I am looking for some ideas how to make mono codex armies more competitive and a level playing field to soup lists. Right now mono faction lists are not viable to win a tournament since they can’t fix their weakness like soup lists can. Here are a few of my ideas of varying power adjustments:
1) Incread the +3 CP to +5 CP if your army is battleforged. You only receive these points if all your detachments share the same keyword.
2) You only receive the benefits from Chapter Traits if all your detachments share the same keyword (you still get relics and warlord traits)
3) If all of your detachments share the same keyword add +1 to your go first roll and seize roll at the beginning of the game.
and feth up quite a lot of decent army ideas. better to give allies the "Brood Brothers" treatment from the new GSC codex:
no named characters
no obsec
no relics
no warlord
no chapter tactics/regiments/equivalent
detachments only generate half the normal CP value
its a great way to reign in the abuses without killing soup entirely, which would make the game a lesser thing.
Troops would still get Obsec, as that is a battleforged rule for armies, and as far as I read, isn't disallowed by Brood Brothers.
Everything else I could see being done.
Could also limit it to one detachment per your main faction detachment, much like GSC and BBAM.
Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs. Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.
The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs. But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases
That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions
Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.
The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (jus using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you are won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc.
That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions
-
One thing to consider, is that the Imperial Knights Warlord Trait and Relic stratagems are designed to be used when the faction is NOT your main faction.
Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.
The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases
That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions
-
Unless your changing the strategum rules to prevent them from non warlord codex's that's how the castellen list currently works, the knight gets warlord trait and relic via strategums.
Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.
The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (jus using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you are won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc.
That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions
-
One thing to consider, is that the Imperial Knights Warlord Trait and Relic stratagems are designed to be used when the faction is NOT your main faction.
Disagree with that, as it specifically calls out that all of the imperial Knight's warlord traits in your army must be different.
The relic strategum has similar callouts to stop you stacking relics etc.
Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.
The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases
That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions
-
Unless your changing the strategum rules to prevent them from non warlord codex's that's how the castellen list currently works, the knight gets warlord trait and relic via strategums.
Relics, sure, but I thought a Knight had to be WL to gain, ya know, a WL trait. That strat that grants WL traits needs to be FAQ'd to mean "once you choose a KNIGHT WL", then you get the extra Traits.
Other than that one-off oddity, and maybe another exception somewhere else, my suggestion would absolutely work to encourage mono-faction lists above Soup.
Heck, even without the FAQ, my proposal would STILL give more CPs that the Knight would ever need the Loyal 32 for. Because Kngiht detachments would get double CPs if they choose a Knight WL.
ServiceGames wrote: Keep in mind that I'm a hobbyist, not a gamer. But, I've watched batreps and been lurking on this forum for a long time.
I think if you got rid of Command Points and Strategems, Mono-Codex armies would become much more common.
My $0.02
SG
Well, yes. CP and Stratagems seemed like a good idea but quickly spiraled out of control; if it was just the basic ones in the BRB it would be fine but adding special snowflake rules to everyone was a huge mistake, probably one of the worst (IMHO) of 8th edition. The main issue is faction-specific stratagems. Being able to re-roll a die, or auto pass Morale or interrupt to fight, even some of the mission-specific ones you find (or the narrative ones) was not a problem at all and I doubt anyone would care. It's the OP faction ones as well as unlocking them just by taking a different detachment which allows for some stacking across stratagems that work off of keyword-only that's the problem
However, let's be real this will never happen without a new edition, and unlikely even then.
- Command points based on game points level.
- Broadly balance units and points. Don't have smash-captains and the like that are just clearly better than the alternatives.
- Stratagem unlock conditions (i.e. common pool, warlord faction only, majority points faction only)
- Consolidate or expand 'minor' factions so that they don't need allies to function.
- Improve codex synergy, anything from specific mixes (i.e. speeders spotting for artillery) to generic rules (i.e. +1 to overwatch while within 3" of another codex infantry squad)
Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.
The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases
That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions
-
Unless your changing the strategum rules to prevent them from non warlord codex's that's how the castellen list currently works, the knight gets warlord trait and relic via strategums.
Relics, sure, but I thought a Knight had to be WL to gain, ya know, a WL trait. That strat that grants WL traits needs to be FAQ'd to mean "once you choose a KNIGHT WL", then you get the extra Traits.
Other than that one-off oddity, and maybe another exception somewhere else, my suggestion would absolutely work to encourage mono-faction lists above Soup.
Heck, even without the FAQ, my proposal would STILL give more CPs that the Knight would ever need the Loyal 32 for. Because Kngiht detachments would get double CPs if they choose a Knight WL.
-
I'd be down for that FAQ, but oh boy would the salt be unreal.
The other issue is thr currently meta guard brigade + Castellen without the strategum change would be rocking an AM warlord a 9CP battalion which is doubled to 18 then add 3CP for battleforged.
Thats 21 CP instead of the current 15, though they can make it to 20 battalion & brigade if they chase CP.
Realy Astra Militarum need the brood brother rule to apply to their detachments period and then we might get somewhere.
Here is an unorthodox, extreme and altogether unrealistic idea: Matched Play only allows for the 3 basic stratagems in the core rulebook and, if applicable, any stratagems allowed by the mission (e.g. some Maelstrom missions give you a stratagem to pick new cards).
No faction stratagems are allowed in Matched Play games, they are the domain of Narrative and Open Play. In theory, this would mean you could still agree with your opponent to use the faction stratagems, or that TOs could adjust their tournament packs to allow them, but given how often anything suggested for Matched Play is taken as gospel, it would remove the major issue. Matched Play is supposed to be balanced after all right? That's always the argument you hear about it compared to other styles of play. Faction stratagems aren't balanced. Ergo, they shouldn't be in Matched Play.
If everyone only had access to the 3 basic stratagems (and any provided by the mission), CP suddenly becomes way less of a huge deal. Nobody will really care about CP farming if you only get to re-roll a single die, auto pass a morale check or interrupt a charge to fight with a unit of your own, or discard/draw some cards from your Tactical Objectives deck in a maelstrom mission. But it would remove a lot of the potentially game-changing stratagems that you see.
Mono-faction aren’t broken. Soup as it stands is broken. Therefore you don’t need to fix or boost mono-faction, just rein in Soup.
Adopt the ‘half CP’ rule from GSC for all armies. And introduce a Parent Faction type rule. Something along the lines that X% of your points needs to spent on units with that Keyword. That then prevents Loyal 32 shenanigans from continuing.
Whilst not an expert by any stretch, that seems to resolve many of the most common complaints about 8th Ed.
Just make it so stratagems cannot effect super heavy auxillary units, and remove the Supreme Command detachment.
So if you want that Castellan, you're paying at minimum 350+ points for the Armigers instead of maxing out on Guard units.
Maybe make the Knight's Super Heavy Detachment give +0 CP unless 2 Titanic units are taken instead of just 1 as well, so if you want CP from your Castellan's detachment you're taking at minimum 1100 points of Knights.
I'd also be OK with a rule saying all stratagems used by your army must be from the codex of your Warlord, that would seem fair.
Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
If you're going to limit matched play to the boring core rulebook stratagems then just remove CP and stratagems entirely. It's a pointless mechanic if you cut out 95% of it.
I’m not sure changing stuff just to nix a particularly abusive combo is really solving anything. After all, you’re not discouraging Soup, or giving it a drawback. You’re just changing what the worst you can do with Soup looks like.
And I firmly believe Soup, as a concept, is actually fine overall as a thematic thing. It just the current execution is lacking.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
Soup is only "fine" if you're GW's marketing department and want to sell the latest space marine release to everyone regardless of what faction they actually play.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
So just feth factions that can't do soup, right? All those Tau/Necron/Ork players should just feth off and switch to Imperium or Chaos, right?
KurtAngle2 wrote: Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
So just feth factions that can't do soup, right? All those Tau/Necron/Ork players should just feth off and switch to Imperium or Chaos, right?
KurtAngle2 wrote: Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
So just feth factions that can't do soup, right? All those Tau/Necron/Ork players should just feth off and switch to Imperium or Chaos, right?
"Yes." - GW Marketing.
Well duh, but we know GW marketing is stupid and not relevant to the discussion BCB
-Remove the +3CP from battleforged. Your army only gains those +3CP if all Detachments are of the same subfaction.
-Subfactions can only use the CP generated by detachments of that subfaction.
-Change the Command Benefits of Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachment from +1 CP to +2CP.
Wayniac wrote:Here is an unorthodox, extreme and altogether unrealistic idea: Matched Play only allows for the 3 basic stratagems in the core rulebook and, if applicable, any stratagems allowed by the mission (e.g. some Maelstrom missions give you a stratagem to pick new cards).
No faction stratagems are allowed in Matched Play games, they are the domain of Narrative and Open Play. In theory, this would mean you could still agree with your opponent to use the faction stratagems, or that TOs could adjust their tournament packs to allow them, but given how often anything suggested for Matched Play is taken as gospel, it would remove the major issue. Matched Play is supposed to be balanced after all right? That's always the argument you hear about it compared to other styles of play. Faction stratagems aren't balanced. Ergo, they shouldn't be in Matched Play.
If everyone only had access to the 3 basic stratagems (and any provided by the mission), CP suddenly becomes way less of a huge deal. Nobody will really care about CP farming if you only get to re-roll a single die, auto pass a morale check or interrupt a charge to fight with a unit of your own, or discard/draw some cards from your Tactical Objectives deck in a maelstrom mission. But it would remove a lot of the potentially game-changing stratagems that you see.
That sounds like an incredibly bland game. No thanks.
KurtAngle2 wrote:Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
So if we aren't playing Imperial or Eldar, we're playing the game the wrong way? You're aware that some Xenos factions (like Necrons and Orks) have zero options for allies.
ServiceGames wrote: What factions are considered minor? Aren't all codex armies big enough to form their own army?
To varying degrees custodes, deathwatch, knights, and harlequins are all highly limited. Beyond them you have the various non-codex factions that range from poor with(out) allies (sisters) to worthless as anything but allies (inquisition sisters of silence, etc).
There are numerous ways to fix it, and we've seen GW tackle some bizarre issues lately, so I'd say there is some minor hope - but...the main issue is obviously soup, and soup sells models. So, it's likely to not be properly addressed, possibly ever.
Soup should have been a fluffy, cool, option which offered little in the way of benefits. Instead it's an all-powerful, game changing meta-shift which is absolutely a bonus.
Mono-codex armies are punished.
Early mono-codex armies are punished doubly so with the slow but inevitable power creep in codex writing, etc.
Could it be fixed? Absolutely. Will it? No, I don't think so.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
Soup is only "fine" if you're GW's marketing department and want to sell the latest space marine release to everyone regardless of what faction they actually play.
soup is also needed if you are a fan of some of the interesting minor factions or particular interesting but non-competitive forces. like say, an inquisition strike team. that DOESN'T WORK without soup being a thing. Yes I play it in narrative, but being able to take it to events for a good time is a bonus I would not gladly relinquish. I would however gladly give up some of the benefits of the "allies" detachments in order to keep it as a viable idea.
There was a T'au player in the top 8 of LVO so I think they are in a pretty good spot. Nick piloting Orks lost his game to Alex who took second at LVO with yanarri by 1 point. I feel like that has more to do with mistakes he made rather than the strength of the codex. Orks have also made a decent showing at other tourneys leading many top tier players thinking that they would do pretty well in LVO. I still don't think they were wrong there could have easily been an Ork win had Nick won that game. The only mono codex that needs help IMO is Necrons. They are the only ones that have consistently done poorly since getting a codex. The thought of a mono codex tourney sounds interesting. However, I'm pretty sure it would just be dominated by DE, Orks, and T'au. This is of course all speculation because soup is not going anywhere soon. The only reason this keeps coming up is because there are a couple codexes out there that cannot actually ally with anything right now. I do think this will change with future releases but in the mean time its really just people yelling "ThEy HaVe MoRe ToYs ThAn Me!!!!11111
Wayniac wrote: Here is an unorthodox, extreme and altogether unrealistic idea: Matched Play only allows for the 3 basic stratagems in the core rulebook and, if applicable, any stratagems allowed by the mission (e.g. some Maelstrom missions give you a stratagem to pick new cards).
.
this makes GK even worse, GK have all their good rules put in to stratagems. If GW decides to move ammo and heed in to unit rules, then it is ok. But without those GK are even worse DW, theya re right now.
Well if we postulate that current soup will be hardly removed, I prefer the idea to encourage mono-codex list rather to impair soup lists. More options the better as far as I'm concerned.
Or maybe just fix factions that doesn't have the possibility to soup (Mainly xenos) ?
Something like adding a particular keyword ([mercenary], [rogue], [freelancer], whatever) to some xeno units, which allow to allt in a subset of factions (Necron, Tau, Orks, as they are the ones missing). I'm no rule lawyer but you get the idea.
And voilà, anyone has access to soup and you get to build crazy lists.
Fluff problem ? Well if you consider current soup lists as fluffy I don't know what to tell you...
All these subfaction/must have 2 keyword in common still foesnt help orks and hinders us even more into taking mono clan so we will definitely left doingnone trick ponies(evil sunz teleyporta/badmoon loota spam nonesense).
Orks are designed to use multiple clans in one list.
All these approaches are to macro scale, cant fix issues like this with sweeping changes for everyone. Need to tackle each 'grand alliance' faction and each xeno race individually. Imperium needs less bonuses for allying up and eldar need more limitations in how they team up(mainly doom and yannari need a tweak) and i am clueless to what chaos needs
Then how about we listen to the Cults codex and just impose a 50% penalty on non-primary faction CP generation? It's simpler than most suggestions by a mile and they've already done it once.
