I just read the battlereport in the latest white dwarf. Competetive eldar soup vs competetive knight soup.

I must say I quite enjoyed it. Well written, and exiting drama om the table. I hope not all are competetive, but this one was nice.

Let me know if they start using legal armies.

One of the things that used to frustrate me was with battle reports about armies that you can't actually play against rules-lawyer friends.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Let me know if they start using legal armies.

One of the things that used to frustrate me was with battle reports about armies that you can't actually play against rules-lawyer friends.

I haven't read the battle report, what exactly was illegal in the armies?

These armies are quite legit. I wonder if the one vypoer squardon consistet of 2 vypers, because there where 4 vypers, and I think they adhere to the rule of 3?

Techsoldaten is just complaining like when they do not read the rules good enough.

Rule of Three is not a matched play rule, it's a suggestion for Organised Events.

Terrible "armies". Terrible batrep.

Just encourages more of this soup crap that is incoherent messes of minis and memefied SM captains. This is not the 40k I signed up for and is just awful GW even enables this.

while you might not like suoup I congratulate them on having a competetive army. I really enjoyed the titans duking it out. Obviusly I hope they have some cassual narative armies in the other end of the power scale next time.

But power games excist, your suggestion that they should be exluded from journalistic coveradge is so wrong on all levels.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Terrible "armies". Terrible batrep.

Just encourages more of this soup crap that is incoherent messes of minis and memefied SM captains. This is not the 40k I signed up for and is just awful GW even enables this.

I am afraid soup is the meta these days and has been since Ad Mech and Fleshtearers taxi service, if not before.

 Niiai wrote:

But power games excist, your suggestion that they should be exluded from journalistic coveradge is so wrong on all levels.

1: You can make decent armies without these godawful examples of random gak thrown together and Mephiston and his two drinking buddies.
2: A batrep is hardly "journalistic coverage".
3: 40k was never like this before. This is a new phenomenon. One of 40k's biggest strengths is the visuals. Throwing a mishmash of random minis on the table that the LoL/Fortnite types have deemed to be the most efficient choices and nothing else! is not healthy for the game. 40k is not designed to be played that way, GW knows that, they're the bloody creators yet here they are showing this off in their flagship magazine as an acceptable way to play their game.

Can someone give me a quick summary of what each army took, I didn't pick up this white dwarf.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

But power games excist, your suggestion that they should be exluded from journalistic coveradge is so wrong on all levels.

1: You can make decent armies without these godawful examples of random gak thrown together and Mephiston and his two drinking buddies.
2: A batrep is hardly "journalistic coverage".
3: 40k was never like this before. This is a new phenomenon. One of 40k's biggest strengths is the visuals. Throwing a mishmash of random minis on the table that the LoL/Fortnite types have deemed to be the most efficient choices and nothing else! is not healthy for the game. 40k is not designed to be played that way, GW knows that, they're the bloody creators yet here they are showing this off in their flagship magazine as an acceptable way to play their game.

Allies existed in some form for every edition outside 5th. Get off your high horse.

 Grimtuff wrote:
40k was never like this before. This is a new phenomenon. One of 40k's biggest strengths is the visuals. Throwing a mishmash of random minis on the table that the LoL/Fortnite types have deemed to be the most efficient choices and nothing else! is not healthy for the game.

Soup doesn't mean you can't have good visuals. Random minis can occur even within the same codex, let alone the same faction. (I mean, take a single Scout Squad turning up in a Battle Company - that scout squad is just as random as a unit of Grey Knights or a Knight showing up).

40k is not designed to be played that way, GW knows that, they're the bloody creators yet here they are showing this off in their flagship magazine as an acceptable way to play their game.

Maybe because that's how they want to play it. Who are you to say they can't?

Didn't we establish the last time that this battle report was specifically them bringing two tournament players to the Studio to play a competitive game? There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Can someone give me a quick summary of what each army took, I didn't pick up this white dwarf.

It was cheeeeese all the way!

Imperial suoup:

IG: the usualm 32. (3 10 man squads for capturing objects. 2 leaders who both generate CP.) For a whole but of CP.

Blood angels:

Mephiston, 2 smash captains. For high prioraty targets.

Knights: 3 giant knights.

Pretty much the regular imperial soup list.

Eldar soup:
2x archon
3 x 5 man kabalites
2 venoms
2 planes

1 farseer
4 vypers
15 dark reapers
1 plane

1 shadowseer
58 skyweavers

It was awsome with soup every where. All the flyers on the table really liked great. Some greta moments where smash captains jump up and knock them down.

It's refreshing that they're finally acknowledging that this is how most people play. Hopefully they'll write tighter rules in the future to reflect that fact. If you don't like it it doesn't effect your moms basementhammer games anyway.

I wouldn't enjoy either playing or playing against either list, but I guess it's ok if they feature a competative game but I've always enjoyed that White Dwarf battles played a little lose with the rules to tell a compelling story and essentially play out a novel.

That Imperium list in particular lacks any kind of cohesion or theme other than take the best bits of three codexes and smash them together. I really wish GW would have pulled super heavies out of normal 40k and gone back to the normal force org chart that actually required you to take troops to use a given factions.

To play Devils Advocate a moment (since I too dislike Titanics in normal 40k) you can always choose to not play with them.

I know most tournaments won't be available but pick up games you could just decide to say "No units with the TITANIC keyword" as a limitation.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To play Devils Advocate a moment (since I too dislike Titanics in normal 40k) you can always choose to not play with them.

I know most tournaments won't be available but pick up games you could just decide to say "No units with the TITANIC keyword" as a limitation.

Outside of tournaments, my area doesn't have many people who would take that kind of list. I am also really lucky to have an amazing gaming group that likes to play the game the same as I do. I just feel that the game would be better if troops were core of the game for most armies to function and win games and not just a battery to power knights and the like.

Ideally I would really like CP to be pegged to points and not army composition. That would put an end to the nonsense of things like the loyal 32 being a massive buff to an army while in game not actually doing anything but taking up space.

Troops ars the core of the game though. Both sides use small units of troops to take objectives. The flyers and knights are not used for that. There where some back and both with stratagems. I think 10 CP was burned in the first turn (after deployment shenanigans) in order to take this cat and mouse rock paper scissor with stratagems.

oh no, people enjoy playing the game in a different manner to myself! better bitch and moan about the fact that GW didn't cater literally everything in every single issue of their magazine to my specific niche of the demographic!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
this is the game GW has created. If you want into change, fight the absurdly stupid soup rules, trying to pretend it's not a thing by raging at them for putting their game in the magazine and trying to sweep it under the rug just makes it less likely for it to be acknowledged as a problem.

