the objective is. If those marines are sitting on it, then...well, you are gak out of luck. I didn't even include the plasma and missile launcher above that was included in the original scenario. Sure, you could try to run up and fight in close combat with the marines...but they are armed with bolt pistols, too, and can stay locked in combat pretty much the whole game. If the objective is in the middle somewhere, you will be forced to advance towards it eventually. As long as it is in charge range, and they don't give you the opportunity to use FRFSRF at 12 inches, then Marines can still contest it. The more guard the marines kill at range, the FAR less likely it will be for the guardsmen to kill the marines. The statistics are not in their favor. 2+ saves over time win out against 4+/5+ saves, and 3+ saves by themselves are still decent.
I think it's safe to assume that objectives in your deployment zone probably have 3-4 units on them. The ones you fight for are in the middleish of the table and you have to move out to get them. Or if you are like me and you get to place objectives. I put them as out in the open as I possibly can. In a tournament they probably will be in cover though so I'll give you that. In any case - killing 2+ armor marines in the back lines doing nothing is very low on any list of priorities I've ever had in a game. Objectives in your zone will be yours all game most likely. they can have it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.
So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.
Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.
Trying to stack deck in favor of marines (ignoring army traits - ignoring CP) 10 man tac with rocket and plasma vs IG batallion shooting at each other from 24" in cover - still results in 14 point average dead infantry vs 19 points average dead marine. Marines run out of points first.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.
Well, what do you expect lone tac marines to do? The purpose of both of them is to sit in one spot - they are troops. One is more shooty, the other is more tanky. The Space Marines have far more options, unit and model wise, which is why you don't see these guys more. As long as you let people choose outside their original codexes, they will bring guard. It's that simple - even if guardsmen went up to 8 points, and surpassed skitarii in price, people would still take guard for the relics and such. That's where the problem is. The fact that Tac marines and Guardsmen can shoot each other and last all 5 turns means that they are fine. It's all the other gak that has broken the game.
Tyel wrote: The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.
So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.
Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.
Yeah we don't even need to get into the fact that a priest plus straken give each 4 point catachan 6 str 4 attacks per turn..or in other words - the offensive CC power of a 5 man tactical squad. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
You guys are amazing, you reaffirm my faith in the utterly repetitive toxicity of these boards. Thank you, seriously, you put a smile on my face. I really do appreciate pattern and routine.
The same posters devolving into the same argument making the same points they've been screaming about for the past year and achieving the same results, futility, thy name is dakka!
Sorry, I'll return to lurking and reading, please continue.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.
Well, what do you expect lone tac marines to do? The purpose of both of them is to sit in one spot - they are troops. One is more shooty, the other is more tanky. The Space Marines have far more options, unit and model wise, which is why you don't see these guys more. As long as you let people choose outside their original codexes, they will bring guard. It's that simple - even if guardsmen went up to 8 points, and surpassed skitarii in price, people would still take guard for the relics and such. That's where the problem is. The fact that Tac marines and Guardsmen can shoot each other and last all 5 turns means that they are fine. It's all the other gak that has broken the game.
No - that is not the purpose of a 180 point troop unit. That is the purpose of 35-40 point troop units. Spending 4 times more than a chaff unit - you need to kill things - or you lose. As I've pointed out - the 180 point troop unit is worse at killing things than multiple 40 point units. It does nothing better - takes up less space - offers less utility. It's a worthless pile of garbage.
Tyel wrote: The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.
So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.
Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.
Yeah we don't even need to get into the fact that a priest plus straken give each 4 point catachan 6 str 4 attacks per turn..or in other words - the offensive CC power of a 5 man tactical squad. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
"Man, that unit with its extra points in buffed characters sure is much more powerful than the naked unit in the specific scenario I have in my mind, excepting all other realistic possibilities. LULUL."
Seriously, conversations like this are why I'm convinced Xeno is just (an admittedly effective) troll on these boards, making arguments he clearly knows he can't defend and then trying to do so.
Can you please stop discussing specific instances of x unit vs the same points worth' of y unit? It just devolves into ridiculously niche examples that try to prove one point over another. We've also had it all before so it brings nothing new to the discussion.
What this OP does show us, is that certain units are selected more often than others and that soup is (obviously) strong. Not just Imperium soup either. Aeldari soup is at the top tables too. Chaos isn't really showing but this is only one tournament after all.
I'd be interested to know the top mono-list and where they placed, if anyone could get that information?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: You guys are amazing, you reaffirm my faith in the utterly repetitive toxicity of these boards. Thank you, seriously, you put a smile on my face. I really do appreciate pattern and routine.
The same posters devolving into the same argument making the same points they've been screaming about for the past year and achieving the same results, futility, thy name is dakka!
Sorry, I'll return to lurking and reading, please continue.
stonehorse wrote: Remember when GW said that the new edition was heavily playtesting and balanced?
Remember how we all laughed?
Honestly, those lists highlight how bad a system the current edition is. At the very least try out One Page Rules Grimdark, can use your 40k models and terrain, and the rules are free.
People really need to go play different systems to just see how much of a hot mess 8th is. It does come close to being a good game, but sadly has a lot of the old GW design mentality dragging it down.
Hot mess indeed!
CP is just a broken mechanic right now. What do you think tournament lists would look like WITHOUT CP?
Honestly I think it wouldn't look that different. When the game is played at that level of competitiveness, balance is always going to be off. As GW do their usual heavy handed FAQ/Errata we see new meta lists rise to exploit the fundamentally flawed core system. We saw Hive Tyrant spam be effective, then it was addressed, by both a points increase and the rules of 3.
I've been playing GW games since Battle Master (1988 I think), so have played most of the editions for their various game systems. So have seen the trends in their strategy emerge.
What we have to remember is that GW's aim isn't to write good balanced rules. Their aim is to sell miniatures and books that promote their sales.
One way of doing this is intentionally write bad rules for units/models, so their goal posts of what is good and bad are in a constant state of flux. Buy X because it is good, then X is now bad, so buy Y, Y is now bad so buy Z.
Plus it allows them to do the whole, 'this edition is now fixed' justification for a new edition. Why else would we need 8 editions of 40k, and WHFB, and 2 editions of AoS?
It is similar to modern day capitalism, sell a product that has inbuilt redundancy, so people have to buy replacements.
I really like the models and setting, the rules leave a lot to be desired, the ease of finding an opponent is all that is keeping me.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so - ill show you with math - how it's even worse for marines if we simulate a game. Because this is how the game works.
When you move with heavies you get a -1 penalty and when you move towards the enemy - you are probably leaving cover. While your opponent is in cover. We will leave cover out of the equation though because you can just cry about the table having too much or too little cover. Keep in mind - the in game advantages of not needing to leave your fox hole aren't even needed for IG batallion to beat a 10 man tactical.
Marines move 6 inch up. killing 3-4 guardsmen - guardsmen move back 6" killing 3-4 marines. Marines lose more firepower per turn and they will never reach the guardsmen in CC without advancing because they have the exact same movement statistic.
Except why advance, though? Why try to enter the range of the guardsmen when you can sit in cover with a 2+ save, and force them to use shots ineffectively?
54 shots, 27 hits, 9 wounds, 1.5 fails. At that rate, you could shoot all 5 turns without killing the marines. Conversely, those marines could shoot back all game, let's start with turn 2.
9 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2 Guardsman saves (in cover). So they are down to 28 and 2 commanders, versus 9. Care to continue the math? I'd love to see someone do it. The fact that it takes so many models to fight 10 dudes in cover is hilarious to me.
This is maybe the most boring simulation I've ever seen but the marine are even losing this battle of attrition. Marine will average 3-4 kills for 14 average points destroyed while the gaurds will average 1-2 kills 19 point average destroyed. It really is very simple. Plus this is also the most auto win situation for IG. This is exactly what IG armies want you to do - stay in your deployment zone and trade shots with them.
Well, what do you expect lone tac marines to do? The purpose of both of them is to sit in one spot - they are troops. One is more shooty, the other is more tanky. The Space Marines have far more options, unit and model wise, which is why you don't see these guys more. As long as you let people choose outside their original codexes, they will bring guard. It's that simple - even if guardsmen went up to 8 points, and surpassed skitarii in price, people would still take guard for the relics and such. That's where the problem is. The fact that Tac marines and Guardsmen can shoot each other and last all 5 turns means that they are fine. It's all the other gak that has broken the game.
No - that is not the purpose of a 180 point troop unit. That is the purpose of 35-40 point troop units. Spending 4 times more than a chaff unit - you need to kill things - or you lose. As I've pointed out - the 180 point troop unit is worse at killing things than multiple 40 point units. It does nothing better - takes up less space - offers less utility. It's a worthless pile of garbage.
Then continue souping guard instead of using your own codex, then cry until they are nerfed, and you find the next troop choice to complain about, until everyone costs the same as space marines...instead of just dropping their cost. I guarantee if you dropped space marine costs, you would see much more of them in tournaments - if that's even possible.
Tyel wrote: The guard just move up shooting and if need be charge the Marines. I don't know why you have them running away.
So they have bolt pistols. Who cares? Lets say there are 6 marines left by the time they charge. 6*2/3*2/3*2/3=1.777~ dead guard a turn from assault, doubled if they can shoot their pistols. Hardly anything to cry over. 20 Catachans do 20*1/2*1/2*1/3=1.6666~ dead Marines. Fix bayonets and laugh.
Its a one sided cake walk.
Also Strakan says hi.
Yeah we don't even need to get into the fact that a priest plus straken give each 4 point catachan 6 str 4 attacks per turn..or in other words - the offensive CC power of a 5 man tactical squad. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
"Man, that unit with its extra points in buffed characters sure is much more powerful than the naked unit in the specific scenario I have in my mind, excepting all other realistic possibilities. LULUL."