If you want to encourage mono-codex armies you need to give people a reason to run them over soup. At the moment there is absolutely no incentive for anyone capable of running allies not to do so. There need to be restrictions placed on what soup armies have access to and the most reasonable suggestions for this seem to be to do with restricting CPs and stratagems. It needs to be a genuine choice at the list building stage as to whether you soup or not, otherwise Imperium will likely continue to dominate. There's simply no way to compete with an army that has literally 20 times more choice than your army does, simply because it's an Imperium force and you're stuck with Necrons.
Then how about we listen to the Cults codex and just impose a 50% penalty on non-primary faction CP generation? It's simpler than most suggestions by a mile and they've already done it once.
Doesn't stop Loyal 32, as they'll just be declared the Primary Faction. The others combo'd with them only generate 1CP, so aren't otherwise affected by the '50% rounded up' rule.
If your list contains units from multiple factions then it is considered a Battleforged Alliance.
A Battleforged Alliance starts with 2CP and every detatchment in the Alliance provides 2CP. Even your Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead/Air Wing that normally provide 1CP provide 2, but the benefits of a Battallion or Brigade are mitigated.
This way the maximum CP available to soup armies is 8. Which is a reasonable amount I think.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: How about just reformatting army codices? There would be Codex Necron, Codex Tau, Codex Orks, Codex Chaos, Codex Alderi (sp?) and Codex Imperium.
There, mono codex armies are fixed. Then GW might be able to balance units within each codex to help with that aspect of the game as well.
That likely will never happen, and that's really just ignoring the issue anyways and saying "Look soup is now one faction gg". So it doesn't even address the problem.
Let's be honest there are two major issues with soup:
1) CP farming from a cheap battalion (e.g. Loyal 32) to power things with powerful stratagems (e.g. Castellan) built around the concept their CP will be limited therefore stratagems should be more powerful
2) Allowing you to completely ignore your army weakness by taking units from another faction to circumvent it e.g. taking a guard gunline and then taking Blood Angels to have a CC punch, negating the weakness of Guard (lots of weak bodies)
#1 can be fixed by having something like the Brood Brother rule, but even that has issues (just make the L32 your primary). So I think it has to be something like limiting what stratagems you have access to. First and foremost I think the whole "take a detachment, unlock their stratagems" rule needs to be reversed' you should only get stratagems for your primary detachment, not be able to take let' say a Guard battalion, Blood Angels Supreme Command and Castellan Superheavy Auxiliary and get access to Guard, Blood Angels and Knight stratagems. You should have to declare a primary detachment (don't you already have to do this? I'm not sure anymore) and you only get the stratagems from that detachment. Combine with the Brood Brother rule to limit CP generation in general, and I think that alone might solve the issue as it would mean you can't do both. If you make the L32 your primary, you don't get Rotate Ion shields or the knight bonuses (extra traits and whatnot). If you make the Knight your primary you get half CP from the L32.
#2 is the bigger issue because you can't easily fix it without preventing soup period which can hurt people who aren't doing it only to min/max. The easiest solution would be to expand "Battle Brothers" to be what it should have been from the start: The army's keywords can't be Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/Tyranid rather than the detachment (which let's face it, that rule is meaningless since nobody was taking a mixed detachment, it was mixed armies with multiple detachments with different keywords), but this is something that has to be looked at further to see all of the potential issues with it, which there seems to be several brought up for any suggestion (usually involving "Ynnari can ignore this and still dominate")
KurtAngle2 wrote: Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.
7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army
how you gonna call other people casuals and then post the most casual statement of all in this thread
Counting "shared Faction keywords" is going to be very hard, because not all Faction keywords nest to the same depth.
"The *army's* keywords can't be Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/Tyranid rather than the detachment" has the problem of banning Ynnari, limiting Agents, Corsairs, etc to be practically useless, and stopping very fluffy and reasonable lists with Marines, Harlies, GSCs, and more. And force Knights to only be playable in their most unfun configuration (I'd rather face IoM Soup than a pure Knight list, even though the later is easier to beat).
Ideally, the game should incentivise not souping, but not to the point of making it impossible. Some things can't really be taken without soup. Others make a lot more sense as Soup than mono.
To that end, my favorite Soup fix remains the "Detatchments Cost CP - even Bat/Brig/Patrol". It incentivises playing fewer codexes, while not making playing multiple impossible.
Bharring wrote: Counting "shared Faction keywords" is going to be very hard, because not all Faction keywords nest to the same depth.
"The *army's* keywords can't be Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/Tyranid rather than the detachment" has the problem of banning Ynnari, limiting Agents, Corsairs, etc to be practically useless, and stopping very fluffy and reasonable lists with Marines, Harlies, GSCs, and more. And force Knights to only be playable in their most unfun configuration (I'd rather face IoM Soup than a pure Knight list, even though the later is easier to beat).
Ideally, the game should incentivise not souping, but not to the point of making it impossible. Some things can't really be taken without soup. Others make a lot more sense as Soup than mono.
To that end, my favorite Soup fix remains the "Detatchments Cost CP - even Bat/Brig/Patrol". It incentivises playing fewer codexes, while not making playing multiple impossible.
I'd like to see something in between. Still grant CPs via detachments, but fewer that those given for just being BF. And more Cps should be given for detachments sharing 2+ Faction keywords as your WL. If Battalions, for example, only granted 3CPs, but Battle Forged granted 5CP, that would go far in reducing Soup abuse compared to armies that cannot.
Then give +1CP to any detachment that shares 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL (or more than just Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/Tyranid). These 2 VERY simple changes give a very decent boost to mono-faction lists without completely gutting taking allies
This would be easy enough to manage as it would follow the same Battle Bros guidelines for taking detachments in Matched play already There will always be weird exceptions, like Ynnari, that need special attention to make them work, but that is expected for such a complicated game
Would there be anything wrong with not allowing you to get stratagems from other detachments with different factions?
E.g. right now if you had a guard battalion and a knight superheavy aux, you'd get access to both guard stratagems and knight stratagems (which is where the problem lies, using cheap CP from the L32 to use on knight stratagems)
What if that went away? To get knight stratagems you would have to make the knight detachment primary, which would then use the Brood Brothers rule where the guard battalion gets no traits and gives only half CP. If you made the guard battalion primary, you wouldn't get the knight stratagems.
I think the solution from the new GSC codex is very good. just ass it for guard regiments that are not part of a mono guard army.
But i still think the easiest and most effective solution is to just ban the sharing of CP between detachments. Take that super "fluffy" knight castalin in your army it simply doesn't have any CP support. It even makes sense from a lore perspective. CP is supposed to show an army using special things only that army can do. The more of that army the more special stuff it can do. Why should a guard detachment unlock special tricks for BA, knights or whatever?
The bonus is it also removes cross-contamination of codexes and you can change strategem cost to a fair level knowing soup cant exploit its cost
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Would there be anything wrong with not allowing you to get stratagems from other detachments with different factions?
E.g. right now if you had a guard battalion and a knight superheavy aux, you'd get access to both guard stratagems and knight stratagems (which is where the problem lies, using cheap CP from the L32 to use on knight stratagems)
What if that went away? To get knight stratagems you would have to make the knight detachment primary, which would then use the Brood Brothers rule where the guard battalion gets no traits and gives only half CP. If you made the guard battalion primary, you wouldn't get the knight stratagems.
Also just because people seem to cry about Ynnari here's a proposed solution:
Give them something like the AOS Khorne Blood Tithe. Each time a unit dies, they get a soul tithe. They can spend 3 soul tithes on something: Soul Burst for one unit (limit to infantry probably), maybe a save or an FNP or something for one unit, something else maybe. When you spend tithes, you spend all you have (so you can't say get 5, spend 3 and have 2 left)
It's fluffy, it means you can't just soul burst all the time (since you need at least 3 units have to die to get the tithes) and it tones down Ynnari since IMHO their main "faction bonus" is letting you ignore the normal soup restrictions.
Alternatively, literally make their bonus Strength From Death: If one of your units die, another unit can get a buff or something like that.
'Ynnari since IMHO their main "faction bonus" is letting you ignore the normal soup restrictions.'
That *was* true. But now, Ynnari don't do that anymore (aside from allowing you to take the Ynnari SCs).
Ynnari don't do anything to help DE and CWE or Harlies (or Corsairs) play together anymore. You can't have both DE and CWE in the same detatcment, even if it's a Ynnari detatchment.
I agree that SfD should be changed, although that deserves a thread of it's own in Proposed Rules. I agree Soup needs a nerf, but think Ynnari need a seperate nerf as well.
Bharring wrote: 'Ynnari since IMHO their main "faction bonus" is letting you ignore the normal soup restrictions.'
That *was* true. But now, Ynnari don't do that anymore (aside from allowing you to take the Ynnari SCs).
Ynnari don't do anything to help DE and CWE or Harlies (or Corsairs) play together anymore. You can't have both DE and CWE in the same detatcment, even if it's a Ynnari detatchment.
I agree that SfD should be changed, although that deserves a thread of it's own in Proposed Rules. I agree Soup needs a nerf, but think Ynnari need a seperate nerf as well.
Here is the fix i want. You get CP for points. Your first Detachment determines your main faction.
15 CP for 2k points.
-1 CP for each Detachment beyond the first detachment.
-1 for each detachment not of the main faction in the army.
A 3 detachment 3 faction soup force would have 11 CP. A single faction double detachment force would be 14 CP. A mono-faction single detachment, would be 15 CP.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You wanna make Mono Codex appealing? Make all the options in a codex appealing in the first place.
Maybe not all, but if a codex can build 2 lists that aren't carbon copies of each other, they are in a perfect spot to be played. Expecting all units too be good is nice idea, but I don't think it will ever happen.
Bharring wrote: -Makes all the IK options playable
-Makes all the IG options playable
-Doesn't get why IK+IG still beats IK lists and IG lists
I literally explained this in another thread.
The Knights + Guard work because you're taking multiples of broken units instead of just the two that reside in your codex. When you replace your bad unit with a broken one, YEAH no gak it's gonna help you out.
Consider how the purer armies won last edition. It was because they had ways to produce multiple broken units within the same codex. While we are more toned down compared to 7th, there are still tons of external issues. Until you make it so units aren't so over the top, why wouldn't you ally them with each other? More importantly, why are we blaming allies instead of the mathematically problematic units in the first place?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You wanna make Mono Codex appealing? Make all the options in a codex appealing in the first place.
then the army that has access to two codexes worth of good options that balance out each others weaknesses is much stronger than the one limited to the exact same units, cut into a fraction. Your suggestion improves the game, but doesn't fix this problem.
The solution is pretty simply to nerf soup, and make there a cost for allies. It's not that difficult but progress is hindered by people who don't want soup to be reasonable because as it stands its giving them the advantage they desparately need over non soup players.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You wanna make Mono Codex appealing? Make all the options in a codex appealing in the first place.
then the army that has access to two codexes worth of good options that balance out each others weaknesses is much stronger than the one limited to the exact same units, cut into a fraction. Your suggestion improves the game, but doesn't fix this problem.
The solution is pretty simply to nerf soup, and make there a cost for allies. It's not that difficult but progress is hindered by people who don't want soup to be reasonable because as it stands its giving them the advantage they desparately need over non soup players.
As badly done as 7th edition was, it had FAR worse allies interactions. However, mono-armies were still the winners overall outside super niche builds. Then sometimes Riptide Wing thrown in random armies.
When units aren't so frickin stupid externally, it doesn't actually matter if you have access to every codex. In 7th, EVERYONE had access to Canoptek whatever and Aspect Shrine. Didn't these things actually need nerfing on their own merit though?
The solution is pretty simply to nerf soup, and make there a cost for allies. It's not that difficult but progress is hindered by people who don't want soup to be reasonable because as it stands its giving them the advantage they desparately need over non soup players.
You just need GW to take control. But they dont really care as long as they make money
Why ask soup players who enjoy what they play. They also enjoy the flexibility of soup. Do the rich really give to the poor?
Honestly people crying foul over soup are overreacting. Imperial soup as dominant as it may appear, still has a variety of other armies winning ahead of it. Brandon Grant won with the LVO with imperial soup but two of his matches were decided by 2 points. Plenty of armies only dropped one game but could have also won them all. In Cancon Australia, the winner had Tyrannid termagant horde. Soup is single handedly allowing imperial armies to be competitive. 1ksons/daemons won the GT last weekend etc.
I'm having trouble finding any analysis of the LVO results (link please?)
What's the ratio of soup to non soup?
I have no problem with allies existing. But if the ratio is as bad as I think it is...
I can't help thinking that decoupling command points from detachments would go a long way towards reducing the prevalence of soup. As I understand it, things like loyal 32 and rusty 17 exist primarily to generate CPs. What would happen if you got the same CPs regardless of army composition? How many of those armies would drop their allies to take more from the primary army?
The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things.
Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army.
GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time.
Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules.
Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players.
Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
Zustiur wrote: I'm having trouble finding any analysis of the LVO results (link please?)
What's the ratio of soup to non soup?
I have no problem with allies existing. But if the ratio is as bad as I think it is...
I can't help thinking that decoupling command points from detachments would go a long way towards reducing the prevalence of soup. As I understand it, things like loyal 32 and rusty 17 exist primarily to generate CPs. What would happen if you got the same CPs regardless of army composition? How many of those armies would drop their allies to take more from the primary army?
The fact is no imperium army should go mono while soup exists. You did have marines in the top but that doesnt make marines any good. Likewise we know that some very good players got orcs into the top, but majority of them were middle or worse. Tau also was in top. Its hard to take results in isolation, some of the best players can make any faction look good.