People playing the ruleset competitively isn't the problem, that's the best thing a game can have. A ruleset that allows exactly this to happen is what the issue is.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

But power games excist, your suggestion that they should be exluded from journalistic coveradge is so wrong on all levels.

1: You can make decent armies without these godawful examples of random gak thrown together and Mephiston and his two drinking buddies.
2: A batrep is hardly "journalistic coverage".
3: 40k was never like this before. This is a new phenomenon. One of 40k's biggest strengths is the visuals. Throwing a mishmash of random minis on the table that the LoL/Fortnite types have deemed to be the most efficient choices and nothing else! is not healthy for the game. 40k is not designed to be played that way, GW knows that, they're the bloody creators yet here they are showing this off in their flagship magazine as an acceptable way to play their game.

1) GW shows what sells
3) minmaxing and weirdo armies against fluff are hardly new fashion. Enter tournament, see those. Only thing changes is what's most broken combo. And unsurprisingly GW does rules that encourage more sales. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

I think I have a White Dwarf from around 1995 that has Eldar and Imperial guard allied up to fight Tyranids. It's one of the best battle reports I've ever read. Allies were always seen as part of the game. In fact 2nd Edition, allowed 25% allies in your army with no keyword restrictions. Tourneys often disallowed the use of allies, though.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Outside of tournaments, my area doesn't have many people who would take that kind of list. I am also really lucky to have an amazing gaming group that likes to play the game the same as I do. I just feel that the game would be better if troops were core of the game for most armies to function and win games and not just a battery to power knights and the like.

I think that depends on the country and the avarge income vs basic list cost. To me both lists seem to be optimised for tournaments, but the difference between a casual list and a normal list I see every day seems not that great. the eldar player who isn't in to tournaments would use fewer jetbikes and more serpents or use eldar flyers.
The only knight player uses only 2 captins and halverins. IG soup guys use castellans, captins or custodes, same 32 IG, non of those people play big tournaments, some even don't play in local or store events. The IG+castellan+cpt or custodes is more or less the army you expect to see if someone says he plays empire. Same with orcs, or DE the tournament and non tournament lists are almost the same. The difference being how good or if the models are painted, and if the most cash intensive stuff is used.

I think I have a White Dwarf from around 1995 that has Eldar and Imperial guard allied up to fight Tyranids. It's one of the best battle reports I've ever read. Allies were always seen as part of the game. In fact 2nd Edition, allowed 25% allies in your army with no keyword restrictions. Tourneys often disallowed the use of allies, though.

Well I can't talk about the past, but the problem in 8th seems to be that ally are a problem, not because they exist, but because they invalidate mono armies and because problematic models get spread around much more. If a castellan was knight only, a ton of units and armies would be played more, because the chance of getting your butt kicked by one would be much smaller then it being in a lot of imperial armies.
The fact that a ton of faction can't work without ally, or are questionable as a choice mono or not only adds to the problem. If someone has the option to soup, and wants to take some SB marines, and DW vets and GK strikes cost the same, why would GK ever be taken? They are worse in all ways save for the baby smite, and that isn't even that good to begin with. Add the fact that GK as a mono list don't exist, and GK players have a problem, because they army doesn't work as mono and they are indentical better units for the same or less points in other armies. In such a situation the fact that soup exists kills them off as a valid faction to play with.

The less thing is probablly less important. Those factions that do soup up, because they don't have the ability to build an army that works alone, can be hurt by FAQ or errata much easily then other armies. If someone plays the knight IG smash captin army, and the smash captin gets nerfed it is not like you can replace him with another BA unit in the list you have, and if you happen to want to play BAs your in a problematic spot, because the only way to fix your now worse army is to not play the army you want to play.

I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

The problem with soup is how it's used, not that it exists. Being able to take something like 2 HQs from Army A and power them up with CP generated by Army B is a huge chunk of the problem (not the entire problem, but the one that's most likely to get addressed at some point). Fix that, and you fix a huge issue with the current way soup armies are made. You should be mixing armies for a particular theme or concept, not to min/max on Command Points (which as an aside I think Command Points were one of the most interesting things 8th edition brought, and also one of the things GW immediately screwed up to an enormous degree)

However, I agree that the issue with it is that it almost completely invalidated mono-faction armies in any faction that can soup, which means a lot of ideas get left on the chopping block because doing it just subjectively worse (such as trying to do a complete army of a particular Chapter) than mixing and matching. And then you have armies that can't soup at an extreme disadvantage.

More importantly, though the issue with soup is that it's just bad game design. Factions have drawbacks for a reason; being able to just ignore those drawbacks by pulling in elements from a different faction in order to negate them is terrible design because it means factions that are able to do that have no real weaknesses since you just shore them up by taking something that they aren't designed around having.

Bring on Kill Team or AoS CP system and a lot of the soups will disappear completely. Not all, but quite a few of them, especially the CP batteries.

Wayniac wrote:
Didn't we establish the last time that this battle report was specifically them bringing two tournament players to the Studio to play a competitive game? There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yes they specifically said that unlike their usual reports they asked two competative players to build lists and go all out.

In that context there is nothing to complain about.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Bring on Kill Team or AoS CP system and a lot of the soups will disappear completely. Not all, but quite a few of them, especially the CP batteries.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I think the solution needs to be. Either use the rules from KT for them, or have them be a flat amount of CP based on the game's point limit for Matched Play. Something, anything to curb taking the "Loyal 32" in every Imperium list for a cheap 5 CP that end up being used on anything other than what generated them.

'The Problem' (as if we can narrow it down to a single 'mole' to 'whack!') is not that soup exists or if it is intended or otherwise ..

is that "Your guys get access to it and Mine don't!"

the end.

there is an imbalance that cannot be gotten around where one <Faction> is given cheap access to ALL the tools (super Heavy, Tough, high damage, mobile, and more CP)

and another <Faction> cannot get access to either (no spammable CP and no easy access to the FW of the past equivalents).

and rather than looking at the mono factions and bringing them UP to the party ... everyone seems happy to start waving the nerf hammer around ...

Unless of course they get access to all that stuff.

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

Which is why I kinda miss the old ally system in 7th. It allowed Necrons and Blood Angels to fight together as intended even though there were some limitations to it.

 Eldarsif wrote:

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

Which is why I kinda miss the old ally system in 7th. It allowed Necrons and Blood Angels to fight together as intended even though there were some limitations to it.

Yeah, I feel there should be a mechanism to ally anything together, it just needs appropriate balancing. Which I feel can be managed through the CP system.

Alternatively, find a way to let the armies that don't currently ally get some allies.

Tau could ally with Guard very easily. Do it like Brood Brothers, just make it GUE'VESA instead.