Seriously, conversations like this are why I'm convinced Xeno is just (an admittedly effective) troll on these boards, making arguments he clearly knows he can't defend and then trying to do so.
I can easily defend it.
Man..."more powerful"?
1 str 4 attacks compared to 4 str 4 attacks? 400% more effective standing next to straken in CC. Lets see...Guilliman costs 400 points and makes a marine about 40% more effective in CC. Pretty sure that's not trolling - that is just facts. Pretty sure you are the biggest eldar fanboy on dakka too. I wrote you off the second you said shinning spears were a balanced unit. LOL.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Can you please stop discussing specific instances of x unit vs the same points worth' of y unit? It just devolves into ridiculously niche examples that try to prove one point over another. We've also had it all before so it brings nothing new to the discussion.
What this OP does show us, is that certain units are selected more often than others and that soup is (obviously) strong. Not just Imperium soup either. Aeldari soup is at the top tables too. Chaos isn't really showing but this is only one tournament after all.
I'd be interested to know the top mono-list and where they placed, if anyone could get that information?
Sorry if this sounds pedantic but do you mean mono codex or mono subfaction?
Just some people obviously have different views on what mono means with the CP changes they keep suggesting.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Can you please stop discussing specific instances of x unit vs the same points worth' of y unit? It just devolves into ridiculously niche examples that try to prove one point over another. We've also had it all before so it brings nothing new to the discussion.
What this OP does show us, is that certain units are selected more often than others and that soup is (obviously) strong. Not just Imperium soup either. Aeldari soup is at the top tables too. Chaos isn't really showing but this is only one tournament after all.
I'd be interested to know the top mono-list and where they placed, if anyone could get that information?
Sorry if this sounds pedantic but do you mean mono codex or mono subfaction?
Just some people obviously have different views on what mono means with the CP changes they keep suggesting.
Mono-codex would likely be easier to find.
Also good to know Kal is pulling the same mental gymnastics Eldar players did the last two editions.
Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
The issue IS Imperial Guard. Quit being like an Eldar player last edition and acknowledge there's an issue with your basic troop choice. Please.
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
I can make an argument specifically for the way Grand Strategist interacts with the Dominus version of rotate ion shields, but overall I agree. Even then, its just mostly an issue of Grand Strategist being randomly strictly better than similar traits.
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
Nah - everyone agrees soup needs some kind of limitation.
Also - everyone agrees that DE and CWE are OP too. Tons of nerfs required.
Also - IG are OP as feth also. Tons of nerfs required.
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
The issue IS Imperial Guard. Quit being like an Eldar player last edition and acknowledge there's an issue with your basic troop choice. Please.
If the issue was imperial guard..... it would be mono guard because they are too points efficient and you would see nothing else. The issue is SOUP which means IG with everything else mixed in
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
Nah - everyone agrees soup needs some kind of limitation.
Also - everyone agrees that DE and CWE are OP too. Tons of nerfs required.
Also - IG are OP as feth also. Tons of nerfs required.
If IG are OP as feth why arent these top players just bringing IG and winning everything? its almost as if *gasp* IG need other codexes to dump CP into to be top tier
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
I can make an argument specifically for the way Grand Strategist interacts with the Dominus version of rotate ion shields, but overall I agree. Even then, its just mostly an issue of Grand Strategist being randomly strictly better than similar traits.
Yeah there is some diversity on power level for those traits. The harlequin one and DE one are both as good as regen on a 5+ like marines and IG. The Relic regen for IG is just a silly little bonus combo that brings it above those other ones. The eldar one is just a free unit perk for an autarch (if hes your warlord) so you also get a warlord trait - so that one is really good too. The bad ones are the tau one which regens on stratagems and the admech one which I think is a 6+ only on your own CP. Then some armies don't have one.
Ice_can wrote: Sorry if this sounds pedantic but do you mean mono codex or mono subfaction?
Just some people obviously have different views on what mono means with the CP changes they keep suggesting.
Not at all man! Ideally both but mono-codex will suffice and is probably more what I'm personally interested in.
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
The issue IS Imperial Guard. Quit being like an Eldar player last edition and acknowledge there's an issue with your basic troop choice. Please.
If the issue was imperial guard..... it would be mono guard because they are too points efficient and you would see nothing else. The issue is SOUP which means IG with everything else mixed in
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
Nah - everyone agrees soup needs some kind of limitation.
Also - everyone agrees that DE and CWE are OP too. Tons of nerfs required.
Also - IG are OP as feth also. Tons of nerfs required.
If IG are OP as feth why arent these top players just bringing IG and winning everything? its almost as if *gasp* IG need other codexes to dump CP into to be top tier
Soup is a problem - yep. Ban soup and IG will just outflank a shadowsword every game and still be on top. IG are part of the problem. Probably the most significant problem in regards to imperial soup.
Xenomancers wrote: Soup is a problem - yep. Ban soup and IG will just outflank a shadowsword every game and still be on top. IG are part of the problem. Probably the most significant problem in regards to imperial soup.
Soup is a problem.
Certain IG units are problems.
Certain other units from other factions are also problems.
Certain relics and stratagems are problems.
TLDR - there can be more than one problem over multiple factions.
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
The issue IS Imperial Guard. Quit being like an Eldar player last edition and acknowledge there's an issue with your basic troop choice. Please.
If the issue was imperial guard..... it would be mono guard because they are too points efficient and you would see nothing else. The issue is SOUP which means IG with everything else mixed in
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
Nah - everyone agrees soup needs some kind of limitation.
Also - everyone agrees that DE and CWE are OP too. Tons of nerfs required.
Also - IG are OP as feth also. Tons of nerfs required.
If IG are OP as feth why arent these top players just bringing IG and winning everything? its almost as if *gasp* IG need other codexes to dump CP into to be top tier
Soup is a problem - yep. Ban soup and IG will just outflank a shadowsword every game and still be on top. IG are part of the problem. Probably the most significant problem in regards to imperial soup.
If IG becomes OP after a fix for soup then I 100% agree they would need to be nerfed. But i highly doubt they would as any -hit army counters IG super hard. But once again why nerf just IG now when its not mono IG that's the issue. I mean we have seen much more success out of mono eldar, DE this edition after the conscript nerf, then we have out of mono IG.
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
The issue IS Imperial Guard. Quit being like an Eldar player last edition and acknowledge there's an issue with your basic troop choice. Please.
If the issue was imperial guard..... it would be mono guard because they are too points efficient and you would see nothing else. The issue is SOUP which means IG with everything else mixed in
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
Nah - everyone agrees soup needs some kind of limitation.
Also - everyone agrees that DE and CWE are OP too. Tons of nerfs required.
Also - IG are OP as feth also. Tons of nerfs required.
If IG are OP as feth why arent these top players just bringing IG and winning everything? its almost as if *gasp* IG need other codexes to dump CP into to be top tier
Soup is a problem - yep. Ban soup and IG will just outflank a shadowsword every game and still be on top. IG are part of the problem. Probably the most significant problem in regards to imperial soup.
If IG becomes OP after a fix for soup then I 100% agree they would need to be nerfed. But i highly doubt they would as any -hit army counters IG super hard. But once again why nerf just IG now when its not mono IG that's the issue. I mean we have seen much more success out of mono eldar, DE this edition after the conscript nerf, then we have out of mono IG.
Well - I am a huge anti -1 to hit person. I hate -1 to hit. Yeah - it hurts gaurd armies but it hurts everyone. It is too much stacking minus to hits. Brings back bad memories of 7th eddition. Realistically though - IG have the best autohitting units too. Hellhounds.
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
The issue IS Imperial Guard. Quit being like an Eldar player last edition and acknowledge there's an issue with your basic troop choice. Please.
If the issue was imperial guard..... it would be mono guard because they are too points efficient and you would see nothing else. The issue is SOUP which means IG with everything else mixed in
Asmodios wrote: Sweet another thread where soup absolutely dominates but the only part of the soup anyone wants to focus on is the IG. When you only look at one part you will never address the actual issue with soup and that is there is 0 downside. Also that the proposition of raising the cost of 1 part will not solve the issue.
>lets say soup is made of three ingredients
>raise the cost of x without touching the real isssue
>x is now taken is a smaller % or replaced with option Y
>option Y is now nerfed and is taken in a smaller % or replaced with option Z
repeat this over and over and over and guess what. Soup will still be dominant because there is no downside. Meanwhile, you are nerfing mono army after mono army that's already not top tier on its own. The final outcome of this is you will get a bunch of mono codexes that have absolutely 0 chance of winning on their own and a single balanced soup build that has to be cookie cutter
Nah - everyone agrees soup needs some kind of limitation.
Also - everyone agrees that DE and CWE are OP too. Tons of nerfs required.
Also - IG are OP as feth also. Tons of nerfs required.
If IG are OP as feth why arent these top players just bringing IG and winning everything? its almost as if *gasp* IG need other codexes to dump CP into to be top tier
Soup is a problem - yep. Ban soup and IG will just outflank a shadowsword every game and still be on top. IG are part of the problem. Probably the most significant problem in regards to imperial soup.
If IG becomes OP after a fix for soup then I 100% agree they would need to be nerfed. But i highly doubt they would as any -hit army counters IG super hard. But once again why nerf just IG now when its not mono IG that's the issue. I mean we have seen much more success out of mono eldar, DE this edition after the conscript nerf, then we have out of mono IG.
Well - I am a huge anti -1 to hit person. I hate -1 to hit. Yeah - it hurts gaurd armies but it hurts everyone. It is too much stacking minus to hits. Brings back bad memories of 7th eddition. Realistically though - IG have the best autohitting units too. Hellhounds.
I mean thats 3 of a single unit you can take. Easy to play around if your army is focused on -hit. Also, guards biggest weakness is going anywhere with the new dakka rule for orks leaked. If hitting on 6s no matter what is going to be a core rule then we will continue to see the stacking of -hit modifiers. My main point is though that soup needs to be toned down and then you will be able to see what actually is too strong in any specific codex. I have a suspicion if infantry squads were as busted as this forum likes to make them out to be then we would see more then the minimum amount in 90% of the Imperium soup builds you see.