Most factions seem to be able to generate CP cheap but people prefer not to. Necrons expensive but what if they allowed 5 man warrior squads. If you have a faction that can get a troop choice around 60pts, you only have yourself to blame.
The only factions that can't are the elite armies (custodes/GK/IK)
Marin wrote: The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things.
Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army.
GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time.
Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules.
Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players.
Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
I'll have to wait until the podcast is released public because I can't listen to it through FLG for some reason but it seems to me that they're really showing their GW bias here.
'We analysed the top 5% of players at our tournament and found that they all had good win rates!' Yea no gak Pablo. Kinda to be expected.
'The best players finished in the top 5%!' Again no gak. The best players are those that finish high.
'Almost every faction did well and got into the top 5%!' So? There will always be outliers. This information is totally skewed without knowing the ratio of players of said faction compared to the ratio of those playing in the top flight.
From your summary it seems that they didn't compare factions against each other, so they think having 2 Orks in the top 50 is equivalent to having 15 Castellans, 19 IG players and 15 Aeldari peeps. Give me a break.
E - I've managed to download it somehow, will amend feedback once I've listened.
Marin wrote: The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things.
Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army.
GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time.
Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules.
Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players.
Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
I'll have to wait until the podcast is released public because I can't listen to it through FLG for some reason but it seems to me that they're really showing their GW bias here.
'We analysed the top 5% of players at our tournament and found that they all had good win rates!' Yea no gak Pablo. Kinda to be expected.
'The best players finished in the top 5%!' Again no gak. The best players are those that finish high.
'Almost every faction did well and got into the top 5%!' So? There will always be outliers. This information is totally skewed without knowing the ratio of players of said faction compared to the ratio of those playing in the top flight.
From your summary it seems that they didn't compare factions against each other, so they think having 2 Orks in the top 50 is equivalent to having 15 Castellans, 19 IG players and 15 Aeldari peeps. Give me a break.
E - I've managed to download it somehow, will amend feedback once I've listened.
Hmmm, the broadcast is and was always publicly available.
The think i don`t like is that the raw data is not publicly available, the frontline guys don`t have the resources and time to make different kind of comparisons.
Even if you subscribe for BCP you still get only picture data of the lists.
On other hand i understand them, since they wanna people to buy the app to sponsor the development. If raw data was available less people will buy the app since it does not give you any real features. Of course its mostly useless because top list will always be posted in internet sites. The subscription really will decrease the popularity of the application, since no tournament organizer will force players to upload their list to payed app.
I don`t understand why they push to create their own list builder, when we have battlescribe who is very good and even some already developed builders are getting cancaled becouse the lack of support https://wertstammer40k.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/the-builder-is-dead-i-still-love-gw-but/?fbclid=IwAR3gMhcQSft7icy0SkBaZwwpHEbCc6pp_tHKbNvWjo5xeMUnVjzT8UWiTv8
Marin wrote: The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things.
Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army.
GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time.
Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules.
Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players.
Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
I'll have to wait until the podcast is released public because I can't listen to it through FLG for some reason but it seems to me that they're really showing their GW bias here.
'We analysed the top 5% of players at our tournament and found that they all had good win rates!' Yea no gak Pablo. Kinda to be expected.
'The best players finished in the top 5%!' Again no gak. The best players are those that finish high.
'Almost every faction did well and got into the top 5%!' So? There will always be outliers. This information is totally skewed without knowing the ratio of players of said faction compared to the ratio of those playing in the top flight.
From your summary it seems that they didn't compare factions against each other, so they think having 2 Orks in the top 50 is equivalent to having 15 Castellans, 19 IG players and 15 Aeldari peeps. Give me a break.
E - I've managed to download it somehow, will amend feedback once I've listened.
In scientific terms, it is Methodological mismanagement in order to get a statistic that favours their side of the story?
I would find that this would be very special indeed.
You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
Marin wrote: The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things.
Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army.
GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time.
Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules.
Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players.
Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
The ITC definitions of factions usually mean that every faction other than Orks/T'au/Necrons are probably not mono-faction. Reece has begun to make mutterings that they could change the faction rules now so that a faction means what it says but they are clearly in no hurry to do so. At the moment there is unlikely to be much for a pure mono-player to play for at a tournament like LVO, nearly all best in faction prizes will be going to soup lists and the best overall only had one non-soup in the top 8. One of the consequences of that is that we really have very little data on the relative game strength of mono lists - not only are the results not recorded suitably but also there is little motivation for players to put in the effort to make such lists work. Before we get too carried away we should consider the possibility that the apparent imbalances we see in ITC stats might be contributed to by the ITC mission pack and their terrain house-rules. The splitting of competitive 40K into at least 3 different strands (ITC, ETC, GW-standard) makes it very hard to draw conclusions about balance which will be true universally.
There are a couple of stand-out things that look a bit too good at the moment and those are Ynnari (esp. cat lady) and Knights (esp. Castellan). Those need fixing for the ITC meta regardless of soup considerations and if they are fixed some of the soup imbalance may go away as a side-effect. However even for those if we look outside the ITC mission set it is not quite so clear that the balance is as skewed as the ITC stats might suggest.
There is also a difference between different metas. The results from the latest GW heat 4 were totally different in appearance to what we saw at LVO. 4 out of 5 of the top lists there were still "soup" but I do think Ultramarines + smash captains as a winning list is very different to anything we see in the ITC right now and the dominance of Castellan/Yvraine lists was just not apparent. They run the CA18 eternal war missions and book-standard terrain rules which may have a huge amount to do with the difference.
We should still keep some perspective on how balanced we think the game should reasonably be. Very few factions fall outside the 40-60% win rate which would indicate that you can take a well designed list from almost any faction and have a reasonable expectation of winning 2-3 games out of a 5 game tournament. Sorry dedicated GK players, times are hard for you and GK need a boost as much as Ynnari/Knights need a fix downwards in power.
So i think what I am saying is that we can see an issue with mono-codex being less of a competitive choice in most metas but that the clear big winners in one meta may not be winners in another. If we look at how some of the top soup lists work the only common factor is the wider ability to mix/match the best units and the best relics/stratagems/powers from a greater choice of sources. Much as the AM/Castellan list abuses lots of CP many of the Ynnari lists are low-CP already so CP farming is not their main driver. I really think the driver here is mostly "this unit/rule is too good in this tournament ruleset" so GW and the writers of tournament rules need to look at that first. Until that is addressed we do not know how much structural imbalance there still is from soup vs mono that needs a structural rebalance such as is being discussed on this and other threads.
Also...we should not expect GW to focus their balancing on ITC when what they see in the events they run in warhammer world is very different. Maybe, just maybe, the designers have the book-standard terrain and mission sets in mind when they try to balance stuff rather than the different rules for ITC or ETC. If you are an ITC player than does mean that the level of balancing they do to your mission sets and house-rules may be rather limited.
Marin wrote: The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things.
Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army.
GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time.
Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules.
Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players.
Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
I'll have to wait until the podcast is released public because I can't listen to it through FLG for some reason but it seems to me that they're really showing their GW bias here.
'We analysed the top 5% of players at our tournament and found that they all had good win rates!' Yea no gak Pablo. Kinda to be expected.
'The best players finished in the top 5%!' Again no gak. The best players are those that finish high.
'Almost every faction did well and got into the top 5%!' So? There will always be outliers. This information is totally skewed without knowing the ratio of players of said faction compared to the ratio of those playing in the top flight.
From your summary it seems that they didn't compare factions against each other, so they think having 2 Orks in the top 50 is equivalent to having 15 Castellans, 19 IG players and 15 Aeldari peeps. Give me a break.
E - I've managed to download it somehow, will amend feedback once I've listened.
In scientific terms, it is Methodological mismanagement in order to get a statistic that favours their side of the story?
I would find that this would be very special indeed.
What exactly do you mean, what is their side of the story?
I will say I often find the "stats" editions of their podcasts to be fairly pointless, no matter what the stats say they sort of twist it to whatever they want it to mean anyway. "Orks are doing poorly? Ah most Ork players are casual so you don't see the true results" "oh ynnari is top faction? sure, but thats also because most the ynnari playerbase are top level competitors" "oh ynarri dropped? Well that is because newer players are jumping on the ynarri bandwagon and dragging down the results" . I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of that, but I just struggle to see the point in their stats if that's how we are going to go about it.
Make CP a fixed number per battle size(3 at 1000, 6 at 1500, and 9 at 2000 or something) and have stratagems costed accordingly to that variation of the system.
Boom, I solved the ally issue. No more need for CP batteries and we now have parity between stratagem cost between armies. IK stratagems(would now be more costlier CP-wise) can now be costed accordingly in comparison with IG stratagems(which would be cheaper in comparison). So no more will you have IG detachment give a lot of extra CP to a power-hungry IK detachment. This should in turn reduce the amount of big 'bots that subsequently will make haywire spam less important so less allying between Aeldari factions. This would then just leave two problematic pieces which are Ynnari and Doom which should be dealt with as their own problems.
Then how about we listen to the Cults codex and just impose a 50% penalty on non-primary faction CP generation? It's simpler than most suggestions by a mile and they've already done it once.
Doesn't stop Loyal 32, as they'll just be declared the Primary Faction. The others combo'd with them only generate 1CP, so aren't otherwise affected by the '50% rounded up' rule.
Then you don't get to pick primary faction, it's whatever you have the most points in. Poof, loyal 32 gone.
Marin wrote: The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things.
Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army.
GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time.
Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules.
Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players.
Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
I'll have to wait until the podcast is released public because I can't listen to it through FLG for some reason but it seems to me that they're really showing their GW bias here.
'We analysed the top 5% of players at our tournament and found that they all had good win rates!' Yea no gak Pablo. Kinda to be expected.
'The best players finished in the top 5%!' Again no gak. The best players are those that finish high.
'Almost every faction did well and got into the top 5%!' So? There will always be outliers. This information is totally skewed without knowing the ratio of players of said faction compared to the ratio of those playing in the top flight.
From your summary it seems that they didn't compare factions against each other, so they think having 2 Orks in the top 50 is equivalent to having 15 Castellans, 19 IG players and 15 Aeldari peeps. Give me a break.
E - I've managed to download it somehow, will amend feedback once I've listened.
In scientific terms, it is Methodological mismanagement in order to get a statistic that favours their side of the story?
I would find that this would be very special indeed.
What exactly do you mean, what is their side of the story?
I will say I often find the "stats" editions of their podcasts to be fairly pointless, no matter what the stats say they sort of twist it to whatever they want it to mean anyway. "Orks are doing poorly? Ah most Ork players are casual so you don't see the true results" "oh ynnari is top faction? sure, but thats also because most the ynnari playerbase are top level competitors" "oh ynarri dropped? Well that is because newer players are jumping on the ynarri bandwagon and dragging down the results" . I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of that, but I just struggle to see the point in their stats if that's how we are going to go about it.
The data is available with BCP, you can still analyze the things you are interested. The LVO is good place to analyze data, because of the big data set. Making assumptions on 20 man tournaments is pointless.
If i have time, i`ll try to make analyze how mono faction performed, being secondary or third fraction means really nothing. It`s like saying well you are eldar, imperial or chaos so you have to soup. I mean corsairs were the highest WR like first fraction, does that mean they should be nerfed ?
Ok, but if we nerf the loyal 32 and castellans, don't we just go back to kind of a pre knight meta? We would be again getting eldar beating everyone left and right. That is not much of a change to anyone, but people playing eldar right now.
Also am not sure that the fixation on CP generation is main problem, with soup. It sure doesn't help, but in most cases, it is just that the codex for multiple armies are build in a such a way that that they don't function at all without IG or some other sort of ally. IG can run a baneblade of some sort and have a worse castellan list. And they have it the best. What is a BA or custodes or knight player going to do without ally ? Their army just don't work, when comparing to the lowCP cost eldar soup lists.
The summary of the post LVO Chapter Tactics podcast that I quoted above by Marin is pretty inaccurate.
They go over the stats in some detail but obviously twist them to suit what they want them to say.
"In the top 62 lists (those that went 5-1) every faction was represented except for Grey Knights, that means we are close to a balanced game." [intent, not word for word].
Obviously this is not true as there was no consideration for what percentage of the different factions were in the top 62 nor how much of the total percentage of the overall player base those factions represented.
I have been saying that Orks made up over 10% of total primary detachments, this is wrong, we were 8.1% following IG and IK who both had roughly 9.5% (so 3rd most played faction). Dark Eldar were next.
Though he does a great job collating this information the Falcon (Mr Stats man) doesn't agree with the sentiment that Orks aren't as good as they should be despite all the stats proving him otherwise which I find really, really weird. I guess it's a case of being blinded by bias? Here's a few examples of things he said about Orks that were directly contradicted (sometimes in the same sentence);
"They [Orks] still performed relatively well even if their overall numbers don't show it." What numbers do show it? What is the measurement for performing well if it's not overall numbers?
"They only averaged a 48% win rate [which is only 1% better than how pre beta bolter drill marines fared]."
"[Only]2 Ork players went 5-1 [so were in that 62 player metric discussed earlier] but 14 of them went 4-2 so it wasn't that they were underperforming, it was just [goes on to blame it on poor players with lower results 'keeping their averages down']." Not sure why the 4-2 metric is now used as the basis of a good result and why 14 is considered a decent amount of players doing so. No comparison to other factions and no mention of how many total players went 4-2 means that this information is useless. If we know 14 players going 4-2 is roughly 8% of the field that is bang on what we should expect.
Orks lost more times than they won against Dark Eldar, Craftworld, Necrons, Chaos Space Marines and vanilla Space Marines, often by a large margin. We performed well against Tyranids, Chaos Demons and Ad Mech.