There's an angle to allow Necrons to ally with Admech - have the Void Dragon awaken in some way, leading to a faction of Admech who worship it leave.

That just leaves Orks. Why not make Orks the ultimate mercenary faction? Could ally with anyone (just not everyone simultaneously).

 Stux wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

Which is why I kinda miss the old ally system in 7th. It allowed Necrons and Blood Angels to fight together as intended even though there were some limitations to it.

Yeah, I feel there should be a mechanism to ally anything together, it just needs appropriate balancing. Which I feel can be managed through the CP system.

Alternatively, find a way to let the armies that don't currently ally get some allies.

Tau could ally with Guard very easily. Do it like Brood Brothers, just make it GUE'VESA instead.

There's an angle to allow Necrons to ally with Admech - have the Void Dragon awaken in some way, leading to a faction of Admech who worship it leave.

That just leaves Orks. Why not make Orks the ultimate mercenary faction? Could ally with anyone (just not everyone simultaneously).

You know how to do it REALLY easy too?

Keywords and detachment rules.

Much like you have rules for cadians, tallarans, etc-you could easly as well have rules for Gue'vesa detachment, and their special "thing" is that they get the T'au Empire keyword, and can't be warlords (so you cant primary the "ally")
That's it. no more special abilities.

You get the abiilty to ally in stuff like that (and you can be real selective to who gets what using these), but the "cost" of having allies is that the side defined as the allies in that combo doesn't have any inherit subfaction abilities.

So on the same note, Admech "forgeworld" ability that grants the Necrons keyword.
Ork klan that grants Imperium/Chaos/tau/whatever
etc...


Real quick, real easy-and gives low-level allies to anyone you want to give them.

Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

So, should every army be balanced according to what they can bring in their codex or around what they can soup in?

If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

So, should every army be balanced according to what they can bring in their codex or around what they can soup in?

If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

Well if everyone could bring in Imperial Guard units they would. However we get some armies that cannot function without those allies (Grey Knights are the biggest offender, with Custodes kinda on the edge there, though units from FW will help with that.

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

As examples from history show, having an idea and being able to enforc it. Does not somehow make it automaticly good. Everyone can read the rules that allow the creation of soup lists.

is that "Your guys get access to it and Mine don't!"

the end.

Not saying it isn't, but at least it could get fixed by GW just writing good books that don't have ally options. As orcs show GW can make mono lists do well.

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

You seem to be confusing what is and what should be, when what is benefits you.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

So, should every army be balanced according to what they can bring in their codex or around what they can soup in?

If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

I think the way through allies is to force detachments not of the warlord's faction to take units they don't normally want to take.

- Allies can only be in Patrol or Battalion detachments and must be a minimum of 25% of your list.
- Heirloom stratagems can only be used by the Warlord's faction.

This means you can't just slap Starweavers on your list. You'd also be forced to pay for Troupes.
No more sneaking in a Farseer.
No flying circus of daemon princes.
You can't stock your Castellan AND also have relics for IG.

It also means you can't get away with Loyal 32 - they would need to take tanks or more units to fill it out. Now, this is not a problem for someone who commits to Catachan & Castellan, but point tweaks can solve that, I think.

Maybe that's a dumb idea...I haven't pondered the consequences thoroughly enough.

 Kommisar wrote:
this is how most people play.

[citation needed]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people who play 40K are not meta-chasing flavor-of-the-month competitive tournament players.

I've posted it before, I'll post it again! Soup circa 1995!

I like that they are taking a realistic approach to the game based on how a large chunk of the player base plays (or are thought to play, but that is a debate for another time).

I think a dandy solution to soup nonsense could be tied to Keywords. So that would mean that either Astartes or <Chapter> could be the keyword here (I prefer <Chapter> myself but Im sure theres nothing too wrong with mixing within a single faction) and that you would get a substantial buff for taking an army ONLY comprised of that faction. Heres my short list of everything I would like to see.

1. Free relic only for the mono faction, everyone else has to pay.
2. The 3 CP for breathing only for mono lists.
3. Primary faction is determined by the faction with most points invested. Warlord can only come from this faction and can only take relics from the primary faction. Seriously, why would any Space Marine worth his salt take any orders at all from some random guard commander, ESPECIALLY if he was a Captain.
4. Super scoring needs to apply only to the "Primary" faction as noted above

In short you should have to pay a penalty for soup as it had been in other editions. Being a varied force means you do not have the same unit cohesion as a regiment that has been trained to fight with their brother units. Therefore you make less CP, you lose ObSec, and you do not have the same access to relics.

Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

As an aside, I also greatly miss when armies were that size. A Dreadnought or a single tank was often the most you saw.

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Bring on Kill Team or AoS CP system and a lot of the soups will disappear completely. Not all, but quite a few of them, especially the CP batteries.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I think the solution needs to be. Either use the rules from KT for them, or have them be a flat amount of CP based on the game's point limit for Matched Play. Something, anything to curb taking the "Loyal 32" in every Imperium list for a cheap 5 CP that end up being used on anything other than what generated them.

(Not addressed at you specifically Wayniac, just bootstraping here) It is quite funny that people think, that CPs and Stratagems were introduced only in 8th and that many don't realize that "CPs based on game size" (or scenario in some cases) is exactly how CPs (called SPs then) worked in 7th ed Planetstrike and Zone Mortalis supplements - 1 CP+1CP per 500pts and done, max 5 CPs to use in 2000pts game, or rigid 4 in most Planetstrike missions.

CPs based on points value is a much better system than the current unintuitive system of forcing in 32man detachments to farm CPs for your actual fighting force, I'd say.

 Ashiraya wrote:
CPs based on points value is a much better system than the current unintuitive system of forcing in 32man detachments to farm CPs for your actual fighting force, I'd say.

But then we would have to do math! *gasp*

On an off note I think it would be hilarious if someone would make their loyal 32 modeled as farmers with straw hats and pitchforks

Wayniac wrote:
Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

I could get on board with 25% allies only as well.

 Kommisar wrote:
It's refreshing that they're finally acknowledging that this is how most people play. Hopefully they'll write tighter rules in the future to reflect that fact. If you don't like it it doesn't effect your moms basementhammer games anyway.

Going to disagree that this is how "most people play" until you can show some data around that. This is a representation of how TOURNAMENT players play. Tournament players are not necessarily "most players".

where is the data that it is not played that way and only tournaments see such lists?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

I could get on board with 25% allies only as well.

The issue with that is the Loyal 32 is like under 200 points, so it wouldn't fix that problem. The main issue here is being able to use CP generated from Army A to power Army B, when Army B might be balanced around having limited CP so they get badass stratagems (see: Imperial Knights)

Wayniac wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

I could get on board with 25% allies only as well.