Yeah minus to hit isn't going anywhere. The space wolves just got a super busted 3 point stratagem to give 6" -1 to hit aura for a rune priest....affects everything. Including the Stormwolf which went down 50 points. Pretty sure we are going to see a ton of these - I think it's possible they might take over as the most powerful army.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah minus to hit isn't going anywhere. The space wolves just got a super busted 3 point stratagem to give 6" -1 to hit aura for a rune priest....affects everything. Including the Stormwolf which went down 50 points. Pretty sure we are going to see a ton of these - I think it's possible they might take over as the most powerful army.
People will just be sticking a priest next to a knight. Once again this is the issue with soup. you will get something like this that is fine in a SW army but will be absolutely broken when you mix it in with the rest of the Imperium
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah minus to hit isn't going anywhere. The space wolves just got a super busted 3 point stratagem to give 6" -1 to hit aura for a rune priest....affects everything. Including the Stormwolf which went down 50 points. Pretty sure we are going to see a ton of these - I think it's possible they might take over as the most powerful army.
People will just be sticking a priest next to a knight. Once again this is the issue with soup. you will get something like this that is fine in a SW army but will be absolutely broken when you mix it in with the rest of the Imperium
I think it only affects space wolf units. Not sure though. I meant it affects all unit types.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah minus to hit isn't going anywhere. The space wolves just got a super busted 3 point stratagem to give 6" -1 to hit aura for a rune priest....affects everything. Including the Stormwolf which went down 50 points. Pretty sure we are going to see a ton of these - I think it's possible they might take over as the most powerful army.
People will just be sticking a priest next to a knight. Once again this is the issue with soup. you will get something like this that is fine in a SW army but will be absolutely broken when you mix it in with the rest of the Imperium
I think it only affects space wolf units. Not sure though. I meant it affects all unit types.
Not unless they change the wording of it... as of right now it affects every unit (unless every podcast ive listened to is dead wrong but from the current wording I believe they are right)
And yet there's not even one of those for Guard in any of these lists...
Also good to know Kal is pulling the same mental gymnastics Eldar players did the last two editions.
By pointing out that there's trends in what people are taking...?
I pointed out that there's a trend in the list for a bare minimum amount of Infantry Squads and HQs for a Guard CP Battery. Someone disagreed with me--I proved them wrong. There were two lists that bucked that trend in the lists from the OP. One or two squads over in two separate lists is not really worth mentioning as a real discussion point. I've been posting for awhile about possibly removing Mortars from Infantry Squads as a possible solution to curb their effectiveness as cheap objective holders that can ignore LOS and still contribute. I've also been accused in this thread of using that as a distraction from Infantry Squads...because I guess trying to come up with possible solutions is a distraction.
Yeah, I don't want to see Infantry Squads get a nerf. I don't think they need one. I think that people need to acknowledge the issue is soup before continuing to nerf the Guard.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah minus to hit isn't going anywhere. The space wolves just got a super busted 3 point stratagem to give 6" -1 to hit aura for a rune priest....affects everything. Including the Stormwolf which went down 50 points. Pretty sure we are going to see a ton of these - I think it's possible they might take over as the most powerful army.
People will just be sticking a priest next to a knight. Once again this is the issue with soup. you will get something like this that is fine in a SW army but will be absolutely broken when you mix it in with the rest of the Imperium
I think it only affects space wolf units. Not sure though. I meant it affects all unit types.
Not unless they change the wording of it... as of right now it affects every unit (unless every podcast ive listened to is dead wrong but from the current wording I believe they are right)
"Use this stratagem in your Psychic phase.Choose a RUNE PRIEST from your army that successfully manifested a psychic power in this phase. Your opponent must subtract 1 from all hit rolls for ranged attacks that target friendly SPACE WOLVES units within 6" of this model until the beginning of your next Psychic phase."
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah minus to hit isn't going anywhere. The space wolves just got a super busted 3 point stratagem to give 6" -1 to hit aura for a rune priest....affects everything. Including the Stormwolf which went down 50 points. Pretty sure we are going to see a ton of these - I think it's possible they might take over as the most powerful army.
People will just be sticking a priest next to a knight. Once again this is the issue with soup. you will get something like this that is fine in a SW army but will be absolutely broken when you mix it in with the rest of the Imperium
I think it only affects space wolf units. Not sure though. I meant it affects all unit types.
Not unless they change the wording of it... as of right now it affects every unit (unless every podcast ive listened to is dead wrong but from the current wording I believe they are right)
"Use this stratagem in your Psychic phase.Choose a RUNE PRIEST from your army that successfully manifested a psychic power in this phase. Your opponent must subtract 1 from all hit rolls for ranged attacks that target friendly SPACE WOLVES units within 6" of this model until the beginning of your next Psychic phase."
That's what the stratagem says.
I was talking about the one that allows a unit from your army to fire at any deep striking unit. You can now stick one next to a knight and laugh if anyone tries to DS anything next to you... Yeah i see where you thought i was talking about that specific one
Kanluwen wrote: I pointed out that there's a trend in the list for a bare minimum amount of Infantry Squads and HQs for a Guard CP Battery. Someone disagreed with me--I proved them wrong.
You proved them wrong by...
Kanluwen wrote: There were two lists that bucked that trend in the lists from the OP.
....admitting that there are 2 lists that go completely against your statement? Interesting.
2/7 = 29%. Almost a third of the lists didn't follow your trend.
Kanluwen wrote: One or two squads over in two separate lists is not really worth mentioning as a real discussion point.
29% of the lists are not worth discussing because they go against your ideas? Why? Don't you think it's awfully telling that Infantry are taken as part of a Brigade at all?
Also I have to ask - are all these lists taking only 10 men per squad? That's the minimum number right? If they're taking 30 this isn't the minimum number of models to make a detachment.
Kanluwen wrote: I've been posting for awhile about possibly removing Mortars from Infantry Squads as a possible solution to curb their effectiveness as cheap objective holders that can ignore LOS and still contribute. I've also been accused in this thread of using that as a distraction from Infantry Squads...because I guess trying to come up with possible solutions is a distraction.
Yeah, I don't want to see Infantry Squads get a nerf. I don't think they need one. I think that people need to acknowledge the issue is soup before continuing to nerf the Guard.
They are one of a few units that need a nerf. They aren't the only one, but they are certainly one.
Valkyrie wrote: Just from skimming over the last couple of pages, here's my input on how some particular issues could be approached.
1: Particular units such as Custodes Jetbikes and Slamguinius get a points hike, or a 0-1/detachment limit similar to Coldstar Commanders.
2: You only get your +3CP bonus if you are not running soup.
3: CP Regen abilities are either killed off entirely, or are limited to one CP per try, or you can only regen CP used on that particular army's Strategems.
I don't want to cut out soup completly, as this completly screws over fluffly armies. I like the allies concept; I can take a couple of squads of Deathwatch with my Guard, or some Custodians with my Marines, but there's a few repeat offenders that could be dealt with in their own way, rather than a blanket "No soup" rule.
Yep, agreed. This is a good way to fix things instead of the usual suggestions of nuking the soup from orbit.
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
That is not to say that they don't need fixing, but the ammount, and type of fixing is entirely directed by soup. Essentially any balance discussion is a matter of context, and soup provides the most competitive context. Using an old example Invisibility the 7th ed psychic power was not inherently broken, if it could only be taken and cast on say Inquisition units, no one would have balked at it, it's application to more powerful units caused the issue. As such I think that if one is going to "nerf soup" it would be wise to wait to correct other units based on a post soup meta.
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
That is not to say that they don't need fixing, but the ammount, and type of fixing is entirely directed by soup. Essentially any balance discussion is a matter of context, and soup provides the most competitive context. Using an old example Invisibility the 7th ed psychic power was not inherently broken, if it could only be taken and cast on say Inquisition units, no one would have balked at it, it's application to more powerful units caused the issue. As such I think that if one is going to "nerf soup" it would be wise to wait to correct other units based on a post soup meta.
Bharring wrote: Top 25 is just shifting the goalpost. I would have first looked for top 10 - only including the 11th because it was in the dump provided.
Not a single non-soup top-10 is impressive (in a negative sense).
Cheep dood detatchments + beatstick cherrypicked minor other-book detatchments went 11/11. That certainly says something.
Well it is possible that every army in the top 25 only lost 1 game - it is even possible they were undefeated and just got outscored or something. It's not moving the goal posts. I want to be able to see all the data is all. AND OFC. It is impossible to get this data without knowing where to look or just waiting a really long time. We really know nothing - all we know is these were the "TOP" lists.
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
That is not to say that they don't need fixing, but the ammount, and type of fixing is entirely directed by soup. Essentially any balance discussion is a matter of context, and soup provides the most competitive context. Using an old example Invisibility the 7th ed psychic power was not inherently broken, if it could only be taken and cast on say Inquisition units, no one would have balked at it, it's application to more powerful units caused the issue. As such I think that if one is going to "nerf soup" it would be wise to wait to correct other units based on a post soup meta.
Agreed. The use of soup is severely distorting any discussion of balance of individual units in a vacuum.
Either GW needs to limit soup or the community has to accept that mono-lists are dead and all discussion is based around soup lists.
Breng77 wrote: Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
The thing is, to even get into a soup list the unit in question has to be the best of the best. You're forgetting the key thing about soup - that players cherry pick the best units to suit their needs from all available. This is soup 101. We're talking cream of tomato here.