Sean, Pablo and the Falcon discussed the SAG Big Mek but they all talk about it as if you only roll 6s when using it. Things like this were said; "In one round of shooting it killed 8 Talos...If you get the right rolls with it...." What they seemingly fail to consider is that for every high strength roll that hits and wounds, you'll also roll low for strength and whiff every shot the next time. It's massively unreliable and that's a huge weakness.
Reece asked for the stats of Orks vs Eldar as he believes that we have the right tools to deal with Eldar effectively, they are thus; "47% win rate against Dark Eldar [very close apparently], 52% win rate against Ynarri and 43% win rate against CWE [that they immediately played down]". They admitted AoV is a problem for Orks shutting down Grot Shields and Green Tide.
Sean claimed that Eldar "have" to tech to beat Orks which is something I strongly disagree on since they actually tech'd to beat Guard + Castellan and someone claimed that the Ynarri flyer list was "designed" to beat Orks (hence why we didn't get any players in the top 8, of course) which is something I also completely disagree with since it almost won the entire thing and Castellan+Guard made up almost 30% of the field.
I think this statement from Pablo for me really hit the nail on the head;
"I feel like Orks are better than a gatekeeper army despite their results suggesting otherwise..." - it's the same with many players, their feelings are simply wrong. The results speak for themselves and show Orks to be exactly what they are.
Reece briefly mentioned the importance of those buffing characters and the whole puzzle coming together for Orks to be successful, which isn't particularly relevant for LVO outside of Vect but is going to be a big thing moving forward with Assassins about the launch and GSC now out in the wild with A Plan.
Overall pretty disappointed that they fell into the trap of hyperbole when they were supposed to be discussing statistics.
Back on the original question - how best to give mono factions a bit more something
I think the best and most flavourful way to do that would be to grant them some stratagems to represent their better cohesion.
So for an entire army that fulfils the same criteria as Battle Brothers I would give access to a couple of new Stratagems
Command Structure Breakdown - 2CP
A less cohesive command structure can suffer communication breakdowns on the field of battle, the more complex tactics and stratagems do not always work so smoothly as instructions are relayed between units with differing military cultures or approaches to warfare
Use this stratagem just after your opponent has spent CP for a stratagem which for reasons of <Faction> or <Sub-faction> keyword could not have been used by their warlord and before the stratagem takes effect. {Rest of wording as per Agents of Vect - this is an intentionally limited but much cheaper version of that stratagem}
Dissent in the Ranks - 1CP
Units of differing backgrounds and military cultures may misinterpret orders on the battlefield, either through accident or resentment. When this happens disaster might strike
Use this stratagem after your opponent has rolled dice for a model or unit which could not due to the Battle Brothers rule have been part of the same detachment as the Warlord. You may require your opponent to re-roll one dice of your choosing for that model or unit. {So a reverse command re-roll stratagem}
happy_inquisitor wrote: Back on the original question - how best to give mono factions a bit more something
I think the best and most flavourful way to do that would be to grant them some stratagems to represent their better cohesion.
So for an entire army that fulfils the same criteria as Battle Brothers I would give access to a couple of new Stratagems
Command Structure Breakdown - 2CP
A less cohesive command structure can suffer communication breakdowns on the field of battle, the more complex tactics and stratagems do not always work so smoothly as instructions are relayed between units with differing military cultures or approaches to warfare
Use this stratagem just after your opponent has spent CP for a stratagem which for reasons of <Faction> or <Sub-faction> keyword could not have been used by their warlord and before the stratagem takes effect. {Rest of wording as per Agents of Vect - this is an intentionally limited but much cheaper version of that stratagem}
Dissent in the Ranks - 1CP
Units of differing backgrounds and military cultures may misinterpret orders on the battlefield, either through accident or resentment. When this happens disaster might strike
Use this stratagem after your opponent has rolled dice for a model or unit which could not due to the Battle Brothers rule have been part of the same detachment as the Warlord. You may require your opponent to re-roll one dice of your choosing for that model or unit. {So a reverse command re-roll stratagem}
That would be fine if it just affected factions, but affecting subfactions ir micro factions has some bad effects on balance orks mixing 2 clans is nothing like as much of a power boost as AM brigade plus Castellen.
This isn't a aingle problem with a single solution it's a compounded failure of foresight on the designers part to predict the interactions between codex's and the implications of that.
1 Soup needs a downside and a fairly big one currently.
2 Codex's need to be rebalanced.
3 Mini factions need to be playable/ balanced.
4 soup needs to be rebalanced with the newer balanced codex.
5 detachment books like vigilous need to be rebalanced
6 documentation updated
Actually that's quite a list and probably ripe for an edition change given the amount of books to redo.
Marin wrote: The LVO guys have analyzed the tournament data and they say some very interesting things. Actually the best players won more than any fraction and do it with almost every army. GW have told there will be codex v2, so the stats were showing the game is most balanced since very long time. Good necron players have over 65% wr and SM did decent and that is without the new bolt rules. Orc, admech and tao did very good, custodes and AM have very high ranked players. Interesting stats, sadly only they have access to the raw data and for the rest of us its only BCP don`t provide enough.
The ITC definitions of factions usually mean that every faction other than Orks/T'au/Necrons are probably not mono-faction. Reece has begun to make mutterings that they could change the faction rules now so that a faction means what it says but they are clearly in no hurry to do so. At the moment there is unlikely to be much for a pure mono-player to play for at a tournament like LVO, nearly all best in faction prizes will be going to soup lists and the best overall only had one non-soup in the top 8. One of the consequences of that is that we really have very little data on the relative game strength of mono lists - not only are the results not recorded suitably but also there is little motivation for players to put in the effort to make such lists work. Before we get too carried away we should consider the possibility that the apparent imbalances we see in ITC stats might be contributed to by the ITC mission pack and their terrain house-rules. The splitting of competitive 40K into at least 3 different strands (ITC, ETC, GW-standard) makes it very hard to draw conclusions about balance which will be true universally.
There are a couple of stand-out things that look a bit too good at the moment and those are Ynnari (esp. cat lady) and Knights (esp. Castellan). Those need fixing for the ITC meta regardless of soup considerations and if they are fixed some of the soup imbalance may go away as a side-effect. However even for those if we look outside the ITC mission set it is not quite so clear that the balance is as skewed as the ITC stats might suggest.
There is also a difference between different metas. The results from the latest GW heat 4 were totally different in appearance to what we saw at LVO. 4 out of 5 of the top lists there were still "soup" but I do think Ultramarines + smash captains as a winning list is very different to anything we see in the ITC right now and the dominance of Castellan/Yvraine lists was just not apparent. They run the CA18 eternal war missions and book-standard terrain rules which may have a huge amount to do with the difference.
We should still keep some perspective on how balanced we think the game should reasonably be. Very few factions fall outside the 40-60% win rate which would indicate that you can take a well designed list from almost any faction and have a reasonable expectation of winning 2-3 games out of a 5 game tournament. Sorry dedicated GK players, times are hard for you and GK need a boost as much as Ynnari/Knights need a fix downwards in power.
So i think what I am saying is that we can see an issue with mono-codex being less of a competitive choice in most metas but that the clear big winners in one meta may not be winners in another. If we look at how some of the top soup lists work the only common factor is the wider ability to mix/match the best units and the best relics/stratagems/powers from a greater choice of sources. Much as the AM/Castellan list abuses lots of CP many of the Ynnari lists are low-CP already so CP farming is not their main driver. I really think the driver here is mostly "this unit/rule is too good in this tournament ruleset" so GW and the writers of tournament rules need to look at that first. Until that is addressed we do not know how much structural imbalance there still is from soup vs mono that needs a structural rebalance such as is being discussed on this and other threads.
Also...we should not expect GW to focus their balancing on ITC when what they see in the events they run in warhammer world is very different. Maybe, just maybe, the designers have the book-standard terrain and mission sets in mind when they try to balance stuff rather than the different rules for ITC or ETC. If you are an ITC player than does mean that the level of balancing they do to your mission sets and house-rules may be rather limited.
First, I think that FLG will never see a fault with LVO, ITC or what they do; it's almost like GW propaganda at this point in that they are always praising and never finding any fault whatsoever. Their faction rankings make it so they can point to different "stated" factions and claim diversity when 6 out of the top 8 are all some variation of "Imperium Soup with Knights". They will say that's diversity and it's really not, and pat themselves on the back saying how great the game is and how balanced this shows it when it really doesn't show that at all.
Also, the fact the GW heats have differnt results is a huge reason why I and others think that it's time ITC used the regular 40k missions instead of their Champions missions. I won't rehash this argument again but the way the ITC missions work is a big reason you see the same stuff come up at ITC events. But it remains that GW uses their own missions and terrain rules to balance. ITC doesn't use these, but ITC provides the feedback to GW on balancing. Do you see the problem with that? GW is balancing based on data that isn't even fundamentally playing the same game.
If ITC events are meant to be playtesters it needs to be mandated somehow that they use the GW standard missions to provide valid feedback.
Sean claimed that Eldar "have" to tech to beat Orks which is something I strongly disagree on since they actually tech'd to beat Guard + Castellan and someone claimed that the Ynarri flyer list was "designed" to beat Orks (hence why we didn't get any players in the top 8, of course) which is something I also completely disagree with since it almost won the entire thing and Castellan+Guard made up almost 30% of the field.
You totally missed it, they sad he got list that can deal with orcs and its true, he had 2x9 windriders with scatter lasers.
That is 72 shoots or 108 with soulburst, add doom and jinx, vect to stop stratagems, forewarned that works on the jumpa and than you have 7 flyers that if orc make mistake can go and snipe his characters or important units and flyers block infantry movement is probably super annoying for orc players.
You also are making assumption without having the data, until someone dig deep into orc performance data, we will only speculate.
happy_inquisitor wrote: Back on the original question - how best to give mono factions a bit more something
I think the best and most flavourful way to do that would be to grant them some stratagems to represent their better cohesion.
So for an entire army that fulfils the same criteria as Battle Brothers I would give access to a couple of new Stratagems
Command Structure Breakdown - 2CP
A less cohesive command structure can suffer communication breakdowns on the field of battle, the more complex tactics and stratagems do not always work so smoothly as instructions are relayed between units with differing military cultures or approaches to warfare
Use this stratagem just after your opponent has spent CP for a stratagem which for reasons of <Faction> or <Sub-faction> keyword could not have been used by their warlord and before the stratagem takes effect. {Rest of wording as per Agents of Vect - this is an intentionally limited but much cheaper version of that stratagem}
Dissent in the Ranks - 1CP
Units of differing backgrounds and military cultures may misinterpret orders on the battlefield, either through accident or resentment. When this happens disaster might strike
Use this stratagem after your opponent has rolled dice for a model or unit which could not due to the Battle Brothers rule have been part of the same detachment as the Warlord. You may require your opponent to re-roll one dice of your choosing for that model or unit. {So a reverse command re-roll stratagem}
That would be fine if it just affected factions, but affecting subfactions ir micro factions has some bad effects on balance orks mixing 2 clans is nothing like as much of a power boost as AM brigade plus Castellen.
I very intentionally did this so that one stratagem could only be used against full ally lists while the other also affected specific aspects of "mono" lists with mixed sub-factions. That gives a boost to the mono faction lists that gain these stratagems in a wider variety of match-ups. A small boost in nearly all games, an extra boost when facing allied lists.
It was just there for discussion so its OK if you think you have better ideas.
First, I think that FLG will never see a fault with LVO, ITC or what they do; it's almost like GW propaganda at this point in that they are always praising and never finding any fault whatsoever. Their faction rankings make it so they can point to different "stated" factions and claim diversity when 6 out of the top 8 are all some variation of "Imperium Soup with Knights". They will say that's diversity and it's really not, and pat themselves on the back saying how great the game is and how balanced this shows it when it really doesn't show that at all.
That is not quite right. The top 8 were
3 Imperial guard / Castellan Knight + optional extras
3 Aeldari mashup with Yvraine/Soulburst
1 Chaos soup
1 Mono T'au
Really nobody is saying that the diversity right at the top is what hey would like to see - and only some sad keyboard warriors are still trying to claim that the Castellan and Yvraine are not in need of some changes made to restore a bit more balance to the game.
As for FLG, I am not interested in slating them; they have worked hard to do stuff for the part of the community that loves competitive tournament play. I might disagree with some of the decisions they make but I believe they were made in the right spirit of trying to help the game along. A couple of those decisions - factions, terrain - are well past their sell-by date and should be quietly dropped but that is just my opinion.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
Since they're already going down the road of re-introducing formations to the game, you could limit some of them to only be available to mono armies in 2000 point or lower armies. Couple that with a change to how Command Points are given could be the changes needed. Taking allies would still let you cover up army weaknesses and get access to more stratagems, but lose access to formations and won't award you with easy command point access.
happy_inquisitor wrote: Back on the original question - how best to give mono factions a bit more something
I think the best and most flavourful way to do that would be to grant them some stratagems to represent their better cohesion.
So for an entire army that fulfils the same criteria as Battle Brothers I would give access to a couple of new Stratagems
Command Structure Breakdown - 2CP
A less cohesive command structure can suffer communication breakdowns on the field of battle, the more complex tactics and stratagems do not always work so smoothly as instructions are relayed between units with differing military cultures or approaches to warfare
Use this stratagem just after your opponent has spent CP for a stratagem which for reasons of <Faction> or <Sub-faction> keyword could not have been used by their warlord and before the stratagem takes effect. {Rest of wording as per Agents of Vect - this is an intentionally limited but much cheaper version of that stratagem}
Dissent in the Ranks - 1CP
Units of differing backgrounds and military cultures may misinterpret orders on the battlefield, either through accident or resentment. When this happens disaster might strike
Use this stratagem after your opponent has rolled dice for a model or unit which could not due to the Battle Brothers rule have been part of the same detachment as the Warlord. You may require your opponent to re-roll one dice of your choosing for that model or unit. {So a reverse command re-roll stratagem}
I like it except the subfactions that are in the same book should not get penailzed.