The issue with that is the Loyal 32 is like under 200 points, so it wouldn't fix that problem. The main issue here is being able to use CP generated from Army A to power Army B, when Army B might be balanced around having limited CP so they get badass stratagems (see: Imperial Knights)

True, good point.

25% allies with CP only being able to be used for that faction would be a way to correct that perhaps.

So you could bring a loyal 32, but those 5 CP can only be used for that loyal 32 with the rest of the CP going to the primary faction. Would definitely stop CP batteries.

I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

I don't think too many soup players would be that upset about having to take a few mortar squads and/or Leman Russes in addition to their Loyal 32. Guard and Knights and Smash Captains are a great combo even if you have to spend 500+pts on each.

CP-sharing is really the biggest reason why soup is a problem for balance, so it makes sense to go after that. Being able to take units from two (or more) completely different armies is powerful enough; they shouldn't also be able to benefit from mix-and-matching.

I mean, optimally I'd like CP to be overhauled so that everyone has roughly the same amount of CP and then stratagems can be appropriately balanced in terms of CP cost, but that seems dramatically less likely to happen than an FAQ that says no CP sharing across factions.

 Kommisar wrote:
It's refreshing that they're finally acknowledging that this is how most people play. Hopefully they'll write tighter rules in the future to reflect that fact. If you don't like it it doesn't effect your moms basementhammer games anyway.

"Most people"? [Citation required]

 SHUPPET wrote:
oh no, people enjoy playing the game in a different manner to myself! better bitch and moan about the fact that GW didn't cater literally everything in every single issue of their magazine to my specific niche of the demographic!

Grow up.

 SHUPPET wrote:
People playing the ruleset competitively isn't the problem, that's the best thing a game can have.

Not if the game isn't designed for it, it isn't - I'm pretty sure playing "competitive" (by which I assume you're meaning tournament) games with a Polemos system, for example, just won't work.

Karol wrote:
Well I can't talk about the past,

Why not? You've talked about leaving the game during 4th before now...

the_scotsman wrote:
If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

Ideally, Doom just gets a rewrite so that only units from the Craftworlds book benefit from it when shooting the unit the power has been cast upon. Solves the problem from a mechanical standpoint, even if thematically there is no reason for anyone shooting at a Doomed unit not to be more effective.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

You seem to be confusing what is and what should be, when what is benefits you.

To be fair, Grimtuff, I do think that GW did intend allies to be a thing this edition - I just think they intended for people to use them for thematic reasons, not to squeeze every last 0.001% of potential out of a list.

Wayniac wrote:
As an aside, I also greatly miss when armies were that size. A Dreadnought or a single tank was often the most you saw.

I thought the all tank battle report they did during 2nd edition was really cool - bet it took a while to play, though, given how vehicles worked back then. I think it was called Heretic!, maybe?

Karol wrote:
where is the data that it is not played that way and only tournaments see such lists?

When the claim is made that "most people play this way", the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do, after all.

While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

This is kinda the problem with allies. Like any mechanic, it can be abused. I agree as an Imperium player I love that I can combine smaller IOM factions together to create fun lists. I don't own a knight and don't feel they belong in a normal game of 40k. But at the same time I don't want to loss the ability to take an inquisitor with my marines or recreate certain novel team ups like Sisters of Battle and Admech.

This gets back to the core issue with 40k, both players need to have the same goals and expectation from the game or it likely won't be fun for either of them.

 Stux wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

Which is why I kinda miss the old ally system in 7th. It allowed Necrons and Blood Angels to fight together as intended even though there were some limitations to it.

Yeah, I feel there should be a mechanism to ally anything together, it just needs appropriate balancing. Which I feel can be managed through the CP system.

Alternatively, find a way to let the armies that don't currently ally get some allies.

Tau could ally with Guard very easily. Do it like Brood Brothers, just make it GUE'VESA instead.

There's an angle to allow Necrons to ally with Admech - have the Void Dragon awaken in some way, leading to a faction of Admech who worship it leave.

That just leaves Orks. Why not make Orks the ultimate mercenary faction? Could ally with anyone (just not everyone simultaneously).

I would totally agree with this as long as the Orks in question were either predominantly Blood Axe or maybe led by Blood Axe. They're mentioned plenty of times in the fluff as working with other races as mercs.

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

And that sucks. I personally miss the days in which you had a decent idea of what an opponent had because they were playing X, and X only had specific options.
But now that you can basically cherry-pick from multiple factions, it is just too much. Armies don't really have the same kinds of weaknesses as you can just plug them with another faction.

Don't get me wrong, Allies are fun and should be a part of the game, but they shouldn't be the main part of the game. Mono-factions should be just as viable.

-

When the claim is made that "most people play this way", the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do, after all.

No it isn't. If someone says that glass is not a good thing to eat, they don't have to prove anything. It is the people that glass is a valid thing to eat that have to prove it is the case. You can't put up an illogical argument that most people don't care about money and buy bad armies, and then ask everyone that this is not the case.

Why not? You've talked about leaving the game during 4th before now...

that was my dad. He posted like twice on my account.

Ideally, Doom just gets a rewrite so that only units from the Craftworlds book benefit from it when shooting the unit the power has been cast upon. Solves the problem from a mechanical standpoint, even if thematically there is no reason for anyone shooting at a Doomed unit not to be more effective.

Did GW or anyone from GW say that they are thinking about a change like that. Because if not this is a fix, like me thinking about GK stuff costing 1/5th less and having some extra rules.

While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

Ok, but are they imperium players, because they always wanted to play soup armies, or do they play imperium soup, because playing anything else is punishing enough for most people not want to try it?

True, good point.

25% allies with CP only being able to be used for that faction would be a way to correct that perhaps.

So you could bring a loyal 32, but those 5 CP can only be used for that loyal 32 with the rest of the CP going to the primary faction. Would definitely stop CP batteries.

Personally I think this is a little too extreme.

I would suggest either limit allies to 25% points but allow all to benefit from CP or make it unlimited allies but they can only use their own CP

People want different things. To some, the fix should make Allies not possible. To others, make it only token presences of minor forces alongside the main host. To others, it should be totally viable that half your army be Imperial Guard and the other half Marines. Or Traitor Marines and Demons.

I'd like to see Soup still viable but not as optimal as now. For that, you need to disincentivize soup instead of outright penalize or deny it.