I don't disagree that units can go from 'amazing' to 'amazing+' in a soup list. But there's no doubt they're amazing to start, it's how they get into a soup list to begin with. Infantry, for example, are great in both IG lists and soup lists. They may perform better in a soup list because they have great synergies with other units, abilities, stratagems, psychic powers and such but they are still incredibly potent in a mono-list. Want proof? IG had the second best mono list at the last GT. IG has strong mono list showings at most major events. Also Bullgryn are a pretty ridiculous assault threat. Catachan Infantry aren't bad either, for their cost.
Breng77 wrote: That is not to say that they don't need fixing, but the ammount, and type of fixing is entirely directed by soup. Essentially any balance discussion is a matter of context, and soup provides the most competitive context. Using an old example Invisibility the 7th ed psychic power was not inherently broken, if it could only be taken and cast on say Inquisition units, no one would have balked at it, it's application to more powerful units caused the issue. As such I think that if one is going to "nerf soup" it would be wise to wait to correct other units based on a post soup meta.
I don't think that soup is going to go away or change so the units that are taken in soup lists will have to adapt to suit. If soup is changed in a meaningful way then you may be right. In the case of Infantry, I think they still need an adjustment to be fair, regardless of any changes with soup.
Ordana wrote: Agreed. The use of soup is severely distorting any discussion of balance of individual units in a vacuum.
Either GW needs to limit soup or the community has to accept that mono-lists are dead and all discussion is based around soup lists.
As above, I don't think it's 'seriously distorting' any discussion of balance of individual units in a vacuum. Units that are taken as part of a soup list are already extremely competitive. If anything soup makes obvious those worst offenders.
Also if competitive 40k is reduced to soup lists all those imposed mono-faction players, such as me, might as well stop playing.
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
That is not to say that they don't need fixing, but the ammount, and type of fixing is entirely directed by soup. Essentially any balance discussion is a matter of context, and soup provides the most competitive context. Using an old example Invisibility the 7th ed psychic power was not inherently broken, if it could only be taken and cast on say Inquisition units, no one would have balked at it, it's application to more powerful units caused the issue. As such I think that if one is going to "nerf soup" it would be wise to wait to correct other units based on a post soup meta.
Nah - not really. Every unit has the ability to soup or every unit doesn't have the ability to soup. A castellan without CP battery doesn't need to worry about a BA captain dropping 5 command points to 1 shot him if he doesn't have a CP battery ether so it is all relative.
Castellans are going to be OP in ANY rule set because they have too much at their disposal for too little. Cawls wrath obliterates things - as does the volcano lance - and it's got a helvrine on it's shoulders - plus 4 melta guns - plus invo denying missle and a 4++ to shooting as a warlord with 28 wounds t8. It's OP because it doesn't cost enough. Banning soup WILL NOT fix that. Fixing the units point costs and removing insane combos will fix soup though.
"All the data" is an impossible demand. THere will always be data we won't have. We can have more or we can have less, but we can never have it all.
Now, asking for the top 25 is not, in and of itself, unreasonable. But when we have the top 11, and that data was limited to the top 11 independent of what those top 11 were, that's good data. To say we know nothing is silly.
Further, the likelyhood of half the top 25 lists being monofaction when 0/11 are - or whatever variant you're looking for - is incredibly low. When looking for what is more powerful, top 11 are going to be substantially representative of the top 25. While it's just under half of the top 25, it skews to the stronger lists.
I'd rather the top 25, too, but the top 11 tells us volumes. Maybe not the volumes you're looking for, but nowhere near nothing.
Bharring wrote: "All the data" is an impossible demand. THere will always be data we won't have. We can have more or we can have less, but we can never have it all.
Now, asking for the top 25 is not, in and of itself, unreasonable. But when we have the top 11, and that data was limited to the top 11 independent of what those top 11 were, that's good data. To say we know nothing is silly.
Further, the likelyhood of half the top 25 lists being monofaction when 0/11 are - or whatever variant you're looking for - is incredibly low. When looking for what is more powerful, top 11 are going to be substantially representative of the top 25. While it's just under half of the top 25, it skews to the stronger lists.
I'd rather the top 25, too, but the top 11 tells us volumes. Maybe not the volumes you're looking for, but nowhere near nothing.
It confirms what we already know. Really. I am surprised not to see a heavy knight list in the top 10 though. Really surprised. Also surprised by the lack of shining spears - only 1 unit. These are things you expect at this point.
Also it's not unreasonable - this even was live streamed. It's unreasonable the the TO haven't made this information available on their home page or something. The main reason I want to see it is just to see where the Mono armies place.
There were only 3 Xenos lists in the top 11 - so not a crystal-clear indication of where Shining Spears sit in the terms of Xeno units, although suggestive that it's way up there. But the results, as a whole, show how far behind the IOM all xenos are. Eldar just less so than others.
I'm sure NOVA would have accepted volenteers to post said information. Perhaps offer to, next year? It may not be a ton of work to compile, clean up, and post. But it's not nothing either. And those who are invested in running NOVA would have obviously been very busy.
Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are too cheap or, too costly. Soup is not the reason that *certain units* are over-performing and always seen on the top tables. What soup does, is make any discrepancies far, far more obvious. It highlights the units that are performing too well without the context of a faction. Infantry, for example, are not only good in an IG list, they are strong in an IK and SM list. We can literally see this from the OP, they are the go-to, well, 'infantry' unit for Imperium (fitting perhaps?) armies. In the same token Raven Castellans are the 'go-to' Super-heavy for Imperium armies. Slamguinius is the go-to SM character for these armies. There is obviously an element of context and knowledge to make these correlations but I think this is an indication of how *certain units* need a fix, one way or another.
Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
That is not to say that they don't need fixing, but the ammount, and type of fixing is entirely directed by soup. Essentially any balance discussion is a matter of context, and soup provides the most competitive context. Using an old example Invisibility the 7th ed psychic power was not inherently broken, if it could only be taken and cast on say Inquisition units, no one would have balked at it, it's application to more powerful units caused the issue. As such I think that if one is going to "nerf soup" it would be wise to wait to correct other units based on a post soup meta.
Nah - not really. Every unit has the ability to soup or every unit doesn't have the ability to soup. A castellan without CP battery doesn't need to worry about a BA captain dropping 5 command points to 1 shot him if he doesn't have a CP battery ether so it is all relative.
Castellans are going to be OP in ANY rule set because they have too much at their disposal for too little. Cawls wrath obliterates things - as does the volcano lance - and it's got a helvrine on it's shoulders - plus 4 melta guns - plus invo denying missle and a 4++ to shooting as a warlord with 28 wounds t8. It's OP because it doesn't cost enough. Banning soup WILL NOT fix that. Fixing the units point costs and removing insane combos will fix soup though.
Except a Castellan without soup lacks screens so that captain can easily charge it, or guns can deepstrike and blow it away etc. Blowing 5CP to 1 shot it is not big deal for a SM army, whereas knights are unlikely to have more than say 8 CP.
Breng77 wrote: Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
The thing is, to even get into a soup list the unit in question has to be the best of the best. You're forgetting the key thing about soup - that players cherry pick the best units to suit their needs from all available. This is soup 101. We're talking cream of tomato here.
I don't disagree that units can go from 'amazing' to 'amazing+' in a soup list. But there's no doubt they're amazing to start, it's how they get into a soup list to begin with. Infantry, for example, are great in both IG lists and soup lists. They may perform better in a soup list because they have great synergies with other units, abilities, stratagems, psychic powers and such but they are still incredibly potent in a mono-list. Want proof? IG had the second best mono list at the last GT. IG has strong mono list showings at most major events. Also Bullgryn are a pretty ridiculous assault threat. Catachan Infantry aren't bad either, for their cost.
The issue is that the role something fills might be more important in a soup force than a mono-faction force, sure no one is taking bad units, but how good something is depends on how it fits into its larger army.
Without Soup, SM are middleground for CP generation. Better than more elite armies (Harlies, GK, CWE, etc), but worse than most armies (IG, Tau, DE, Orkz, etc). 5CP would be a big chunk of their CP for the game. But then, you're 1-rounding a Knight for those 5CP.
One of the biggest problem is that that any balancing of unit ability or point costs is thrown to the way side by armies having access to CP batteries not native to their own books. I love seeing allies as I think they make the game more interesting and provide for more dramatic and fluffy game. What I don't like is that the game is progressing more and more towards having a handle full of models doing all the heavy lifting while feeding off a bunch of mooks sitting around and given armies far more CP then they were probably designed for.
There are a lot of ways to screen a castellan with just knights. gallants are cheap and will actually beat a smash captain with a little luck. Best part is they function just fine at low wounds.
If Tyranis (no one is running tyranis - it's kind of mind boggling) You have 6+ FNP.
There is relic 2+ armor - there is sanctuary for a 5++ save in CC. These things mean the knight fights back. In which case it's going to get raped from death grip and if there are 2 smashes both are going to die before before get to fight.
Then if you die! You can just resurrect (AT THE END OF THE PHASE).
HoundsofDemos wrote: One of the biggest problem is that that any balancing of unit ability or point costs is thrown to the way side by armies having access to CP batteries not native to their own books. I love seeing allies as I think they make the game more interesting and provide for more dramatic and fluffy game. What I don't like is that the game is progressing more and more towards having a handle full of models doing all the heavy lifting while feeding off a bunch of mooks sitting around and given armies far more CP then they were probably designed for.
Well, 'designed for'... I think the GW designers know how the ally rules work. Custodes in particular were designed to work in conjunction with other imperial units and have rules that are specifically designed to benefit such allies. And of course Knights were originally in the same codex with Ad Mech, so it would be pretty strange suggestion that the designers didn't mean them to work together. It is just that Guard's 'Endless CP' trick completely breaks the system, and any Imperium army can buy it for less than 200 points. I think getting rid of CP regen would go a long way to fix the most absurd ally abuse.
Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
I would look at adding additional benefits for all Detachments being for the same faction rather than detracting for allying. It would be easier to implement, and some armies were designed specifically for allying in.