A bunch of Ork tribez forming a Waaaaghh! or a mixed warband of base CSM legions should not get penalized for it. However bringing 3+ DP's because i use 3 Codices (CSM, CD and DG f.e.) should not be possible.
Or is suddendly everyone and their mother promoted to DP?
happy_inquisitor wrote: Back on the original question - how best to give mono factions a bit more something
I think the best and most flavourful way to do that would be to grant them some stratagems to represent their better cohesion.
So for an entire army that fulfils the same criteria as Battle Brothers I would give access to a couple of new Stratagems
Command Structure Breakdown - 2CP
A less cohesive command structure can suffer communication breakdowns on the field of battle, the more complex tactics and stratagems do not always work so smoothly as instructions are relayed between units with differing military cultures or approaches to warfare
Use this stratagem just after your opponent has spent CP for a stratagem which for reasons of <Faction> or <Sub-faction> keyword could not have been used by their warlord and before the stratagem takes effect. {Rest of wording as per Agents of Vect - this is an intentionally limited but much cheaper version of that stratagem}
Dissent in the Ranks - 1CP
Units of differing backgrounds and military cultures may misinterpret orders on the battlefield, either through accident or resentment. When this happens disaster might strike
Use this stratagem after your opponent has rolled dice for a model or unit which could not due to the Battle Brothers rule have been part of the same detachment as the Warlord. You may require your opponent to re-roll one dice of your choosing for that model or unit. {So a reverse command re-roll stratagem}
I like it except the subfactions that are in the same book should not get penailzed.
A bunch of Ork tribez forming a Waaaaghh! or a mixed warband of base CSM legions should not get penalized for it. However bringing 3+ DP's because i use 3 Codices (CSM, CD and DG f.e.) should not be possible.
Or is suddendly everyone and their mother promoted to DP?
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
Remove sub-faction traits completely. They are too varied with many never seeing the light of day because they do not have any purpose in the game compared to their more useful counterparts. Although to be fair, limiting those things will more or less do the same. In the case of your suggestion it would just mean most players end up using Alaitoc if they are running Asuryani. Armies will go from using Alaitoc and maybe Saim-hann to everybody using Alaitoc which would just kill the game for Asuryani players unless they like Alaitoc.
Same goes for Drukhari Covens. Why use anything but Prophets of Flesh?
Regarding soup suggestions I think one thing a lot of people are missing. If you take away all traits and stratagems of an allied detachment it means that that those units must function better than being with traits and stratagems so they are worth taking. This brings me to a problem I see with a lot of soup discussions and that is that people want to discourage soup completely except for some narrative plays. This isn't going to happen because people like collecting large and varied armies now and it brings more money to GW which means we get more to play with. Circle of Life and all that.
So all discussions must come from an honest and fair stand point which is: A soup must perform equally to the mono-faction. Because GW already let the beast out and soup is in. People have bought a large surplus of miniature soldiers because soup exists and attempting to invalidate it is no better than making mono-factions unviable and before someone asks: I play almost exclusively mono-faction, but at the same time I think soup is fun and gives me a lot of fun armies to look at and play against. I have a friend who plays Ultramarines with Deathwatch. Super fun to play against and fun to see both UM and DW used together. Remove all abilities of either and my friend would have to play mono-faction and it would be less diverse.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
The Castellan doesn't need that much a points hike. Maybe 100~ points or so, but more importantly we need to create prices for Relics again, especially when Knights can basically take as many as they want along with Warlord Traits.
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Won't that just result in that "1999+1" type of crap like you saw in 7th to prevent double FOC? Not that it wouldn't be a bad idea but either something gets changed so they are always available (if it's 2k or more well tournament games are at 2k so nothing changes) or less likely its changed so you never see them (not a bad thing IMHO).
If you ask me this could only work if it was 2000 or higher to take them and ITC changed the recommended points to 1750 or 1850 or something like that to keep them out.
Otherwise you're doing something like 2500 or more and you'll never see them so might as well just do a blanket ban.
The Castellan doesn't need that much a points hike. Maybe 100~ points or so, but more importantly we need to create prices for Relics again, especially when Knights can basically take as many as they want along with Warlord Traits.
I think it should probably be around 685. As for prices for relics I wouldn't disagree but I think anything that would require an overhaul to the actual rules perfect game will not happen as much as it should
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Won't that just result in that "1999+1" type of crap like you saw in 7th to prevent double FOC? Not that it wouldn't be a bad idea but either something gets changed so they are always available (if it's 2k or more well tournament games are at 2k so nothing changes) or less likely its changed so you never see them (not a bad thing IMHO).
If you ask me this could only work if it was 2000 or higher to take them and ITC changed the recommended points to 1750 or 1850 or something like that to keep them out.
Otherwise you're doing something like 2500 or more and you'll never see them so might as well just do a blanket ban.
The Castellan doesn't need that much a points hike. Maybe 100~ points or so, but more importantly we need to create prices for Relics again, especially when Knights can basically take as many as they want along with Warlord Traits.
I think it should probably be around 685. As for prices for relics I wouldn't disagree but I think anything that would require an overhaul to the actual rules perfect game will not happen as much as it should
I don't think it would be too hard to add prices to Relics. Weapon ones are easy to me at least.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
I'm fine with "fixes" for soup as long as we also consider two different faction keyword in a list to be considered soup. For instance, if you have a detachment of bad moonz and evil sunz that should be considered soup. A space wolves player can't bring Space Wolves: +1 to hit on charge and Space Wolves: +1" charge factions. They just get the one.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
It's no different than the Space Marine codex having so many unique entries but most of them not being good.
It comes down to internal and external balance. Simple as that. Quit justifying broken units by blaming a mechanic that has nothing to do with them being over the top.
The problem with Mono factionalism/Soup fixes is some issues still won’t be fixed. And many times, the fixes are kneejerk reactions.
The Castellan is a perfect example. It’s worth 450 points to Chaos. It’s worth 500 points if it’s an Questors Imperial knight, it’s worth 600 points if it is House Taranis, it is worth 800 points if it is House Raven. With that range if you point change, it’s just going to become more un-usable to most factions, and still be abused with House Raven, until something else is introduced and its shelved till 10th edition, or someone decides that 500 point Crusaders do nearly as good with Order of the Companion, and reinvents the meta.
If you want to fix Castellans, change Order of Companions to read this Stratagem cost 4CP for Dominus Class IK, and 2 CP for Questors class IK.
Not Online!!! wrote: I like it except the subfactions that are in the same book should not get penailzed.
A bunch of Ork tribez forming a Waaaaghh! or a mixed warband of base CSM legions should not get penalized for it. However bringing 3+ DP's because i use 3 Codices (CSM, CD and DG f.e.) should not be possible.
Or is suddendly everyone and their mother promoted to DP?
I fail to see how Death Guard, Nurgle Daemons and Bringers of Decay(Black Legion) cannot work together, while you have no issue with World Eaters, Fallen and Emperor's Children in the same army.
Either you divide the factions all the way down or you don't. Claiming fluff as a justification just because you dislike multiple daemon princes in one army is dishonest.
In the end, cherry picking factions for orks or CSM for each unit type is not that much different from eldar picking the best choice for each role from two codices.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
It's no different than the Space Marine codex having so many unique entries but most of them not being good.
It comes down to internal and external balance. Simple as that. Quit justifying broken units by blaming a mechanic that has nothing to do with them being over the top.
Ok so is a Castellen allied with 0CP guard broken or not?
The mechanism that enables a unit & strategums designed with CP costing a minimum of 176 points worth of unit per CP to use CP from a faction that pays 36 points per CP is Soup that is the utterly broken mechanic.
You can argue that the units may or may not be costed correctly but in no way can you blame the unit and it strategums for over performing when it's design constraints have been thrown out the window.
Not Online!!! wrote: I like it except the subfactions that are in the same book should not get penailzed.
A bunch of Ork tribez forming a Waaaaghh! or a mixed warband of base CSM legions should not get penalized for it. However bringing 3+ DP's because i use 3 Codices (CSM, CD and DG f.e.) should not be possible.
Or is suddendly everyone and their mother promoted to DP?
I fail to see how Death Guard, Nurgle Daemons and Bringers of Decay(Black Legion) cannot work together, while you have no issue with World Eaters, Fallen and Emperor's Children in the same army.
Either you divide the factions all the way down or you don't. Claiming fluff as a justification just because you dislike multiple daemon princes in one army is dishonest.
In the end, cherry picking factions for orks or CSM for each unit type is not that much different from eldar picking the best choice for each role from two codices.
My previous statement about omni-dexes was meant as sarcasm but you bring up a good point. How different is too different?
What is the difference between a sub-faction and, for lack of a better term, a mini codex (any codex with a small amount of options i.e., GK, Harlies, IK.)? Why should Eldar and Harley be soup but Salamanders and Ultramarines are not? GW has just arbitrarily divided cultures up into books. Merging or minimizing differences in some books while breaking the cultures up in others. The first example that I can think of is Imperial inquisition. Back in earlier editions you found inquisition options in both sisters and grey knight flavors. Now GK, at least, has lost that option. If inquisition is made into a Codex then what used to be one coherent force would now be considered soup.
Karol wrote: It is not just fluff. If rule of 3 means I can't take more then 3 units of same kind, then a chaos soup player shouldn't be able to take 4 DP,
Yeah, but the honest suggestion is "Hey, GW limit DAEMON PRINCE models to 3 per army, just like commanders!". No one cares that you can take a dozen of predators, terminators, dreads, land raiders and other things that are shared across loyalist and chaos space marine codices.
If you think more than 3 daemon princes is an issue fix that issue. Don't do a blanket ruling that impacts multiple other units that are not an issue.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
It's no different than the Space Marine codex having so many unique entries but most of them not being good.
It comes down to internal and external balance. Simple as that. Quit justifying broken units by blaming a mechanic that has nothing to do with them being over the top.
Ok so is a Castellen allied with 0CP guard broken or not?
The mechanism that enables a unit & strategums designed with CP costing a minimum of 176 points worth of unit per CP to use CP from a faction that pays 36 points per CP is Soup that is the utterly broken mechanic.
You can argue that the units may or may not be costed correctly but in no way can you blame the unit and it strategums for over performing when it's design constraints have been thrown out the window.
Yes, I will argue Castellans even getting just one RIS off is broken. Knights need a whole redesign, period. They're supposed to be designed as a pure army AND something you splash in, just like last edition.
Execution still leaves a lot to be desired, but damn does a well painted Knight look good on the table.
Reece asked for the stats of Orks vs Eldar as he believes that we have the right tools to deal with Eldar effectively, they are thus; "47% win rate against Dark Eldar [very close apparently], 52% win rate against Ynarri and 43% win rate against CWE [that they immediately played down]". They admitted AoV is a problem for Orks shutting down Grot Shields and Green Tide.
Sean claimed that Eldar "have" to tech to beat Orks which is something I strongly disagree on since they actually tech'd to beat Guard + Castellan and someone claimed that the Ynarri flyer list was "designed" to beat Orks (hence why we didn't get any players in the top 8, of course) which is something I also completely disagree with since it almost won the entire thing and Castellan+Guard made up almost 30% of the field.
Actually, CWE are very good at normal horde armies like Ork, they are played completely differently than Ynnari CWE. They are different list, a non-ynnari CWE is normally Bikes, Wave Serpents, Flyers. With lots of S6 shooting at 24-36" on highly fast moving platforms that cant be stopped in melee combine with Flyer blocking and extra MW's from shields everyturn. Its more likely to win against Orks for sure. A typical CWE list could shoot from 72-110 S6 shots and 80 S4 shots, with the large units getting re-rolls to 1's to hit, and key uits being Doomed/Jinx.
If Orks becomes a thing, then we will see more CWE compare to Ynnari
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
I feel like this "just a small tweak" response that I see a lot is very much mis-informed. Really, we've seen a lot of "small tweaks" in the past 6 months, and it's still the same dominating lists we see. If we ignore the format of the tournament (which would almost guarantee that 1 list of a poor faction would reach the top 50), we can see that just another "small tweak" is another way of saying "things are basically fine as is". Really, many people making these suggestions probably were the same people who felt that Chapter Approved also only needed small tweaks to fix the issues that stand. You could argue "just keep making small tweaks" until the issue is resolved (slowly but surely fix it), but after the time that has stood, and coming up on nearly the full life-time of the last edition, playing it slow does a dis-service to everyone.
That is true. How many small tweeks did eldar and Inari got since the edition started? If they were any other faction they should be as playable as BA right now. Yet they are still running around top tables. IG with Castellans are probablly the same. There is just no easy or small tweek way to fix them, specially if one also doesn't want to see those armies become unplayable.
I mean a blanket 50% cost rise on everything IG, eldar or Knight would "fix" the meta too. not sure if people like that kind of a fix though.
I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
I feel like this "just a small tweak" response that I see a lot is very much mis-informed. Really, we've seen a lot of "small tweaks" in the past 6 months, and it's still the same dominating lists we see. If we ignore the format of the tournament (which would almost guarantee that 1 list of a poor faction would reach the top 50), we can see that just another "small tweak" is another way of saying "things are basically fine as is". Really, many people making these suggestions probably were the same people who felt that Chapter Approved also only needed small tweaks to fix the issues that stand. You could argue "just keep making small tweaks" until the issue is resolved (slowly but surely fix it), but after the time that has stood, and coming up on nearly the full life-time of the last edition, playing it slow does a dis-service to everyone.