To that end, my favorite is still the "Detachments Cost CP" suggestion that pops up in Proposed Rules from time to time. You can find the details there. But it would make using more detatchements cost CP instead of give CP - which would mean you can soup, but it'll cost you. Currently, souping typically means you get more CP.

catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

I don't think too many soup players would be that upset about having to take a few mortar squads and/or Leman Russes in addition to their Loyal 32. Guard and Knights and Smash Captains are a great combo even if you have to spend 500+pts on each.

CP-sharing is really the biggest reason why soup is a problem for balance, so it makes sense to go after that. Being able to take units from two (or more) completely different armies is powerful enough; they shouldn't also be able to benefit from mix-and-matching.

I mean, optimally I'd like CP to be overhauled so that everyone has roughly the same amount of CP and then stratagems can be appropriately balanced in terms of CP cost, but that seems dramatically less likely to happen than an FAQ that says no CP sharing across factions.

Yea, but the exception to the rule of IG can be adjusted by points. Smash Captains would require a much larger investment than now.

Karol wrote:

When the claim is made that "most people play this way", the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do, after all.

No it isn't. If someone says that glass is not a good thing to eat, they don't have to prove anything. It is the people that glass is a valid thing to eat that have to prove it is the case. You can't put up an illogical argument that most people don't care about money and buy bad armies, and then ask everyone that this is not the case.

Well, claiming most 40K players would play tournament lists is not the same as your glass analogy. Personally I've never seen someone play the kinds of tournament lists you see at dakka, I don't even know anyone who plays Imperial Guard or knights for that matter. So you would have to proof that claim somehow. With narrative play having the same space in Chapter approved as matched play we have one hint that tournament play is not the only thing played. The vigilus and urban conquest books are further hints that there are other playstyles used beyond eternal war (otherwize these books wouldn't sell and GW wouldn't produce them).

Bharring wrote:
People want different things. To some, the fix should make Allies not possible. To others, make it only token presences of minor forces alongside the main host. To others, it should be totally viable that half your army be Imperial Guard and the other half Marines. Or Traitor Marines and Demons.

I'd like to see Soup still viable but not as optimal as now. For that, you need to disincentivize soup instead of outright penalize or deny it.

To that end, my favorite is still the "Detachments Cost CP" suggestion that pops up in Proposed Rules from time to time. You can find the details there. But it would make using more detatchements cost CP instead of give CP - which would mean you can soup, but it'll cost you. Currently, souping typically means you get more CP.

This. I can get behind taking ally units for thematic units. I can even be for taking an ally unit cause that unit is intrinsically useful or makes up an in game gap. What I really hate is BS like the loyal 32 whose presence suddenly makes other units better via CP they shouldn't have access to.

This really goes back to the fact that GW should be pegged to points or generated in game, not based on taking cheap screening units to fill out a chart for as least points as possible and then just add Knights

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

Forcing patrol, battalion or super heavy aux benefit only the Empire, who can build cheap detachments and will punish eldar.
Eldar don`t build brigades because its super expensive.
AM can deploy brigade for less than 800 pts and harlequins need 1300, so for the some amount of points AM can easily get 5 more CP and have space for nasty staff like knights, custodes ......
The only real solution is to lower the CP given by battalions and brigades.
Patrol, Command, Super +1 CP
Battalion +3
Brigade +5
Vanguard, Spearhead +2, Super Heavy(4 for knights).
With that you can soup, but you will have few points and will not be able to break the bank for all the relics and spam strat durring game.

I 100% think Battaltions and Brigades should go back to 3/9 CPs per the ORIGINAL printed BRB, but then 1 of 2 possible changes (or both) should be added:

A) Being Battle Forged should give 3CPs PER TURN if your WL is still alive. These would generate at the start of each Battle Round

-OR-

B) Detachments gain DOUBLE CPs if they share the same non-Battle Brother keyword as your WL.
So adding the Loyal 32 to your Knights only give you 3CPs unless you make one of those HQs your WL, in which is give 6CPs.
But why would you want to do that when your Knight Detachment would have double CPs if you make a Knight your WL.

Either change would put less emphasis on taking cheap X to give your Y more CPs and more emphasis on making your army share a non-BB keyword.

-

Marin wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

Forcing patrol, battalion or super heavy aux benefit only the Empire, who can build cheap detachments and will punish eldar.
Eldar don`t build brigades because its super expensive.
AM can deploy brigade for less than 800 pts and harlequins need 1300, so for the some amount of points AM can easily get 5 more CP and have space for nasty staff like knights, custodes ......
The only real solution is to lower the CP given by battalions and brigades.
Patrol, Command, Super +1 CP
Battalion +3
Brigade +5
Vanguard, Spearhead +2, Super Heavy(4 for knights).
With that you can soup, but you will have few points and will not be able to break the bank for all the relics and spam strat durring game.

This just moves the line and doesn't solve anything. Cheap IG still get more CP per point.

Pushing IG and Castellans up in points just a hair sorts them out pretty quickly. I'm also not sure why anyone would brigade Harlies.

Or make it to where an imperial knight in anything but a pure imperial knight list gives negative command points depending on its power level/impact. So for instance the Castellan.. it could be like -5 command points. This puts imperium players with loyal 32 in a weird spot, because they think “but I needs those there command points for my cool things I can do that are fun for everyone” (ensure this is read with inbred esque accent) and they will have to think a little harder on what to do. Could be more like -10 command points and I still that that’s generous.

 Dysartes wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
oh no, people enjoy playing the game in a different manner to myself! better bitch and moan about the fact that GW didn't cater literally everything in every single issue of their magazine to my specific niche of the demographic!

Grow up.

 SHUPPET wrote:
People playing the ruleset competitively isn't the problem, that's the best thing a game can have.

Not if the game isn't designed for it, it isn't - I'm pretty sure playing "competitive" (by which I assume you're meaning tournament) games with a Polemos system, for example, just won't work.

"Grow up" says the guy moaning on a forum that other people enjoy playing the game in a way that he personally does not



What the hell is a Polemos system? I have never heard that word and find no definition that makes a coherent sentence out of that

Regardless, this argument doesn't hold up anyway - GW IS designing for that, theyve outright said so. Not that you'd be right even if it wasn't.

Greek mythos. Polemos is a demon, that is sorta like an avatar of war. (I know the Greek myth where he comes from does not corespond with the term avatar, but it is a good way to explain it.) I agree that the sentence is porply worded.

ANYWAY: Do anybody have any thoughts on the Battle Report? I love reading them. The pictures and the small diagrams. All are very cool. And painted armies. So nice.

I found that explanation, I just don't understand what the sentence "I'm pretty sure playing "competitive" (by which I assume you're meaning tournament) games with a avatar of war system, for example, just won't work."

And thats the most logical interpretation I could make of the sentence.