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
Wow amazing there weren't any mono guard considering they are obviously so busted they don't even need soup /sarcasm
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
Wow amazing there weren't any mono guard considering they are obviously so busted they don't even need soup /sarcasm
Has anything changed since the BAO where they were the second best mono list? No? Guess that's still relevant then.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
Is this a paid service? If so what does it cost? What was the Ultramarine list if you don't mind? Never mind I looked it up. 5 bucks a month - only thing that bothers me...I have to support FLG after they have screwed up my last 3 orders......
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know very well what their rules do. Infact Soup is the best for them, buisness wise since they can sell you more stuff, mainly books, but also models which then might get turned into a proper further army by their player.
But considering that we don't see a mono guard list in these and mostly guard abused as CP farms for other armies wich bring the punch, kinda shows that guard by themselves are good but not borderline broken as many belive. Then again the whole CP and Trait system at this point makes balnce in itself broken to do. Take an Alpha legionaire vs an Word bearer trait wise and then tell me that the word bearer should be priced equally.
So long they go about factions that way with traits beeing far superior and subfaction specific stratagems beeing better then other subfaction stratagems, by a large margin, so long the balance itself is essentially non achievable, even moresoe then normally.
UM are the proud parents of my homebrew chapter - Wings of Dawn. A few of the founding members had met Bobby G pre-stasis before it was founding, even. I have a great deal of love for UltraMarines. How dare you impugn my fililal duty to my parent Chapter!
More seriously, the Ultras list is noteworthy, too - all the IoM lists in the top 10 were soup.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
I'd also consider the DE/harlies list pretty close, mono but for part of their faction now being sold separately.
It'd be interesting to know if psychic protection was the driving force in the top-placing DE soups.
All 3 DE lists in the top 11 would be considered 'DE, with allies'. One with a few Harlies, one with a few Craftworlders, and one with a Ynnari Spears unit and some Craftworlders.
Bharring wrote: UM are the proud parents of my homebrew chapter - Wings of Dawn. A few of the founding members had met Bobby G pre-stasis before it was founding, even. I have a great deal of love for UltraMarines. How dare you impugn my fililal duty to my parent Chapter!
More seriously, the Ultras list is noteworthy, too - all the IoM lists in the top 10 were soup.
All this time...we are actually brother. Much respect Bharring. Apparently it was Reeace playing the ultras.
The CP elements of soup need to be reined in first. Having access to unit types that shore up your weaknesses should be plenty of benefit. Consider a CP buff to mono faction armies if they can't stand on their own.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
I'd also consider the DE/harlies list pretty close, mono but for part of their faction now being sold separately.
It'd be interesting to know if psychic protection was the driving force in the top-placing DE soups.
Well we all know Harlie bikes are amazing units. Native -1 and 4++ with on demand -2 and 3++. Good CC. plus Mortal spam on vehicals that doubles are good anti chaff. They have a 22" move and charge naturally (plus fly keyword) So can stay locked with a castellan in CC (castellan can move over fly keyword units). They are a great choice.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
I'd also consider the DE/harlies list pretty close, mono but for part of their faction now being sold separately.
It'd be interesting to know if psychic protection was the driving force in the top-placing DE soups.
Well we all know Harlie bikes are amazing units. Native -1 and 4++ with on demand -2 and 3++. Good CC. plus Mortal spam on vehicals that doubles are good anti chaff. They have a 22" move and charge naturally (plus fly keyword) So can stay locked with a castellan in CC (castellan can move over fly keyword units). They are a great choice.
Bharring wrote: And both of the CWE detatchemnts had Farseers (the Ynnari one took Eldrad - which can't be Alaitoc, so that's probably why the other one did not).
Yee
Eldrad has 3 casts so you can get guide fortune and doom. Its worth the 40 point upgrade as he also gets +1 to cast after his first (if it's not costing you aliotoc) So in ynnari it makes sense.
That does raise a good point about intrabook soup:
-If you take a Sally battalian, a RG Heavy Support, etc etc, is that soup?
-Is a Kabal + Coven 'soup'?
It'd be odd for the above to not be considered soup, but a DE/CWE list with a single Harlie squad on foot soup. It wasn't long ago they were in the same book.
Bharring wrote: That does raise a good point about intrabook soup:
-If you take a Sally battalian, a RG Heavy Support, etc etc, is that soup?
-Is a Kabal + Coven 'soup'?
It'd be odd for the above to not be considered soup, but a DE/CWE list with a single Harlie squad on foot soup. It wasn't long ago they were in the same book.
I don't consider it so. I consider soup mixing codexes not army traits.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
I'd also consider the DE/harlies list pretty close, mono but for part of their faction now being sold separately.
It'd be interesting to know if psychic protection was the driving force in the top-placing DE soups.
Well we all know Harlie bikes are amazing units. Native -1 and 4++ with on demand -2 and 3++. Good CC. plus Mortal spam on vehicals that doubles are good anti chaff. They have a 22" move and charge naturally (plus fly keyword) So can stay locked with a castellan in CC (castellan can move over fly keyword units). They are a great choice.
They are Anti-Tank vs of Shinny Spears
Spears are pretty good anti tank too. I think the principle difference is harlie bikes have a 4++ in CC and are a little bit more manuverable (without spending CP). Spears do more overall damage BUT the mortals from 12 harlie bikes...holy freaking crap. That is a lot of mortals.
I am helping my friend build a harlie army. I told him to start building around 12 bikes....Look what just won the tournament lol.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
Wow amazing there weren't any mono guard considering they are obviously so busted they don't even need soup /sarcasm
Has anything changed since the BAO where they were the second best mono list? No? Guess that's still relevant then.
Yeah second best mono to tau.... so tau need to be super duper nerfed
Wow, look at all that unit variety. Man, so glad the rule of 3 is a thing. It TOTALLY didn't fail utterly to do any of the things it was meant to do. I mean, it's not like it was a totally pointless addition that constrains list building, unfairly punishes weaker factions, does nothing to increase unit varierty, and is arguably detrimental to game balance.
Boy, I sure do hope they add more pointless rules patches that fail utterly to address the underlying problems in the game.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
Wow amazing there weren't any mono guard considering they are obviously so busted they don't even need soup /sarcasm
Has anything changed since the BAO where they were the second best mono list? No? Guess that's still relevant then.
Yeah second best mono to tau.... so tau need to be super duper nerfed
Sorry but with whom can Tau soup? Aslong as Soup exsists Tau need buffs not nerfs. As do Crons though Crons need some rechromed with the amount of buffing needed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: Wow, look at all that unit variety. Man, so glad the rule of 3 is a thing. It TOTALLY didn't fail utterly to do any of the things it was meant to do. I mean, it's not like it was a totally pointless addition that constrains list building, unfairly punishes weaker factions, does nothing to increase unit varierty, and is arguably detrimental to game balance.
Boy, I sure do hope they add more pointless rules patches that fail utterly to address the underlying problems in the game.
That's the thing you think it didn't work GW think it did. Atleast none of those armies have 5 of the same HQ choice in it, so it has improved unit variety in each list, just made all the lists cookie cutter copies of each other.
Bharring wrote:That does raise a good point about intrabook soup:
-If you take a Sally battalian, a RG Heavy Support, etc etc, is that soup?
-Is a Kabal + Coven 'soup'?
It'd be odd for the above to not be considered soup, but a DE/CWE list with a single Harlie squad on foot soup. It wasn't long ago they were in the same book.
For DE thats not soup, thats like saying having Primaris and Norma Marines in the same army or Wraiths and Shiny spears as consider soup, DE book was made to play them in their own detachment or you lose everything that makes them playable.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
I'd also consider the DE/harlies list pretty close, mono but for part of their faction now being sold separately.
It'd be interesting to know if psychic protection was the driving force in the top-placing DE soups.
Well we all know Harlie bikes are amazing units. Native -1 and 4++ with on demand -2 and 3++. Good CC. plus Mortal spam on vehicals that doubles are good anti chaff. They have a 22" move and charge naturally (plus fly keyword) So can stay locked with a castellan in CC (castellan can move over fly keyword units). They are a great choice.
They are Anti-Tank vs of Shinny Spears
Spears are pretty good anti tank too. I think the principle difference is harlie bikes have a 4++ in CC and are a little bit more manuverable (without spending CP). Spears do more overall damage BUT the mortals from 12 harlie bikes...holy freaking crap. That is a lot of mortals.
I am helping my friend build a harlie army. I told him to start building around 12 bikes....Look what just won the tournament lol.
Shiny Spears are amazing Anti-infantry, the AT weapons are actually Red Herring.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Bharring wrote:That does raise a good point about intrabook soup:
-If you take a Sally battalian, a RG Heavy Support, etc etc, is that soup?
-Is a Kabal + Coven 'soup'?
It'd be odd for the above to not be considered soup, but a DE/CWE list with a single Harlie squad on foot soup. It wasn't long ago they were in the same book.
For DE thats not soup, thats like saying having Primaris and Norma Marines in the same army or Wraiths and Shiny spears as consider soup, DE book was made to play them in their own detachment or you lose everything that makes them playable.
Tower wrote: Best Coast App subscribers have access to all of the lists. There were four mono-faction armies in top 25. Tau at 14 and 24th, Ultramarines at 15th, and Nurgle at 16th. Of course Tau has no choice but to be soupless.
I'd also consider the DE/harlies list pretty close, mono but for part of their faction now being sold separately.
It'd be interesting to know if psychic protection was the driving force in the top-placing DE soups.
Well we all know Harlie bikes are amazing units. Native -1 and 4++ with on demand -2 and 3++. Good CC. plus Mortal spam on vehicals that doubles are good anti chaff. They have a 22" move and charge naturally (plus fly keyword) So can stay locked with a castellan in CC (castellan can move over fly keyword units). They are a great choice.