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
I feel like this "just a small tweak" response that I see a lot is very much mis-informed. Really, we've seen a lot of "small tweaks" in the past 6 months, and it's still the same dominating lists we see. If we ignore the format of the tournament (which would almost guarantee that 1 list of a poor faction would reach the top 50), we can see that just another "small tweak" is another way of saying "things are basically fine as is". Really, many people making these suggestions probably were the same people who felt that Chapter Approved also only needed small tweaks to fix the issues that stand. You could argue "just keep making small tweaks" until the issue is resolved (slowly but surely fix it), but after the time that has stood, and coming up on nearly the full life-time of the last edition, playing it slow does a dis-service to everyone.
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
True - the Castellan hadn't even been released when the LVO was on last year, for one thing.
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
But wasn't the last years LVO pre knight? how did the BA, DA, SW, GK, tau or necron armies change comparing to the last LVO. The only thing that change is that now there is an army that can fight eldar soups on a level playing field.
Smirrors wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
Read my post in full and the things I have raised there. I believe I show where some straight incorrect things are said as if fact.
Every faction made it into the top 62 except BA. What they failed to discuss was the frequency of factions compared to their total number of players.
As to what do they have to gain? Well some of the members sit on the balance team so are responsible for where we are now. If they said balance was out of whack (as it is) its admitting they (and GW) have done a poor job.
I think Reece gets it and knows that Orks aren't strong. He's not going to admit that publicly until it is more obvious but reading between the lines of some of the things he says I get the impression he knows this. He always had concerns about Orks performing in the LVO meta and he has acknowledged that CA kicked us in the nuts.
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
But wasn't the last years LVO pre knight? how did the BA, DA, SW, GK, tau or necron armies change comparing to the last LVO. The only thing that change is that now there is an army that can fight eldar soups on a level playing field.
Last LVO was after CWE codex release, before nids, DE, harlies, Tao, Necrons, IK... codex release.
The CWE codex was new and hot and Ynnari made it look broken. But people forget that the next big tournament Adepticon was won by Impirial soup BA/IG. Nids were performing really good, before their nerfs and were on the top places.
Generally speaking the whine on the forums forced changes make the game worst for some fractions, before even all codexes were released.
You can`t really balance game when you introduce big change every mouth, but that make the game more dynamic.
That is true. How many small tweeks did eldar and Inari got since the edition started? If they were any other faction they should be as playable as BA right now. Yet they are still running around top tables. IG with Castellans are probablly the same. There is just no easy or small tweek way to fix them, specially if one also doesn't want to see those armies become unplayable.
I mean a blanket 50% cost rise on everything IG, eldar or Knight would "fix" the meta too. not sure if people like that kind of a fix though.
That's because the winning faction - Ynnari - hasn't been seeing much of any meaningful tweaks compared to Craftworlds. Craftworld has seen tweaks and you don't see them dominating anything unless they are being run as/with Ynnari.
The Ynnari faction trait is a fundamentally broken thing and can't be balanced by tweaking other codexes as it means Ynnari becomes the only playable faction for Aeldari. Ynnari needs to be revisited from the ground up as its own faction and its trait changed along with its own point cost for everything.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...but more importantly we need to create prices for Relics again
That would certainly help, given that some relics are the equivalent of a 5pt piece of wargear while something like Cawls Wrath is comparable to hanging a whole extra plasma decimator onto the unit.
That's because the winning faction - Ynnari - hasn't been seeing much of any meaningful tweaks compared to Craftworlds. Craftworld has seen tweaks and you don't see them dominating anything unless they are being run as/with Ynnari.
The Ynnari faction trait is a fundamentally broken thing and can't be balanced by tweaking other codexes as it means Ynnari becomes the only playable faction for Aeldari. Ynnari needs to be revisited from the ground up as its own faction and its trait changed along with its own point cost for everything.
Ynnari got hit hard with the nerfhammer early on with a re-write of soulburst, I remember some players complaining how it made the Ynnari faction worthless, their new models useless etc. Clearly it did not work out quite as they said. There was another mini-nerf with the casting cost of Word of the Phoenix but again that turns out not to have been enough.
I have my own thoughts on what needs to be done to fix Ynnari but we may as well just wait it out and see what GW do.
In the meantime I could point out that outside of ITC and using book missions they are a strong faction but nothing like such a dominant one. The combination of missions and terrain rules that play to their strengths is a factor.
That's because the winning faction - Ynnari - hasn't been seeing much of any meaningful tweaks compared to Craftworlds. Craftworld has seen tweaks and you don't see them dominating anything unless they are being run as/with Ynnari.
The Ynnari faction trait is a fundamentally broken thing and can't be balanced by tweaking other codexes as it means Ynnari becomes the only playable faction for Aeldari. Ynnari needs to be revisited from the ground up as its own faction and its trait changed along with its own point cost for everything.
Ynnari got hit hard with the nerfhammer early on with a re-write of soulburst, I remember some players complaining how it made the Ynnari faction worthless, their new models useless etc. Clearly it did not work out quite as they said. There was another mini-nerf with the casting cost of Word of the Phoenix but again that turns out not to have been enough.
I have my own thoughts on what needs to be done to fix Ynnari but we may as well just wait it out and see what GW do.
In the meantime I could point out that outside of ITC and using book missions they are a strong faction but nothing like such a dominant one. The combination of missions and terrain rules that play to their strengths is a factor.
I do wonder how much GW are going to change up the actual mechanics of problem rules interactions and how much is just going to be increased CP cost or points making units only playable in certain armies.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
Ynnari got hit hard with the nerfhammer early on with a re-write of soulburst, I remember some players complaining how it made the Ynnari faction worthless, their new models useless etc. Clearly it did not work out quite as they said. There was another mini-nerf with the casting cost of Word of the Phoenix but again that turns out not to have been enough.
It did go from god-like to just OP, but the core problem is that it is potentially a gamebreaking trait that is applied to a side-faction. In short, it uses Craftworld and Drukhari units and points, but is such a wildly differing force multiplier to the CW and D codexes that Ynnari must be point costed to its own context instead of having CW and D suffer nerfing just because some people like playing Ynnari.
And, i'll say it again: the quality of a codex is about potential performance. Codexes have bad options, and people play them. A codex with 1 point models that fire 30 shots without LOS that hit automatically at strength 50, AP-12, 30 damage would be god mode. But, people who don't bring those models would not do as well. It's a silly example but it's hyperbole to hopefully convey a point: There are trap options in the codex, and top tier options that define the quality of an army. We should evaluate the strength of a codex without examining the obvious trap options that can and do show up at big tournaments.
If you bring a detachment of Ynnari guardians, backed up by Dark Eldar Wyches, and Scourges, you're probably going to get fething rolled. Despite the fact that Ynnari are top tier.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
Marmatag wrote: That analysis is on a very small sample size.
And, i'll say it again: the quality of a codex is about potential performance. Codexes have bad options, and people play them. A codex with 1 point models that fire 30 shots without LOS that hit automatically at strength 50, AP-12, 30 damage would be god mode. But, people who don't bring those models would not do as well. It's a silly example but it's hyperbole to hopefully convey a point: There are trap options in the codex, and top tier options that define the quality of an army. We should evaluate the strength of a codex without examining the obvious trap options that can and do show up at big tournaments.
If you bring a detachment of Ynnari guardians, backed up by Dark Eldar Wyches, and Scourges, you're probably going to get fething rolled. Despite the fact that Ynnari are top tier.
It's like how 6th Edition Tyranids were technically competitive despite the absolutely trash codex that was written for them.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
Yeah exactly. Plus - A castellan is so expensive that to chose to bring a weaker version of it to bring a chaos army doesn't make any sense. The only time it makes sense is to bring a double gatling knight for heratics with reroll all hits stratagem. Which is a pretty big FU to things like shinning spears and primaris marines.
Read my post in full and the things I have raised there. I believe I show where some straight incorrect things are said as if fact.
Every faction made it into the top 62 except BA. What they failed to discuss was the frequency of factions compared to their total number of players.
As to what do they have to gain? Well some of the members sit on the balance team so are responsible for where we are now. If they said balance was out of whack (as it is) its admitting they (and GW) have done a poor job.
I think Reece gets it and knows that Orks aren't strong. He's not going to admit that publicly until it is more obvious but reading between the lines of some of the things he says I get the impression he knows this. He always had concerns about Orks performing in the LVO meta and he has acknowledged that CA kicked us in the nuts.
I read what you wrote and dont agree with it. You are making assertions based on your own bias for example that the orks are not strong. Many people feel orks are strong or at least a gate keeper that you need to beat and are preparing for it. Orks in fact did well when it came to getting to 4/0 which was were most of the lists started failing. Orks are good, not over powered where they should be. Some like ynnari and imperial soup are too good.
They DID discuss frequency of of factions, and their win rates, obviously they didnt go through each line by line. They even mentioned the one or two anomalies that had high wins but low total rep. If you want the source of data then maybe you can go find it. But they did mention it. I think overall most factions were able to get to 40-50% which in their eyes is balanced (you can obviously disagree with this).
They did in fact mention the out of whack part, they said that some factions need to be toned down and some factions need to be bumped up.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
So does the unit need to be re-priced, or does it need it stratagems and relics changed?
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
So does the unit need to be re-priced, or does it need it stratagems and relics changed?
Actually I would say that the house raven strategum needs to have a questorus and a dominus class knights CP cost as the linked stats above go into some analysis of the imperial soup armies for subfaction mixes and outside of house raven, it actually doesn't matter what you allie to guard you get a 55% win ratio.
That kinda says Guard having no cost acess to allies is probably the underlying issue.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
It has access to like 1 or 2. What it does NOT have is Household benefits and Relics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and Warlord Traits
Leo_the_Rat wrote: It analyzes 1000 armies and 2500 matches. How large of a sample size do you want?
The number of possible combination are too much for this sample size. And players trying to win (as they should) just skews the data (can probably be taken into account though).
For example, the writer conclude that SoB is balanced with 49% win/rate. Which would be true IF the amount of mono SoB armies was higher than 25%... (I can bet most SoB armies comes with allied knights).
Another example, he also conclude that orks are balanced with a 50% win rate overall, but in the matchups matrix, they "underperform" in 2/3 of their matchups. So they probably had more matches against their "good" matchups.
Some factions don't even appear in the matchup matrix because there isn't enough matches too add them.
And some factions are over represented in the data. Look at 15% adeptus astartes (26% if you add heretics !!) vs 3% necron for example. Which makes me realise the 3 most "underperforming" factions represents 30% of the data.
It's interesting data, but drawing definitive conclusions from it is pretty hard, outside of the obvious stuff.
FLG is basically the GW Ministry of Truth (the 1984 version, so Ministry of Propaganda). Partly because they have weird ways of determining factions, so they will say that "Blood Angels" are doing well when it's all soup with a Knight and *some* Blood Angels. Yet to them it's a "Blood Angels army" and they push the narrative that things are diverse and balanced. They said there was "lots of diversity" in the Top 10 at LVO when it was essentially all Castellan (ok one guy had a Lancer and 2 Warglaives) and Ynnari soup of various flavors. Two out of 10 were different (a Tau player and I believe some sort of Chaos daemon soup).
I've put my thoughts into words wrongly. I just meant that how a faction performs and it's popularity affects how much it will appear in the data, thus you have some stuff more represented than others (1 out of 5 players is primarily using astartes of some sort and 1 out of 5 use either ynnari, knight or am).
Leo_the_Rat wrote: So, I repeat, how large a sample size do you require to make the statistic reliable?
I don't know and I'm not even sure increasing the sample would give different results anyway (because army distribution between players would probably not change much).
I just think the data displayed in this link doesn't show us much regarding mono faction performance. It has some interesting points though, particularly in the "matchup" summary.
And I'm probably missing something as total primary faction amount of games is closing to 5K games and faction taken as an ally is over 8K, from a set of 2K5 games. (EDIT : Actually it might work out, you have potentially a total of 5K games for primary and 10K for ally if same factions show up both side of the table every match).
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
You mean the Chaos version that does not have access to the same things the IOM does? This is the definition of comparing apples to oranges. Besides both factions have different incentives and soup ingredients.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
You mean the Chaos version that does not have access to the same things the IOM does? This is the definition of comparing apples to oranges. Besides both factions have different incentives and soup ingredients.
and the thing the IoM version has that chaos does not have is the stratigiums. ergo the strats are broken not the unit.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
It has access to like 1 or 2. What it does NOT have is Household benefits and Relics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and Warlord Traits
yes those too, i was just being broad.
Anyway, on the topic of balance - FLG is unmistakably correct. The game is the most balanced it's ever been. Almost any codex CAN compete with the right allies. How a codex performs solo is literally irrelevant to balance in this game, because thats simply not the game or a rule anywhere. For example, Knights are one of the strongest dexes in current 40k, but solo they would be one of the worst - you have to pick one or the other when discussing balance, and the only one that makes sense to choose is what is actually allowed. The problem is, while FLG is right about "balance" - this is terrible game design, because for 3 dexes to work together and be balanced against a solo dex, this means some of those dexes themselves suffer when played solo and having the key elements that allow them to compete at the highest level, removed from their dex - E.G. Knights and BA. There is only one real solution to this, and it comes in the form of punishing allies, or rewarding monofaction. These stats don't reflect monofaction balance at all, and why would they? They are not taken from a monofaction environment. In the case of allied balance, they accurately reflect the state of the game.