 Niiai wrote:

ANYWAY: Do anybody have any thoughts on the Battle Report? I love reading them. The pictures and the small diagrams. All are very cool. And painted armies. So nice.

My copy is delayed.

Did they do the old school style diagrams with the little explosion symbols?

Yes. It is so pretty.

 SHUPPET wrote:
What the hell is a Polemos system? I have never heard that word and find no definition that makes a coherent sentence out of that

Regardless, this argument doesn't hold up anyway - GW IS designing for that, theyve outright said so. Not that you'd be right even if it wasn't.

Polemos is the branding for a range of historical rules sets produced by Baccus 6mm.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many historical games (excluding Warlord's output, Flames of War, and DBM) are ill-suited to "competitive" play, and that approaching them in such a mindset is a good way to have a terrible experience with them.

Please cut out the back and forth and name calling, rule 1 is be polite and you are expected to follow it all the time.

Hi All, I'm the Aeldari player from this battle report.

Just to feedback on some of the points raised here - i can confirm that we were asked to bring "competitive" armies and basically bring our A game to the party, so bear that in mind if you think our lists were cheesy.

Currently I actually think Knights have slid down the power tree a bit, especially post FAQ. As for my own list, I'd argue that it was solid, if not top tier. Most competitive Craftworlds lists have Ynnari, and they certainly don't have any vypers!

Hope you all enjoyed the report, we had a blast doing it, and I also wrote an article on the day itself for our website:

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

I thought it was a great match liam. Pay bo attensions to the haters. I love a good battlereport with good models. It was a delight to not have unbalanced armies against each other, as some battle reports can be sometimes.

Competive is just one way to play, just like cassual or just painting is. I like to see the journalisemn (and that is what white dwarf is to some degree) cover all aspects of gaming. I remember when flyers came in 6th edition, and 8th edition is most certanly a step in the right direction regarding balance. Although, there is stil some way to go. Wait for some more updates on the points and rules and I think we are there.

 liam0404 wrote:
Hi All, I'm the Aeldari player from this battle report.

Just to feedback on some of the points raised here - i can confirm that we were asked to bring "competitive" armies and basically bring our A game to the party, so bear that in mind if you think our lists were cheesy.

Currently I actually think Knights have slid down the power tree a bit, especially post FAQ. As for my own list, I'd argue that it was solid, if not top tier. Most competitive Craftworlds lists have Ynnari, and they certainly don't have any vypers!

Hope you all enjoyed the report, we had a blast doing it, and I also wrote an article on the day itself for our website:

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

it's a very small subset people upset about others "having fun wrong". I wouldn't worry about it. Great to see a different facet of the game getting play in a White Dwarf, well done

I don't disagree with the players and I'm glad they have fun.

I believe the discontent expressed by others and myself is more reasonably directed at the editorial decisions made by the magazine itself.

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

Nice read

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

This is kinda the problem with allies. Like any mechanic, it can be abused. I agree as an Imperium player I love that I can combine smaller IOM factions together to create fun lists. I don't own a knight and don't feel they belong in a normal game of 40k. But at the same time I don't want to loss the ability to take an inquisitor with my marines or recreate certain novel team ups like Sisters of Battle and Admech.

This gets back to the core issue with 40k, both players need to have the same goals and expectation from the game or it likely won't be fun for either of them.

I think this is very core to the issue of 40k as the design of 40k does not even seem to have the same goals with each other.
At this point the design of 40k should be fairly stable, but it seems that often the people heading up that design will change it at a whim. Between army releases.
And we get left with a game that still seems to have no sense of its scale or intended systems. It’s all over the place. And mostly could be cleaned up if they wanted too.

Soup should allways be slightly toned down. It’s an option but never the go too for top tier. But it can be close.
You can do rules for it if you plan for it, even things like knights would have been great if it was an army. With support and auxiliary units. Thought out, outside of easy money. But people pay so I think this is just the way it will go, ether successfully or till collapse.

Apple fox wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

This is kinda the problem with allies. Like any mechanic, it can be abused. I agree as an Imperium player I love that I can combine smaller IOM factions together to create fun lists. I don't own a knight and don't feel they belong in a normal game of 40k. But at the same time I don't want to loss the ability to take an inquisitor with my marines or recreate certain novel team ups like Sisters of Battle and Admech.

This gets back to the core issue with 40k, both players need to have the same goals and expectation from the game or it likely won't be fun for either of them.

I think this is very core to the issue of 40k as the design of 40k does not even seem to have the same goals with each other.
At this point the design of 40k should be fairly stable, but it seems that often the people heading up that design will change it at a whim. Between army releases.
And we get left with a game that still seems to have no sense of its scale or intended systems. It’s all over the place. And mostly could be cleaned up if they wanted too.

Soup should allways be slightly toned down. It’s an option but never the go too for top tier. But it can be close.
You can do rules for it if you plan for it, even things like knights would have been great if it was an army. With support and auxiliary units. Thought out, outside of easy money. But people pay so I think this is just the way it will go, ether successfully or till collapse.

Precisely. The issue is that they design for cool, not balance. I doubt they give more than a cursory glance at balance (despite claiming they do; you can claim something all you want but the evidence shows otherwise) which is why each new army seems to have some wonky gimmick that is seemingly built without understanding how it interacts with the rest of the game.

The problem with soup/allies is if an army is designed around not having access to a lot of CP to power Stratagems, as I believe Imperial Knights were (hence why their stratagems are so good), then allowing something like the Loyal 32 completely nullifies that drawback by providing a cheap way to get extra CP. That right there is the problem. A cheap way to get CP when stratagems are seemingly designed around CP being limited (and stratagems are too polarizing in my opinion; one of the worst decisions they made was to give every army its own set of stratagems as part of their relative power) breaks open the game because now you can do the important stratagems easily.

Fix being able to take CP generated by the Loyal 32 and its ilk and use it on your "real" units, and you fix most of the problems in the game. Not completely, since that would require a rework of CP and stratagems in general (perhaps to something more like AOS 2.0 has) and because competitive players will always find loopholes as long as they try to twist 40k into a competitive game when its rules are barely suitable for that purpose, but it'll be a good step towards solving a major problem.

I'm continually amused by the fact the AOS team seems to take a lot more pride and interest in designing a good game (although they don't always get it right as AOS has its outliers but they are nowhere near as large as the gaps are in 40k), while the 40k team still tries to do the same old "That sounds cool, let's do it!" mentality from 6th and 7th edition.

I'm continually amused by the fact the AOS team seems to take a lot more pride and interest in designing a good game (although they don't always get it right as AOS has its outliers but they are nowhere near as large as the gaps are in 40k), while the 40k team still tries to do the same old "That sounds cool, let's do it!" mentality from 6th and 7th edition.