They are Anti-Tank vs of Shinny Spears
Spears are pretty good anti tank too. I think the principle difference is harlie bikes have a 4++ in CC and are a little bit more manuverable (without spending CP). Spears do more overall damage BUT the mortals from 12 harlie bikes...holy freaking crap. That is a lot of mortals.
I am helping my friend build a harlie army. I told him to start building around 12 bikes....Look what just won the tournament lol.
Shiny Spears are amazing Anti-infantry, the AT weapons are actually Red Herring.
I don't think you are disagreeing with me - spears have killed my tanks too many times to not be considered good anti tank. CWE are going to doom an IK and charge it with SS turn 1 - it's pretty much an auto dead knight.
Shooting does 4 wounds with TLSC (with autarch RR 1's) Then with their spears 6. With a 4++ save. In CC though it's Waxed because no save. Dealing 14 wounds. That averages a kill without guide. AP -4 is not to be underestimated.
Breng77 wrote: Point of fact soup does drastically effect the value and effectiveness of unit. While those units might still be "best of faction" style choices, their dominance in game is largely influenced by the ability to soup. Castellans are great, remove them from soup and I don't think they make the cut because knights mono-faction don't win because they cannot screen out units designed to kill those knights, and don't have near infinite CP to buff them. They are still good in a knight army, but the fix to them is reliant on them being souped, with soup they need to have their points adjusted, in mono-codex other units might come down in cost to compete. Same with IG infantry, they are good in an IG list, but far less so than in soup because they tend to lack assault threats to back them up.
The thing is, to even get into a soup list the unit in question has to be the best of the best. You're forgetting the key thing about soup - that players cherry pick the best units to suit their needs from all available. This is soup 101. We're talking cream of tomato here.
I don't disagree that units can go from 'amazing' to 'amazing+' in a soup list. But there's no doubt they're amazing to start, it's how they get into a soup list to begin with. Infantry, for example, are great in both IG lists and soup lists. They may perform better in a soup list because they have great synergies with other units, abilities, stratagems, psychic powers and such but they are still incredibly potent in a mono-list. Want proof? IG had the second best mono list at the last GT. IG has strong mono list showings at most major events. Also Bullgryn are a pretty ridiculous assault threat. Catachan Infantry aren't bad either, for their cost.
Breng77 wrote: That is not to say that they don't need fixing, but the ammount, and type of fixing is entirely directed by soup. Essentially any balance discussion is a matter of context, and soup provides the most competitive context. Using an old example Invisibility the 7th ed psychic power was not inherently broken, if it could only be taken and cast on say Inquisition units, no one would have balked at it, it's application to more powerful units caused the issue. As such I think that if one is going to "nerf soup" it would be wise to wait to correct other units based on a post soup meta.
I don't think that soup is going to go away or change so the units that are taken in soup lists will have to adapt to suit. If soup is changed in a meaningful way then you may be right. In the case of Infantry, I think they still need an adjustment to be fair, regardless of any changes with soup.
Ordana wrote: Agreed. The use of soup is severely distorting any discussion of balance of individual units in a vacuum.
Either GW needs to limit soup or the community has to accept that mono-lists are dead and all discussion is based around soup lists.
As above, I don't think it's 'seriously distorting' any discussion of balance of individual units in a vacuum. Units that are taken as part of a soup list are already extremely competitive. If anything soup makes obvious those worst offenders.
Also if competitive 40k is reduced to soup lists all those imposed mono-faction players, such as me, might as well stop playing.
WIthout a CP battery BA captains are 'balanced' because you can do it once and thats almost all your cp for the game.
Pure Guard barely benefit from the CP battery since they dont have the Stratagems to abuse it with.
Mortarion without Warp Time isn't nearly as interesting
ect.
Yes the units being used in soup are good, if not the best thing in their codex. But that doesnt make them 'to good' by default. Its the combinations that push many of these things over the top.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Tau have some very obnoxious mechanics with Shield Drones. Tau armies with Riptides, Commanders, Stormsurges and Broadsides and 30-50 shielddrones are actually very competitive, and as others have noted, they can't soup, thats why they are the only mono-faction that places high in tournaments.
It does not mean that is better than mono-guard or mono-DE (They aren't) but... why would you play mono-guard or mono-DE when you can soup?
Heck, Blood Angels are one of the powerhouse factions - in over half the top lists!
This is definitely a cool stat to see. Though I wonder if getting rid of soup would actually hurt this number?
The stat is BS. blood angels is some scouts (because they have to take something) and 2 captains. Custodes is 3 bike captains. Tsons is Ahriman and magnus with a Daemon prince. DE Quins CWE Ynnari are OP and you expect to see them there. Knights and IG are OP on their own and expect to see them there. Nothing about that is cool to me. Spam OP stuff and win tournaments. About what you expect. It would be cool to see an interesting "non meta" list make it in there.
I legitimately feel there are 3 reasons why the meta is currently how it is.
1:The addition of new types of detachments away from the initial 3 and the scaling of which detachments you can take. **This leads to too much spam and loopholes.
2: CP generation being dependent on Detachments. This is another drive towards cheaper and minimum size units. Filling out large detachments gives more CPs and thus uses of powerful abilities.
3:Allowing allied units to take advantage of faction special rules even though they are not the primary faction. Allies should not bring Relics/warlord traits/stratagems/abilities to an army. Only units being used to fill in a weakness.
So my quick ideas to fix these issues:
-Each army starts with one of the main 3 detachments based on point size. Less then or equal to 1k = Patrol, up to 2k = battalion and 3k+ = brigade. This has to consist of your warlord's army. Then each army can take 1 and only 1 of the other types of detachments allies, This can be from the same book as well. Rule of 3 still applies. none of these detachments give CP (Followup on that later next)
-Don't give CPs based on detachments, this is too hard to balance. Instead give CPs based on a Army rating, so that as the point values increase the amount of CPs increase accordingly. EX: Space Marines would have a rating of 3, for every 500pts you play, they get 3 CP. Thus at 1750 they get 9 CPs. It doesn't matter what they take in their list, they get 9CP. Guards would have a higher rating, like 5, and thus have 15 CPs at 1750. This would make balancing armies easier, because you could adjust how many CPs they get at different point size, units that generate CPs would still be useful, CP regen would still work (Fix grand strategist to be inline with everyone else)
-Finally, don't let allies bring their faction special rules, they should be reserved for the main army only. If you bring allies, expect them to fill holes and not benefit from your stratagems/abilities.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
So no-one wants to admit the issue is the price in points that Guard CP costs?
With maximum regeneration relics and warlord traits.
Guard CP 18 points per CP in Battalion
Tau CP, 27 points per CP in Battalion
Ultramarines CP, 40 points per CP in Battalion (Non Ultra 56 points)
Chaos Marines CP, 52 points per CP in Battalion(No CP Regen?)
Knight CP, 177 points per CP.
Base line(not regen)
Guard CP, 36 points per CP Tau CP, 38 points per CP Chaos CP, 52
Marines 56
Knights 177
FYI the only one of those cheapest CP lists that wouldn't swap at least one of those choices out for more expensive model is the Guard battalion.
Ice_can wrote: So no-one wants to admit the issue is the price in points that Guard CP costs?
With maximum regeneration relics and warlord traits.
Guard CP 18 points per CP in Battalion
Tau CP, 27 points per CP in Battalion
Ultramarines CP, 40 points per CP in Battalion (Non Ultra 56 points)
Chaos Marines CP, 52 points per CP in Battalion(No CP Regen?)
Knight CP, 177 points per CP.
CP regeneration is an issue in general
CP regeneration in soup is disgustingly good
nobody is arguing against that. Read my post earlier in the thread CP regeneration should be removed from the game period
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
Dude - tau can't take allies. That is the reason.
Also you should see the 15 ranked Ultra marines list.
6 units of scouts and 3 dev squads with heavy bolters and a big sternguard unit with quilliman and tigarius. AKA - one of the worst lists I've ever seen. If you don't think mono IG can outperform that list...just wow.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
Dude - tau can't take allies. That is the reason.
Also you should see the 15 ranked Ultra marines list.
6 units of scouts and 3 dev squads with heavy bolters and a big sternguard unit with quilliman and tigarius. AKA - one of the worst lists I've ever seen. If you don't think mono IG can't outperform that list...just wow.
Dude guard that don't take allies finish behind tau.... It's almost like guard are considered OP because of there ability to soup.... what if we did something crazy like added some sort of negative to souping instead of nerfing mono players into the dirt dude
You are only talking about people playing their army wrongly...I'm surprised there aren't a few mono IG list in the top 20. Look at that ultra marines army that placed 15th lol.
At BAO, the final winner had 6177 Swiss points. The mono Tau player and the Guard player had the exact same W/L record and were just a place away from each other, with a difference of TWO Swiss points. These scores were as close as can be, and The Guard player actually went more games being undefeated than the Tau player meaning he was on the top tables for longer. Also, the number of Tau players largely outnumbered the number of mono Guard players, yet Guard still hit equally as high. Using this as some sort of statistic that says "mono Guard are objectively weaker than mono Tau" is just absurdity. This is why people say you are biased.
Also you should see the 15 ranked Ultra marines list.
6 units of scouts and 3 dev squads with heavy bolters and a big sternguard unit with quilliman and tigarius. AKA - one of the worst lists I've ever seen. If you don't think mono IG can outperform that list...just wow.
One of the worst lists you've seen?
This list was made and piloted by Reecius who play tested this list to singularly beat Castellan type lists.
Also you should see the 15 ranked Ultra marines list.
6 units of scouts and 3 dev squads with heavy bolters and a big sternguard unit with quilliman and tigarius. AKA - one of the worst lists I've ever seen. If you don't think mono IG can outperform that list...just wow.
One of the worst lists you've seen?
This list was made and piloted by Reecius who play tested this list to singularly beat Castellan type lists.