Wayniac wrote: FLG is basically the GW Ministry of Truth (the 1984 version, so Ministry of Propaganda). Partly because they have weird ways of determining factions, so they will say that "Blood Angels" are doing well when it's all soup with a Knight and *some* Blood Angels. Yet to them it's a "Blood Angels army" and they push the narrative that things are diverse and balanced. They said there was "lots of diversity" in the Top 10 at LVO when it was essentially all Castellan (ok one guy had a Lancer and 2 Warglaives) and Ynnari soup of various flavors. Two out of 10 were different (a Tau player and I believe some sort of Chaos daemon soup).
But to FLG that's "diversity".
They stated diversity at LVO on the top 62 which represented for the most part armies that went 5/1. They also stated that Ynnari and Castellan needs to be nerfed.
They aren't perfect but some of you are making it look worse than it is.
What Reece does believe is that the armies that are weak, can still do ok. I.e. Space Marines and Necrons (its like his personal philosophy). That doesnt mean these codexs are ok as is but some people are just flat out not trying to make them work with what is available.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
You mean the Chaos version that does not have access to the same things the IOM does? This is the definition of comparing apples to oranges. Besides both factions have different incentives and soup ingredients.
and the thing the IoM version has that chaos does not have is the stratigiums. ergo the strats are broken not the unit.
It doesn't matter the reason why a unit is broken, unless GW will change that reason. Whether it's being to cheap on it's own, some weird ally interaction, Strats, CP generation or etc. The IOM version of the Castellan is largely broken to a weird combo of all the above.
Anyway, on the topic of balance - FLG is unmistakably correct. The game is the most balanced it's ever been. Almost any codex CAN compete with the right allies.
Correct balanced does not mean equal opportunities to win at the top table. I dont think they have stated that.
For the lastest podcast they believe if armies can achieve a 50:50 win rate they are "balanced". I think their stats back this up. The problem armies are in the 60s or 70s.
What the stats dont state is that all armies have an equal chance to win a tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: Whether it's being to cheap on it's own, some weird ally interaction, Strats, CP generation or etc. The IOM version of the Castellan is largely broken to a weird combo of all the above.
The Castellan must be broken due to the reroll all 1s strat, fire at full BS for 1cp and the 3++ warlord trait. These are what makes it better than a renegade and the reason chaos dont take it at all.
I suspect taking away the ability to 3++ is going to go along way. And making firing at full bs for 2 or 3cp (similar to rotate being 1cp/3cp depending on chassis). The price feels ok.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
You mean the Chaos version that does not have access to the same things the IOM does? This is the definition of comparing apples to oranges. Besides both factions have different incentives and soup ingredients.
and the thing the IoM version has that chaos does not have is the stratigiums. ergo the strats are broken not the unit.
It doesn't matter the reason why a unit is broken, unless GW will change that reason. Whether it's being to cheap on it's own, some weird ally interaction, Strats, CP generation or etc. The IOM version of the Castellan is largely broken to a weird combo of all the above.
sure except you can't say "X is broken"when the real issue is something else.
Anyway, on the topic of balance - FLG is unmistakably correct. The game is the most balanced it's ever been. Almost any codex CAN compete with the right allies.
Correct balanced does not mean equal opportunities to win at the top table. I dont think they have stated that.
Soup is a problem no doubt but I don't think its as simple as just removing soup either, a lot of armies can't stand on their own and removing soup would create some juggernauts that would be worse than the current issue. I also think just removing CP from non WL faction would be a poor choice. I think the best idea I have seen some 1 put out there in the past has been removing the connection between detachments and CP. If you are Battleforged you get say 12-14 CP somewhere. 1 faction gives you exactly that 12-14 cp, a 2nd faction costs you 1-2 CP a 3rd faction costs you an additional 2-3 CP (think like the strategems for relics). This would mean a mono faction gets 12-14 cp a double faction would get between 10-13 cp and a triple faction would end up at around 7-11 CP somewhere. The range accounting for balancing the CP costs. This covers your 3 detachments. The other question on soup is where does Ynnari fall? There is no question Ynnari is a problem, and part of that is the same reason soup is a problem combined with 2 shooting phases for reapers of course. The above doesn't solve Ynnari either as they would still be running around with 12-14 happily skirting the balance. Do you just dock Ynnari a static 2-4 CP just for being Ynnari and having access to almost everything or do you break it down into stratagem sniping groups they use?
Honestly though no matter what, if anything, GW does to try to improve the current situation its undoubtedly going to divide on the community.
Anyway, on the topic of balance - FLG is unmistakably correct. The game is the most balanced it's ever been. Almost any codex CAN compete with the right allies.
Correct balanced does not mean equal opportunities to win at the top table. I dont think they have stated that.
For the lastest podcast they believe if armies can achieve a 50:50 win rate they are "balanced". I think their stats back this up. The problem armies are in the 60s or 70s.
What the stats dont state is that all armies have an equal chance to win a tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: Whether it's being to cheap on it's own, some weird ally interaction, Strats, CP generation or etc. The IOM version of the Castellan is largely broken to a weird combo of all the above.
The Castellan must be broken due to the reroll all 1s strat, fire at full BS for 1cp and the 3++ warlord trait. These are what makes it better than a renegade and the reason chaos dont take it at all.
I suspect taking away the ability to 3++ is going to go along way. And making firing at full bs for 2 or 3cp (similar to rotate being 1cp/3cp depending on chassis). The price feels ok.
You can`t make such assumption because the data is not collected in isolated environment, ignoring the tournament metta.
1. Most players build armies that could handle IK Castellan and using the weaker chaos version don`t give the player any real benefit.
2. There was big chance you meat IK on the tables and the weaker chaos Castellan don`t have the tools to handle it
3. Chaos prefer other tools to be competitive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GrinNfool wrote: Soup is a problem no doubt but I don't think its as simple as just removing soup either, a lot of armies can't stand on their own and removing soup would create some juggernauts that would be worse than the current issue. I also think just removing CP from non WL faction would be a poor choice. I think the best idea I have seen some 1 put out there in the past has been removing the connection between detachments and CP. If you are Battleforged you get say 12-14 CP somewhere. 1 faction gives you exactly that 12-14 cp, a 2nd faction costs you 1-2 CP a 3rd faction costs you an additional 2-3 CP (think like the strategems for relics). This would mean a mono faction gets 12-14 cp a double faction would get between 10-13 cp and a triple faction would end up at around 7-11 CP somewhere. The range accounting for balancing the CP costs. This covers your 3 detachments. The other question on soup is where does Ynnari fall? There is no question Ynnari is a problem, and part of that is the same reason soup is a problem combined with 2 shooting phases for reapers of course. The above doesn't solve Ynnari either as they would still be running around with 12-14 happily skirting the balance. Do you just dock Ynnari a static 2-4 CP just for being Ynnari and having access to almost everything or do you break it down into stratagem sniping groups they use?
Honestly though no matter what, if anything, GW does to try to improve the current situation its undoubtedly going to divide on the community.
Ynnari armies without dark reapers did better, than the list with dark reapers.
Spamming reapers was worst than having 1 squad. Pure CWE armies are running away from DR.
So no DR were not problem in this tournament.
I have no issues with soup as a concept, it helps make fluffy armies, interesting combinations and adds freedom to how people want to hobby which are all good things.
The main issues that I see it creates are:
- Shoring up weaknesses in main faction. - Gaining access to lots of extra command points. - Gaining access to additional stratagems.
My fix (we all have one :-) ) would be to make it so you don't gain best use all of these benefits, taking a detachment of a different faction should offer some bonuses but shouldn't just be strictly better than taking more of your main faction.
So I propose making your primary faction (as defined by the detachment your warlord comes from) the basis of your army and reducing the benefits of additional detachments taken from other factions. They should still be useful, especially for filling in gaps in your main army but they don't come with quite so many extra benefits.
- Detachments drawn from a different faction to your primary faction half the number of Command Points they generate (rounding down). - Stratagems drawn from a different faction to your primary faction cost an additional command point to activate.
This would hopefully have the effect of the main faction being what the army is based around, allies are still useful but are not as efficient as they would be if they were your primary faction. As if they had a separate command structure of something :-)
Some soup armies are quite fluffy though. Also the people that make the fluffy army soups don't do it for advantages, in game. I have a guard army with Celestine as warlord, because I modelled the army of an in lore army that Celestine helped. Her warlord trait is usless and a few of her abilities are useless in my army, but I use her because of the fluff, not the in game advantage. Then for my 10,000 point army, Guard again, with one knight, Celestine, and allarus custodes. The knight because for in lore battles of that size there would always be at least 1 knight. Celestine for reasons already explained, and the custodes because there is a group of custodes that are assigned to guard commanders on certain campaigns for being legends.
I think you should be able to make soup armies, but you have to have 85% plus of the points as a "mother faction" and all the other parts of the army can only be auxillary support detachments, if taken from another faction, like guard and celestine. That will stop the abuse of CP, prevent the massive soup abusive lists, and a penalty for souping.
deotrims 16th wrote: Some soup armies are quite fluffy though. Also the people that make the fluffy army soups don't do it for advantages, in game. I have a guard army with Celestine as warlord, because I modelled the army of an in lore army that Celestine helped. Her warlord trait is usless and a few of her abilities are useless in my army, but I use her because of the fluff, not the in game advantage. Then for my 10,000 point army, Guard again, with one knight, Celestine, and allarus custodes. The knight because for in lore battles of that size there would always be at least 1 knight. Celestine for reasons already explained, and the custodes because there is a group of custodes that are assigned to guard commanders on certain campaigns for being legends.
I think you should be able to make soup armies, but you have to have 85% plus of the points as a "mother faction" and all the other parts of the army can only be auxillary support detachments, if taken from another faction, like guard and celestine. That will stop the abuse of CP, prevent the massive soup abusive lists, and a penalty for souping.
Soup might be fluffy sometimes but the majority of uses you see for it is to ignore weaknesses in a codex or to make cheap CP batteries to farm the good stuff. That's what needs to be curbed because it's bad for the game overall.
In general, I think the detachment system was a huge mistake in practice, although in theory, it sounds great. It should have been like how 7th edition was where you had ways to unlock things as Troops (so you could do those all Terminator/Biker armies), and just been the old FOC style with a Patrol for up to 1000 points, Battalion for like 1000-2000 points, Brigade (with reduced requirements say 1 Elite/Fast/Heavy) >= 2000 points, and allow like 1 Flyer/LOW/etc and not let you do detachments of entire Fast/Elite/Heavy, just controlled ways to make them Troop choices (with an addendum perhaps that units which are made troops, rather than began as Troops, do not get Objective Secured). Maybe even go older and allow you to swap 2 of one type to take an extra of a different type (such as back in 3.5 where Iron Warriors could trade 2 Fast Attack for a 4th Heavy Support).
There is no reason at all why you should be able to take a detachment of Flyers or Superheavies (barring things like Knights which IMHO were a mistake anyways but that's another topic). The myriad of detachments are turning out to be a really bad thing IMHO.
Only problem I see with the "making up for weaknesses" argument is that all the main soups are just using units that are tactically and thematically similar to their own. IG + Castellan could just be IG + Shadowsword except the Shadowsword is priced better than the Castellan(ie not as OP). All the Aeldari are pretty much very similar with a few tricks on each(psychic powers perhaps being the largest gulf between Non-Drukhari and Drukhari). Aeldari tend to be low T models with high str weapons with good range regardless of faction. Even when you try to single out the oddities like coven with their high T close combat you also more or less have that in the Craftworld Wraithguard. It's not like Orks with gak shooting allying with Tau for good shooting. That would be a more explicit making up for a weakness compared to the current problem children.
So it always comes down to the same original point: Some units are inherently too powerful, and some traits are inherently too powerful. Therefore these things should be fixed before larger changes. A system that allowed the type of allying people are complaining about was 6th and 7th where you could ally Ork and Necrons; two wildly differing factions.
Wayniac wrote: There is no reason at all why you should be able to take a detachment of Flyers or Superheavies (barring things like Knights which IMHO were a mistake anyways but that's another topic). The myriad of detachments are turning out to be a really bad thing IMHO.
Completely agree. Wargames work best when there are meaningful restrictions on what you can take, in order to facilitate balance. The problems began with Formations in 7th and 8th cranked that up to insane proportions with effectively unrestricted army selection rules. Seeing something like the 7-flyer Ynarri list that was in the LVO final is a pretty terrible indictment of the game, IMO. More than one of my gaming friends who do not play 40k have commented on how bad the game looks when there is nothing that seems to represent an army on the board, just giant mechs and hordes of flyers/monsters. In addition, that specific army was taking advantage of the shoddy rules for flyers and using them to block movement through them, which is a great example of how the 40k rules are creaking under the strain of having to represent everything from the lowliest Grot to supersonic jets and towering mechs.
Wayniac wrote: There is no reason at all why you should be able to take a detachment of Flyers or Superheavies (barring things like Knights which IMHO were a mistake anyways but that's another topic). The myriad of detachments are turning out to be a really bad thing IMHO.
Completely agree. Wargames work best when there are meaningful restrictions on what you can take, in order to facilitate balance. The problems began with Formations in 7th and 8th cranked that up to insane proportions with effectively unrestricted army selection rules. Seeing something like the 7-flyer Ynarri list that was in the LVO final is a pretty terrible indictment of the game, IMO. More than one of my gaming friends who do not play 40k have commented on how bad the game looks when there is nothing that seems to represent an army on the board, just giant mechs and hordes of flyers/monsters. In addition, that specific army was taking advantage of the shoddy rules for flyers and using them to block movement through them, which is a great example of how the 40k rules are creaking under the strain of having to represent everything from the lowliest Grot to supersonic jets and towering mechs.