I do believe AoS team has a much smaller task at hand than the 40k team. AoS is not beholden to old units, options, or a large established line so they can limit the scope of a lot of what they do. Doesn't help that over the years some lines have been padded more than others and you have a lot of redundancy compared to a more small focused army like the Daughters of Khaine. Although, to be fair I do fear that they are now slowly developing the same issue with Stormcast and all the new models they get on a regular basis.

This is why I love the detatchments-cost-CP suggestion, where even Battalions/Brigades/Patrols aren't free: an Imperial player can still bring a Battalion of Guardsmen to support his Marines and Knight - but instead of the additional Battalion providing more CP, it costs.

So sure, you can play Imperium. You can play Knights and add the Loyal32 and have 30 (pairs of) boots on the ground. At appropriate cost. Because `appropriate cost` shouldn't incude *bonus* CP for souping.

The idea is that Soup would still be viable, but that both soup and mono would each have upsdies. And this does it with a light touch, and without needing to get into the "What is a faction" discussion.

Bharring wrote:
This is why I love the detatchments-cost-CP suggestion, where even Battalions/Brigades/Patrols aren't free: an Imperial player can still bring a Battalion of Guardsmen to support his Marines and Knight - but instead of the additional Battalion providing more CP, it costs.

So sure, you can play Imperium. You can play Knights and add the Loyal32 and have 30 (pairs of) boots on the ground. At appropriate cost. Because `appropriate cost` shouldn't incude *bonus* CP for souping.

The idea is that Soup would still be viable, but that both soup and mono would each have upsdies. And this does it with a light touch, and without needing to get into the "What is a faction" discussion.

I actually really like this idea, and I play eldar soup. I would find it having me sometimes bring soup and dealing with less CP, or sometimes choosing which eldar faction I primarily want to play.

I agree. Working backwards helps those Monolists that can't compete by themselves due to them not being able to use gimmicks that make them work.

GRANTED units shouldn't be priced around being able to use a Strategem and they should be viable on their own, but that's a different discussion.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I'm continually amused by the fact the AOS team seems to take a lot more pride and interest in designing a good game (although they don't always get it right as AOS has its outliers but they are nowhere near as large as the gaps are in 40k), while the 40k team still tries to do the same old "That sounds cool, let's do it!" mentality from 6th and 7th edition.

I do believe AoS team has a much smaller task at hand than the 40k team. AoS is not beholden to old units, options, or a large established line so they can limit the scope of a lot of what they do. Doesn't help that over the years some lines have been padded more than others and you have a lot of redundancy compared to a more small focused army like the Daughters of Khaine. Although, to be fair I do fear that they are now slowly developing the same issue with Stormcast and all the new models they get on a regular basis.

AOS is doing better, but after all this time I am still amazed at how bare it seems. Like it takes GW twice as long and with twice the words to say half as much as they should have been able to.
I got the recent starter set and was very disappointed, read the rule book though. And all I could think was how bland it was, like they said a lot of basic stuff that went nowhere. Not something I want to see from a company like GW.
Even the factions are being drowned out by the stormcast, or distilled down to the most bare bones they can be.
But at least it seems like most factions are at least playing the same game most of the time.

Bharring wrote:
This is why I love the detatchments-cost-CP suggestion, where even Battalions/Brigades/Patrols aren't free: an Imperial player can still bring a Battalion of Guardsmen to support his Marines and Knight - but instead of the additional Battalion providing more CP, it costs.

So sure, you can play Imperium. You can play Knights and add the Loyal32 and have 30 (pairs of) boots on the ground. At appropriate cost. Because `appropriate cost` shouldn't incude *bonus* CP for souping.

The idea is that Soup would still be viable, but that both soup and mono would each have upsdies. And this does it with a light touch, and without needing to get into the "What is a faction" discussion.

LoL and am not laughing at you or the proposition, but the impact it would have on armies like GK. Can you imagine GK somehow finding free 5-6CP to take 32 IG ? Would be hilarious to watch GK playing with no heed or re-rolls.

I would imagine they'd have a much easier time finding the CP than most other factions, as they're more expensive so would use fewer detatchments themselves. Which would cost *fewer* CP than more detatchments.

GK would still be trash, though.

But fewer detachments would mean less CP, and heed costs 2CP, which means you have 6CP immobile no matter what. Plus if GK cost more, and get fewer CP themselfs, they just wouldn't be able to take other faction detachments, because they would either not be able to pay the point, the CP cost, or both.

GK cant' take 2 cheap HQs and 3x5 scouts. Because our scouts cost 20pts, and our cheapest working HQ is the GM in NDK armour.

 Kommisar wrote:
It's refreshing that they're finally acknowledging that this is how most people play.

Err, what?

Nnnnnnnoooooo?

This is how most high-level tournament players play. High-level tournament players are a very small minority.

"But fewer detachments would mean less CP"
Please reread the suggestion. It is, in fact, the opposite. The suggestion was that each detatchment cost CP - thus, fewer detatchments means *more* CP.

But we're way OT. If you want to discuss further, find one of the Proposed Rules threads (or start a new one, we're overdue for it...)

AdmiralHalsey wrote:I don't disagree with the players and I'm glad they have fun.

I believe the discontent expressed by others and myself is more reasonably directed at the editorial decisions made by the magazine itself.

I don't find that any more reasonable. Why aren't the editors allowed to enjoy the game this way, or cater to the very large portion of their customer base who does, from time to time?

 SHUPPET wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:I don't disagree with the players and I'm glad they have fun.

I believe the discontent expressed by others and myself is more reasonably directed at the editorial decisions made by the magazine itself.

I don't find that any more reasonable. Why aren't the editors allowed to enjoy the game this way, or cater to the very large portion of their customer base who does, from time to time?

I think it has little to do with competitive players, it’s that the soup is so powerful and dominates the landscape of the game.
If a players was to go in as a competing player wanting to play blood angels, is that even viable?
Or is the best blood angel list to take as few blood angels as possible and good stuff from other places.

It’s a bit of a chimera of fluff and gameplay. A way to remove interesting game eliments from design, removing as much of what should make each faction unique to play.
It’s bad game design I think at this point :(

I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

 SHUPPET wrote:
I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

100% I welcome competitive content in the mag, and I hope it gets the care from the creative team to support it. Balance does not need to be perfect, it needs to be close enough. That a player can turn up with a well thought out and faction specific army and have a chance at winning a standard game. What we see on the table should resemble the story and fluff as well, which I think GW could work on a lot better.
Rule of cool should never be an excuse away from something being dumb, things that are cool are just cool.