This list can not beat anything. It is actually weak AF against the Castellan list. It's even weaker against eldar. Tons of scouts vs Staken guardsmen LOL. I just can't even emphasize how auto lose this is for ultra marines.
We have proven that mathematically 4 ppm Infantry units are the most efficient infantry in the game.
We have seen countless evidence that top players believe Infantry units to be incredibly efficient.
We have seen an insurmountable amount of evidence to suggest that even amateur players believe this to be the case.
Everything, and I mean everything points to Infantry units being undercosted.
But you refuse to accept it, blaming the results of the unit instead on soup or, of all things, mortar squads.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Infantry units, mortars and certain stratagems and relics that IG have access to are all to blame? That the combination of these things makes them too efficient for their cost?
You and everyone that has math hammered efficiency have been doing so in a vacuum. And you may be right in all your conclusions. I believe that GW should take incremental steps to review the meta rather than make rash decisions based on this as the reason these efficiencies have become an issue is due to soup.
Do you think that the results will change if those battalions go up by 30pts? Or 60pts in a brigade?
This list can not beat anything. It is actually weak AF against the Castellan list. It's even weaker against eldar. Tons of scouts vs Staken guardsmen LOL. I just can't even emphasize how auto lose this is for ultra marines.
I think Reecius would disagree with you. He lost his game by 5 points to Juice and by his own admission played the worst game of his life by forgetting rules and doing stupid moves.
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know exactly what they are doing. Sales reflect this.
He can disagree with me all he wants. The army is trash. Spamming power armor and scouts is it is a miracle that he won a single game. He got so much crap for bringing that list from everyone commenting on his list. Even the guys in this pod cast are starching their heads...saying well - hes a really good player. Then in the game he loses to an army he should have annihilated because it was a foot slogging cultist list with no firepower - he has "the worst game of his life" and forgets how to play 40k which is actually very easy to do.
Also worth noting the DASW and SM gave up the most CP per game. Guess they all should have followed Reeces list advice and spammed the worst units in the game LOL.
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know exactly what they are doing. Sales reflect this.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
We are talking about a company that goes out of stock on half the stuff in their webstore when a new codex comes out. A company that has had shinning spears out of stock for the majority of 8th edition (they are one of the most powerful units in the game). They do a very poor job at a lot of things. If I go into my game store there are probably 3-4 games going on at a time. It's almost always mono armies vs mono armies.
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know exactly what they are doing. Sales reflect this.
Yeah they know pr. Doesn#t affect rule quality though which is worst it's ever been, especially balance.
Spartacus wrote: For what its worth, the three almost identical Catachan Brigade lists in the OP also happened to take positions 1, 2 and 3 in the final rankings.
That is:
Catachan Brigade
BA min Battalion with Smash Captains
Knight Castellan
The Catachan brigades seem to be the best choice because they make your chaff a legitimate threat; you're going to take them anyways for CP regen, if you can make them S4 3 attack models that can put pressure in the middle of the board with "Move, Move, Move" then you probably should.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
Ice_can wrote: FYI the only one of those cheapest CP lists that wouldn't swap at least one of those choices out for more expensive model is the Guard battalion.
Straken and primaris psykers, the options are limited by changes to the previous guard ally options of conscripts and commissars.
If i'm not mistaken chaos can (via renegades) take a battalion for 170pts. Can't say i've seen much of them since the psyker price hike, it's all cultists and characters/sorcerers/princes - at the end of the day guard have the cheap units that don't give players much of a reason to swap up (compared to the sunk cost of a chaos marine HQ for instance), but at the same time they don't have something like Ahriman to buy up to either especially compared to the efficient return from a regular cp-regen commander.
Smirrors wrote: You and everyone that has math hammered efficiency have been doing so in a vacuum. And you may be right in all your conclusions. I believe that GW should take incremental steps to review the meta rather than make rash decisions based on this as the reason these efficiencies have become an issue is due to soup.
This is an incremental step. IG and Infantry (previously Conscripts) have been undercosted since their codex was released. This isn't a "rash" decision, if anything it's a delayed one. No, I don't want to wait for another CA to be released in another 12 months' time. I don't want to wait until the next big FAQ that might address the glaring issues. I would like them to be fixed now. They've been going on for quite a while.
It feels like (I may be wrong in this) those arguing for a balance to soup first are doing so because they want to delay the inevitable Infantry/Custodes Jetbikes/Castellan nerf that, let's be honest, absolutely needs to happen.
Smirrors wrote: Do you think that the results will change if those battalions go up by 30pts? Or 60pts in a brigade?
Absolutely. The amount of times I've been over by 5 or 6 points and had to reshuffle my list. 30/60 pts will have an impact on those lists. Suddenly a player can't fit a Castellan into the list. Suddenly they can't have 2 Slamguinius and 3 Scouts.
In CA I want to see not only a nerf to soup/buff to mono but ALSO a change to Infantry to make them more in line with every other unit at their points' cost. I want to see the meta change and develop rather than stagnate. The results here show stagnation which is cancer to a competitive game.
Ice_can wrote: FYI the only one of those cheapest CP lists that wouldn't swap at least one of those choices out for more expensive model is the Guard battalion.
Straken and primaris psykers, the options are limited by changes to the previous guard ally options of conscripts and commissars.
If i'm not mistaken chaos can (via renegades) take a battalion for 170pts. Can't say i've seen much of them since the psyker price hike, it's all cultists and characters/sorcerers/princes - at the end of the day guard have the cheap units that don't give players much of a reason to swap up (compared to the sunk cost of a chaos marine HQ for instance), but at the same time they don't have something like Ahriman to buy up to either especially compared to the efficient return from a regular cp-regen commander.
The Renegade are paying 37 points per CP to guards 18 points per CP.
While thats less than the chaos codex it's not worth the loss of legion traits, relics and warlord traits.
Even swapping in straken who is cheap for his buffs guard are still only paying 22.5 points per CP. That's still way ahead of everyone else in the game
My standard minimum tau battalion is paying 45.3 points for each CP and thats just the mandatory choices for the battalion.
Thats double the points per CP of Guard.
A points increase will make a slight change but all it will mean is a player having to drop a captain or supplementing it with something else instead. There needs to be a fundamental shift in rules to combat allies and CP regeneration to really have any effect.
MistaGav wrote: A points increase will make a slight change but all it will mean is a player having to drop a captain or supplementing it with something else instead. There needs to be a fundamental shift in rules to combat allies and CP regeneration to really have any effect.
I'd just point out the maths I have just done above it's not CP regen game wide thats broken just Guard double dipping and imperial soup tripple dipping thats broken. 1 source isn't remotely as impacting.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
Some people also buy, create second armies because the army they started with became unfun to play or required esentially a new army at some new codex.
No one is enjoying a game where your opponent has to give you advantages to make up for GW's inability to balance.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
Some people also buy, create second armies because the army they started with became unfun to pkay or required esentially a new army at some new codex. No one is enjoying a game where your opponent has to gice you advantages to make up for GW inability to balance.
Yeah, after 50+ games of DE in 7th ed (tho i did find a nice list, still a very uphill battle), i turned to Corsairs (and if you dont take the formations they are actually very balanced) honestly, i wish i started with corsairs from the start, they were the most fun i have ever had in 40k... to day FW axed them.
My main 2 armies are Nids and DE, 6-7th was a trying time for me.
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know exactly what they are doing. Sales reflect this.
Sales always say more about the buyer then the sellers. The sells are doing well, because GW seems to have a whale population high enough to buy everything they put out no matter what. Nothing bad in it by the way. So if they squeeze the equivalent of about 3-4 years of updates in to 12 months, the sales will go up. You can say the same about WFB and AoS. AoS is the "better" game, because it sales better. And it is true for GW it is the better seller. But when you compare it to how many updates WFB got, and compering to AoS those were more or less non existent, the difference in sales will always be there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: You are only talking about people playing their army wrongly...I'm surprised there aren't a few mono IG list in the top 20. Look at that ultra marines army that placed 15th lol.
But at the top end there is no problem of IG being good when played mono. It doesn't matter, because in soup it is just better. It is like asking of mr Bolt would outrun most of people around the world running without any shoes. He would, but you would never see him do it at an event.
IG have great point per efficiency ratio, great CP generation. It is normal to use that and combined it with the alfa strike power of a slamguinius or a Ravellan.
1) I think Soup is the main issue at the moment. It's possible that IG need some adjustment, but I think fixing Soup first would make it a lot clearer how much of IG actually needs adjusting and how much of their stuff is only broken in Soup. For example:
- Infantry Squads are indeed cheap and efficient when on the defensive. However, you'll notice that all the lists with IG Infantry Squads also had basically whole detachments of aggressive units (BA Captains, Custodes, Imperial Knights). My suspicion is that, if these elements were no longer available, those IG squads would seriously struggle to move up the table and take enemy objectives.
- IG in general can easily generate a ton of CPs via cheap Battalions/Brigades and also CP regeneration abilities. However, all this CP seems to be spent almost exclusively on non-IG stratagems. If IG were forced to operate without allies, I suspect that they'd end up with a ton of CP but very little to actually spend it on. And, of course, other Imperium armies would have to cope with not having huge batteries of CP or cheap IG squads to hold objectives for them.
Now, just to reiterate, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong and that some IG units would prove to be unbalanced even without allies. In this case, fine, we will increase points or whatever as necessary.
I merely think that allies should be the first thing to be toned down. They are ubiquitous at this point and there wasn't a single top list that didn't use them. I simply don't believe that mono-armies should suffer because of stupid interactions with the broken ally mechanics.
2) I notice that DE lists are no longer using Wytches and Venoms. Indeed, they appear to have abandoned transports entirely.
3) The 'Writ of the Living Muse Archon + 3 Ravagers' detachment is something I find deeply depressing. I get the Ravagers, if only because there really isn't anything else in DE that performs their role. Though I do think that the point costs of Dark Lances and Disintegrators should be swapped (since the former cost more and are never taken).
However, what really saddens me is the Archon being relegated to the role of Master of Ordnance. Probably wishful thinking on my part, but I'd really like to see him redesigned so as to be more than a Ravager buffbot.
Yeah, after 50+ games of DE in 7th ed (tho i did find a nice list, still a very uphill battle), i turned to Corsairs (and if you dont take the formations they are actually very balanced) honestly, i wish i started with corsairs from the start, they were the most fun i have ever had in 40k... to day FW axed them.
Just wanted to say that I was in the exact same boat in 7th. I also started Corsairs when they came out because, quite frankly, they seemed like Codex Dark Eldar: Good Version. They were basically everything I wanted from Dark Eldar - fast vehicles, fast troops, glass cannons and, most importantly, fun and flavourful HQs. I absolutely adored the Corsair Prince - who had a ton of flavour and customisation (in both wargear and his amazing First Prince rule), as well as being able to actually take mobility options. Hey, GW, any chance of that for my sodding DEHQs? We have 3 non-vehicle mobility options in our army, is it really too much to ask that our HQs be able to use even one of them?
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
I agree, but the important question would be how much of the total spending power lies with "most of the customers" and how it compares to said whales, because GW will adjust their policies to whomever spends more on their products.
So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
Why do Guard get to keep mental CP regen but soup gets nerfed hard?
If as guard player's keep insisting their strategums are garbage and they can't use all their CP in a game should the keep grandnstrategist and Kurov's. Just FAQ those to be not for matched play. Much simpler fix.
Regarding soup I'd probably like to see a primary faction solution. Meaning one faction has to represent at least 50% of your army's points/PL and your warlord has to come from that faction. This would also be the only faction you can freely use all stratagems from. In addition detachments has to be from this faction for it to generate the CP benefits you'd normally get from those detachments.
Any detachment that does not match all the faction keywords are not counted towards your primary faction. This would mean that Blood Angels and Ultramariines are not the same, even stuff like Raven Guard and Ultramarines are not the same even though they're in the same book.
Regarding the chapter benefits non primary faction detachments would normally recieve, you'll still get them. So no change there, you would also get the stratagems normally associated with that faction except for the chapter specific one. The thought process there is for balance purposes but also that it represents something that's difficult to pull off without your warlords guidance.
And some other general modifications would be to remove the Supreme Command detachment since it's always going to be used to spam very powerful HQs and no faction truly needs that detachment to function.
Also remove CP generation and simply switch out any current relic/trait that grants it with a flat "before the beginning of the first battleround you gain an additional D3 CP"
I'm not sure exactly what to replace it with, but please let's remove the faction wide -1 to hit from the game. It's immensly powerful and will always be taken if possible.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
This isn't a solution in any sense of the word. It still grants disproportionate amount of Command Points to armies that choose to soup, and doesn't incentivise playing mono-book armies. Additionally, it doesn't even fix the commonly spammed Kurov's Aquilla that makes an appearance in a lot of armies that run Imperial Guard anyways, as it is one of the few that is designed to function when either player uses a stratagem. Lower the number of command points granted from battalions would also be a hard nerf to elite armies that don't soup in some easy CP generation such as IG anyways. It just doesn't make much sense.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
Why do Guard get to keep mental CP regen but soup gets nerfed hard?
If as guard player's keep insisting their strategums are garbage and they can't use all their CP in a game should the keep grandnstrategist and Kurov's. Just FAQ those to be not for matched play. Much simpler fix.
If we look at Guard stratagems and Guard CP regen abilities for Guard stratagems alone, are we seriously looking at a problem though? I personally don’t think we are, but I might be mistaken.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
This isn't a solution in any sense of the word. It still grants disproportionate amount of Command Points to armies that choose to soup, and doesn't incentivise playing mono-book armies. Additionally, it doesn't even fix the commonly spammed Kurov's Aquilla that makes an appearance in a lot of armies that run Imperial Guard anyways, as it is one of the few that is designed to function when either player uses a stratagem. Lower the number of command points granted from battalions would also be a hard nerf to elite armies that don't soup in some easy CP generation such as IG anyways. It just doesn't make much sense.
So, now the issue isn’t actually Guard being cheap, the amount of cheap CP Guard can give you, but, the issue is now with the Aquilla relic.
If this then becomes an issue that is genuinely stacking far too many command points through a game for the user, then, we can change it, and all other similar ones (i.e Thousand Sons Helm relic) to a 6+ instead of a 5+.
On its own, the Aquilla is maybe getting you 1-2 CP back a game, 3 if you’re lucky.
So, now the issue isn’t actually Guard being cheap, the amount of cheap CP Guard can give you, but, the issue is now with the Aquilla relic.
If this then becomes an issue that is genuinely stacking far too many command points through a game for the user, then, we can change it, and all other similar ones (i.e Thousand Sons Helm relic) to a 6+ instead of a 5+.
On its own, the Aquilla is maybe getting you 1-2 CP back a game, 3 if you’re lucky.
No offence, man, but you never actually responded to anything I said. Your solution actually encourages people to use soup armies more, and pushes them further into power. How could that be considered a solution? If starting CPs are more valuable than they are now with your proposal, why would people not just soup in some easy CPs, and what incentive is there to not do so?
Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
So, now the issue isn’t actually Guard being cheap, the amount of cheap CP Guard can give you, but, the issue is now with the Aquilla relic.
If this then becomes an issue that is genuinely stacking far too many command points through a game for the user, then, we can change it, and all other similar ones (i.e Thousand Sons Helm relic) to a 6+ instead of a 5+.
On its own, the Aquilla is maybe getting you 1-2 CP back a game, 3 if you’re lucky.
No offence, man, but you never actually responded to anything I said. Your solution actually encourages people to use soup armies more, and pushes them further into power. How could that be considered a solution? If starting CPs are more valuable than they are now with your proposal, why would people not just soup in some easy CPs, and what incentive is there to not do so?
My reply covered your point about the Aquilla relic being “commonly taken”. Does the relic have than much of an impact on every game on its own, or is it just a small part of a compounded issue?
What is the problem we are trying to fix here?
Is it armies having too many CP to start with?
Is it armies regaining too many CP during a battle?
Or is it something completely different?
Because right now, everything is going backwards and forwards so much that it is impossible to tell.
Without taking a Guard Battalion, or Brigade, an Imperium Soup list can still start with 13CP, whilst still containing a Castellan and Smash Captains, with about 600-700 points left over for whatever they want. (but not gaining anymore detachments) They can up with to 16CP if they take a couple of Helverins, leaving them with 200-300 points spare.
Alternatively, I can run a Mono Marine list and still end up with 2 battalions + 1 other detachment with plenty of points spare for 14CP to start with, and if I’m running BA, well, I can still regain some with the Vitae relic. Sure, the tools that the soup list can get will allow for more flexibility, but, is getting 5 CP from 180 points the problem, or is it pretty irrelevant? Nerf Guard with a points rise, sure, but then people will just play a min Admech battalion for 199 points. Raise Admech points and people will jump to a basic Marine battalion at ~290-300 points. Getting additional starting CP is easy enough for Imperium Soup right now.
Tau, I’m pretty sure can run double battalion and a Riptide wing for plenty of CP. Chaos soup will still run what they are currently doing, same for Aeldari soup – and they both seem to be doing perfectly fine with the amount of CP they get, which is a whole lot less than Imperium soup gets.
Can you explain how you have 600-700 points left in your marines plus castellan list with 13 CP as thats 2 battalion plus a Castellan?
Also with Guard that would be a 20+CP list with another 200 points to spend
There are a few things making soup the best choice other than some units being too good or too cheap.
The first is some factions being better at generating CP per points spent. Even without the insane generation abilities, they're isn't a great reason why CP are tied to detachments, when detachments are tied to units, and unit sizes vary as much as they do. Certain factions will always be valuable as long as having them around means more CP whether their units are OP or not. My solution to this would be to tie CP to something other than detachments. I think Xeno's post about reverse CP generation where you start with 16 or so and have to spend them to buy detachments is a pretty good example of a system like that.
The second thing is stratagems. One of the main balancing mechanics of strategems is that you can only use them once a phase, and another is that they only effect one unit. So in a 4-6 knight mono knight army, you have to choose which knight gets the 4++ warlord trait, who gets a relic, and who gets use strategems like rotate ion shields. The power of these abilities is spread out over your army, or if you do give everything to one knight, the other knights don't get to benefit. This is worked around when you only bring one Raven Castellan, because you get to use everything on it. If you were to bring a second Castellan orany other knight, it would not be nearly as effective as the first one, because it wouldn't have a 3++ or be able to reroll ones each turn. Instead, you take just enough from each codex to get the most out of the very powerful strategems. This is why knights by themselves aren't overpowered, and mono blood angels are not overpowered, but together, and with guard feeding them CP and flooding the board with no other worthwhile anti tank targets, they are. It also means that soup will always be more powerful because it has more strategems. To me largest faction = primary faction, warlord having to come from primary faction, and only getting strategems and relics from the warlord is probably the best solution to this. It's definitely limiting compared to what we have now, but seems much easier to balance.
I also think these issues should be visited before nerfing too many units with points changes, outside of perhaps the most obvious offenders, because it's likely hard to say how much of what makes a unit good or bad is the cost and how much is the soup system. I think the Castellan is a good example of this, where a signed allied one is insane, but they aren't that bad in a pure /majority knight list.
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
Play with some guts! Bring the units that you like rather than the ones that "work", adapt around random elements rather than eliminate it all together. Makes a much more intense game which true competitive gamers thrive for.
. At the end of the day all armies and sub-factions should have a decent chance to stand on their own and win tourneys with a good, skilled player behind them. No one should be ever be penalised for taking the "wrong army/sub-faction" especially in a tournament. 