Apple fox wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

100% I welcome competitive content in the mag, and I hope it gets the care from the creative team to support it. Balance does not need to be perfect, it needs to be close enough. That a player can turn up with a well thought out and faction specific army and have a chance at winning a standard game. What we see on the table should resemble the story and fluff as well, which I think GW could work on a lot better.
Rule of cool should never be an excuse away from something being dumb, things that are cool are just cool.

For sure. I don't really disagree with any of that. Though I think balance, and fixing idiotic soup rules, should be a priority. But you probably agree with that too.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

100% I welcome competitive content in the mag, and I hope it gets the care from the creative team to support it. Balance does not need to be perfect, it needs to be close enough. That a player can turn up with a well thought out and faction specific army and have a chance at winning a standard game. What we see on the table should resemble the story and fluff as well, which I think GW could work on a lot better.
Rule of cool should never be an excuse away from something being dumb, things that are cool are just cool.

For sure. I don't really disagree with any of that. Though I think balance, and fixing idiotic soup rules, should be a priority. But you probably agree with that too.

I do not disagree but I think in a lot of cases it’s one and the same. So much of the games wonkyness comes from GW going, make something cool. Rather than goeing what could fit well into this faction or the game.

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

I'm going to politely disagree, I like soup in my local meta

I like my friends being able to bring a knight to backup his space wolves or grey knights ...

I like friends being able to bring things they bought, assembled and lovingly painted to the accepted 'Matched Play' rules that WE agree is the fairest game version FOR US ... rather than trying to hammer it into PL/Open/Narrative because someone on the internet decided that it's not right.

What I dislike is that it happens to be the most competitive option and as a Necrons player ... if I'm not souping (Novokh +Sautekh + Nihilakh) then my lists massively underperform and I'm handicapping myself by not doing it .. despite the fluff 100% being against Dynasties working together ...

so yeah the conflict is real ... players should be able to play what they want AND not feel forced to only take the tippiemost topmost efficient units to even stand a chance

Well, personal preferences here.
But mixing to the max by using the best units from several worlds is garbage if you ask me.
In friendly games, you will not make many friends.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Given that they have existed in most editions, but it's only really been 7th and 8th that have brought complaints, maybe, just maybe, the answer isn't to "just get over it" but to balance the allies rules properly in the first place?

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Given that they have existed in most editions, but it's only really been 7th and 8th that have brought complaints, maybe, just maybe, the answer isn't to "just get over it" but to balance the allies rules properly in the first place?

No. The issue is the balancing units issue GW has gotten progressively worse at.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Please stop bringing up that false analogy. They weren't even close to what we have now, not by a long shot. Being able to take restricted things from the =][= codexes for example is not the same as being able to cherry pick the best units from each imperial codex.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Please stop bringing up that false analogy. They weren't even close to what we have now, not by a long shot. Being able to take restricted things from the =][= codexes for example is not the same as being able to cherry pick the best units from each imperial codex.

Leaving the equivalent allies rules as being 2nd, 6th and 7th, with restricted allies in 3rd and 4th. In 2nd you could only have 25% of the army as allies, but you could take anything you wanted. I don't remember if/how they worked in 1st. Regardless, mixed armies is a thing, has almost always been a thing, and will likely continue to be a thing.

I don't recall allies being a thing at all in 3rd edition; certainly nobody I played it with ever used allies unless it was some prearranged narrative thing.

The way allies work now is downright disgusting, probably the worst that mechanic has ever been. Being able to completely ignore a drawback that has been baked into your faction as part of its balance just throws everything out of whack. Regardless of how allies was before, other than perhaps 7th edition with that Taudar nonsense, it has never been as bad as we see it today.

Wayniac wrote:
I don't recall allies being a thing at all in 3rd edition; certainly nobody I played it with ever used allies unless it was some prearranged narrative thing.

The way allies work now is downright disgusting, probably the worst that mechanic has ever been. Being able to completely ignore a drawback that has been baked into your faction as part of its balance just throws everything out of whack. Regardless of how allies was before, other than perhaps 7th edition with that Taudar nonsense, it has never been as bad as we see it today.

Allies in 3rd were Daemonhunters/Withchunters combining with other Imperial armies. I think the Renegades list from codex Armageddon either allowed allies or provided a way to use several codexes in a combined army. Its possible that side armies in Citadel Journal (such as Genestealer Cults and Harlequins) allowed it as well, although I cant recall.

Also, some codexes were more combined back then. Chaos, Daemons, Death Guard and Thousand Sons were all in the same book. Allying is required to build some armies you could have built with a single book back then.

Obviously allies is a system that can be abused, but thats what flexibility brings. The CP generation seems the biggest culprit, imo. As for armies being able to cover their weaknesses, that doesn't really bother me, as codexes are varied in their amount of "completion" to begin with.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Please stop bringing up that false analogy. They weren't even close to what we have now, not by a long shot. Being able to take restricted things from the =][= codexes for example is not the same as being able to cherry pick the best units from each imperial codex.

Leaving the equivalent allies rules as being 2nd, 6th and 7th, with restricted allies in 3rd and 4th. In 2nd you could only have 25% of the army as allies, but you could take anything you wanted. I don't remember if/how they worked in 1st. Regardless, mixed armies is a thing, has almost always been a thing, and will likely continue to be a thing.

Bingo. There's also situations from various units and armies like Harlequins, Assassins, how Custodes were introduced, and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I don't recall allies being a thing at all in 3rd edition; certainly nobody I played it with ever used allies unless it was some prearranged narrative thing.

The way allies work now is downright disgusting, probably the worst that mechanic has ever been. Being able to completely ignore a drawback that has been baked into your faction as part of its balance just throws everything out of whack. Regardless of how allies was before, other than perhaps 7th edition with that Taudar nonsense, it has never been as bad as we see it today.

Allies in 3rd were Daemonhunters/Withchunters combining with other Imperial armies. I think the Renegades list from codex Armageddon either allowed allies or provided a way to use several codexes in a combined army. Its possible that side armies in Citadel Journal (such as Genestealer Cults and Harlequins) allowed it as well, although I cant recall.

Also, some codexes were more combined back then. Chaos, Daemons, Death Guard and Thousand Sons were all in the same book. Allying is required to build some armies you could have built with a single book back then.

Obviously allies is a system that can be abused, but thats what flexibility brings. The CP generation seems the biggest culprit, imo. As for armies being able to cover their weaknesses, that doesn't really bother me, as codexes are varied in their amount of "completion" to begin with.

Even leaving allies out of the equation, the previous two CSM codices allowed me to use Typhus and Ahriman in the same detachment.

So anyone talking about defiling fluff can honestly just shut up about it.