See, I liked the *concept* of Formations in 7th because to me they were a shopping list of sorts. e.g. I have one of these models if I buy two more and this other model I can field them and get some cool bonuses. The issue was their balance was all over the place and the super-formations were just ridiculous (e.g. Decurion, Gladius).
I also feel that we need 0-1 restrictions again or 1 per X restrictions again. It's a sad testament to the game IMHO that GW abandoned that concept because they figured 0-1 means they can't sell 3, rather than realize 0-1 was good for the health of the game overall (and just because this always gets trotted out, the desire to make money does not preclude the desire to put out good quality; I always see this "well they're a business they want to make money" as though that somehow excuses sacrificing the game's quality. Seriously I've had people argue that having a good game is somehow exclusive with GW making money!)
If it were up to me I'd scrap the multiple detachment things entirely as I said above. Instead, you'd basically just have Patrol/Battalion/Brigade that corresponds to the general size of the game (Small, Average, Large) and then each codex might have specific ways to unlock certain units as other types. Similar to how in 7th if you took IIRC a Bike captain in a marine force, you unlocked Bikers as troops. So for example, a Night Lords force might unlock Raptors/Warp Talons as troops; Saim-Hann makes Jetbikes troops; a Terminator captain (or give the option for a Veteran captain) would give you Vets and Terminators as troops. With the caveat as I said above, only native Troops get the ObSec equivalent.
40k as it is though is pretty ridiculous. That 7 flyer list at LVO was disgusting and a travesty and really shows how bad things can get. But that was always the issue; 40k, as it stands, can't represent close firefights and large-scale conflict. The rules re not made for that. GW really should have gone the Warpath route Mantic did and have two sets of rules, one for normal games that have more detail and one for larger games that have abstractions (say optionally use round movement trays or something) so the rules can best reflect those types of warfare without trying to apeal to everyone and as a result do everything poorly.
advantage of the shoddy rules for flyers and using them to block movement through them
This is perhaps the weirdest design GW has made. I don't understand why they didn't just use clear bases and then declare enemy units could stand on them.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
I think your saying you don't understand balance either.
I'll try to clear it up for you. To achieve balance fix the broken things. If the Stratagems and Relics are the problem, fix those. Don't fix the part that isn't broken. Cause if the Castellan was broken, it would be tearing up the Chaos Meta. Its not.
Change the point cost on the castellan is a stupid idea, and I will continue to point out the clearly poor thinking that goes into that. If you do raise the point cost on the castellan, its either still going to be worth it to the admech to drop a squad and keep running it, while further making sure it is useless to None admech armies, until people think it needed another raise in points. And if that happens, then Admech will swap to Porphyrions or Crusaders, and its a paperweight on shelf cause it was fixed the wrong way.
Everyone agree's its not the Castellan that is the issue. Its the Relic and Stratagems. So change them. Fix what is broken. Change the Order of Companions to be 2 CP for knights, and 4 CP for Dominus Class knights. If that doesn't do it, nerf Cawl's wrath. Perhaps make it do 2MW when it gets hot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Step 1. Make more diverse universal stratagems.
Step 2. Faction specific stratagems can be used in Matched play only if your army is monofaction
I liked this idea for a long while, but I think it loses steam with the assassin rules release. Something like this gives them no ability to use stratagems ever.
At this point, I really feel the only path forward is to:
1 Set CP based of the points of the game.
2 Lose CP for multiple detachments, and for adding other factions.
3. Re-cost stratagems in CP cost to reflect how effective they are.
4. Reduce most stratagems for many armies, and add a large amount of Stratagems to the universal use group.
Universal Stratagems should include:
Command Reroll, Turn 1 Cover Stratagem, Suicidal bravery, Reroll 1's to hit for a unit, Vehicle acts as if its not damaged for the turn, 5+ save for Mortal wounds for the rest of the turn for unit, Interrupt fight phase to attack. Fight again at end of turn for unit. Heroic sacrafice for a Charecter to shoot/fight. And Controversially, I think there should be the mechanic to pay one more than the Strat cost to cancel an opponet strat, but they are refunded the Strat cost. Like an agent of vect for all.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
I think your saying you don't understand balance either.
I'll try to clear it up for you. To achieve balance fix the broken things. If the Stratagems and Relics are the problem, fix those. Don't fix the part that isn't broken. Cause if the Castellan was broken, it would be tearing up the Chaos Meta. Its not.
Change the point cost on the castellan is a stupid idea, and I will continue to point out the clearly poor thinking that goes into that. If you do raise the point cost on the castellan, its either still going to be worth it to the admech to drop a squad and keep running it, while further making sure it is useless to None admech armies, until people think it needed another raise in points. And if that happens, then Admech will swap to Porphyrions or Crusaders, and its a paperweight on shelf cause it was fixed the wrong way.
Everyone agree's its not the Castellan that is the issue. Its the Relic and Stratagems. So change them. Fix what is broken. Change the Order of Companions to be 2 CP for knights, and 4 CP for Dominus Class knights. If that doesn't do it, nerf Cawl's wrath. Perhaps make it do 2MW when it gets hot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Step 1. Make more diverse universal stratagems.
Step 2. Faction specific stratagems can be used in Matched play only if your army is monofaction
I liked this idea for a long while, but I think it loses steam with the assassin rules release. Something like this gives them no ability to use stratagems ever.
At this point, I really feel the only path forward is to:
1 Set CP based of the points of the game.
2 Lose CP for multiple detachments, and for adding other factions.
3. Re-cost stratagems in CP cost to reflect how effective they are.
4. Reduce most stratagems for many armies, and add a large amount of Stratagems to the universal use group.
Universal Stratagems should include:
Command Reroll, Turn 1 Cover Stratagem, Suicidal bravery, Reroll 1's to hit for a unit, Vehicle acts as if its not damaged for the turn, 5+ save for Mortal wounds for the rest of the turn for unit, Interrupt fight phase to attack. Fight again at end of turn for unit. Heroic sacrafice for a Charecter to shoot/fight. And Controversially, I think there should be the mechanic to pay one more than the Strat cost to cancel an opponet strat, but they are refunded the Strat cost. Like an agent of vect for all.
You don't understand balance even remotely either. Your logic is so bad.
The strats wouldn't be broken in a codex that was just the strats and no Knights to use them on either, just like the vice versa. SO CLEARLY THE STRATS ARE FINE and we must Nerf EVERY SINGLE KNIGHT
Nerfing the strats etc would affect multiple units in the dex, punishing them all for one definitively overpowered unit. Yet some of them may be a problem too. We use the power of critical thinking that god gave us and recognise the individual offenders in a dex, rather than comparing to what is strong in a dex that lacks all the tools that this one has. I personally think Rotate Ion Shields for a 3++ shouldn't exist.
It's almost like the issue is more complex than "this one thing is broken and needs to be nerfed". The reality is that there isn't one thing that GW has to do to balance the game. They need to both adjust the points cost of multiple units and give soup some sort of drawback to give people a reason to play mono-codex. Both options should be viable in the competitive meta.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
Well cause you are wrong....
If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.
The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.
I think your saying you don't understand balance either.
I'll try to clear it up for you. To achieve balance fix the broken things. If the Stratagems and Relics are the problem, fix those. Don't fix the part that isn't broken. Cause if the Castellan was broken, it would be tearing up the Chaos Meta. Its not.
Change the point cost on the castellan is a stupid idea, and I will continue to point out the clearly poor thinking that goes into that. If you do raise the point cost on the castellan, its either still going to be worth it to the admech to drop a squad and keep running it, while further making sure it is useless to None admech armies, until people think it needed another raise in points. And if that happens, then Admech will swap to Porphyrions or Crusaders, and its a paperweight on shelf cause it was fixed the wrong way.
Everyone agree's its not the Castellan that is the issue. Its the Relic and Stratagems. So change them. Fix what is broken. Change the Order of Companions to be 2 CP for knights, and 4 CP for Dominus Class knights. If that doesn't do it, nerf Cawl's wrath. Perhaps make it do 2MW when it gets hot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Step 1. Make more diverse universal stratagems.
Step 2. Faction specific stratagems can be used in Matched play only if your army is monofaction
I liked this idea for a long while, but I think it loses steam with the assassin rules release. Something like this gives them no ability to use stratagems ever.
At this point, I really feel the only path forward is to:
1 Set CP based of the points of the game.
2 Lose CP for multiple detachments, and for adding other factions.
3. Re-cost stratagems in CP cost to reflect how effective they are.
4. Reduce most stratagems for many armies, and add a large amount of Stratagems to the universal use group.
Universal Stratagems should include:
Command Reroll, Turn 1 Cover Stratagem, Suicidal bravery, Reroll 1's to hit for a unit, Vehicle acts as if its not damaged for the turn, 5+ save for Mortal wounds for the rest of the turn for unit, Interrupt fight phase to attack. Fight again at end of turn for unit. Heroic sacrafice for a Charecter to shoot/fight. And Controversially, I think there should be the mechanic to pay one more than the Strat cost to cancel an opponet strat, but they are refunded the Strat cost. Like an agent of vect for all.
You don't understand balance even remotely either. Your logic is so bad.
The strats wouldn't be broken in a codex that was just the strats and no Knights to use them on either, just like the vice versa. SO CLEARLY THE STRATS ARE FINE and we must Nerf EVERY SINGLE KNIGHT
Nerfing the strats etc would affect multiple units in the dex, punishing them all for one definitively overpowered unit. Yet some of them may be a problem too. We use the power of critical thinking that god gave us and recognise the individual offenders in a dex, rather than comparing to what is strong in a dex that lacks all the tools that this one has. I personally think Rotate Ion Shields for a 3++ shouldn't exist.
Except you know what gives a mono Knights or even a primary knights list a lower win percentage including a Castellen.
And here in lies the problem with soup 1 model in an army with 15 or 20 CP can benifit from a 3 CP strategum 4 times.
A knight list with 9CP can use it maybe twice
Kights plus battalion can get maybe 3.
At no point along that train is their a CP cost for the strategum thats fair to mono and to the Astra Free CP list opponents.
You either fix the units for CP spam and remove knights from any other faction. And CP farm finds a new unit to cheerleader.
Or you fix the cheerleaders and stop treating the symptoms instead of the cause.
But hating on knights is cool so go ahead and join the mob, just don't expect sympathy when it's your codex taking a nerf bat beating for acquiring the effection of the cheerleader roid rage brigade if the emperors wrath.
Ice_can wrote: Except you know what gives a mono Knights or even a primary knights list a lower win percentage including a Castellen.
And here in lies the problem with soup 1 model in an army with 15 or 20 CP can benifit from a 3 CP strategum 4 times.
A knight list with 9CP can use it maybe twice
Kights plus battalion can get maybe 3.
At no point along that train is their a CP cost for the strategum thats fair to mono and to the Astra Free CP list opponents.
You either fix the units for CP spam and remove knights from any other faction. And CP farm finds a new unit to cheerleader.
Or you fix the cheerleaders and stop treating the symptoms instead of the cause.
But hating on knights is cool so go ahead and join the mob, just don't expect sympathy when it's your codex taking a nerf bat beating for acquiring the effection of the cheerleader roid rage brigade if the emperors wrath.
I would agree with this. The issue is that thanks to soup Knights can use their incredibly powerful stratagems many times. It's likely that part of their balance is that they wouldn't have a lot of CP to spend, therefore their stratagems are more powerful. That limitation gets completely dismissed when you can take a dirt cheap Guard battalion to funnel CP towards the good Knight stratagems.
The goal of the game is that every piece in every list should have some consideration when deciding your list. And every stratagem available to you should have some place in play.
It too bad that some people don't understand that, and advocate fixes that will marginalize some models.
I get that people don't want their stuff to be nerfed. I don't think any unit choice should be worthless taking, but saying that castellan stragagams shouldn't be nerfed, because someone in the world plays a mono knight lists without a castellan or gallants, seems a bit odd.
In the end the whole CP and stratagem mechanic devoided of points and in a setting where some armies can get bucket loads, while others don't, is just bad and should be scraped.
Now this can only happen in a new edition. Right now it would be get a change that doesnt kill the IK as a faction and an ally, but also stops the game being about everyone being IG+IK or eldar soup. Now IMO there is a higher chance to achiving such a change by tweeking the stratagems. Either their rules or their cost. Probably both.
Changing point costs will have the dark reaper effect. Castellans in same set up are going to be run in IG list even if they cost 100pts more, and the moment when they cost too much everyone drop castellans as a hot potato and they will sit next to BAs waiting for next edition.
Here's another idea - Stratagems cost +1 CP when the battle forged army is not a monodex. This does not affect universal stratagems (command reroll, counter offensive, insane bravery).
my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.
G00fySmiley wrote: my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.
You'll find that this suggestion is actually not that simple. We've had multi-page post on how to go about making this work, and it required entire overhaul of CP gerenated for detachments etc.
skchsan wrote: Here's another idea - Stratagems cost +1 CP when the battle forged army is not a monodex. This does not affect universal stratagems (command reroll, counter offensive, insane bravery).
Nice finally a solution that is simple enough that GW might actually impliment it in 8th edition and it hits at the crux of the matter with minimum wording.
G00fySmiley wrote: my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.
You'll find that this suggestion is actually not that simple. We've had multi-page post on how to go about making this work, and it required entire overhaul of CP gerenated for detachments etc.
this is 8th, GW wants everything simple.
I have read this whole thread, played a ton of games, and have almost every faciton in that game as an army/with play time. I think this is just the simplest and most viable solution. maybe add a chart for scale like 3 cp for sub 1k, 4 cp for 1k-1500, 5 cp for 1500+. but honestly even that is more complicated than it needs to be. It makes using your command points more impactful, and it gets rid of a lot of the advantages of soup.
... also remove soulburst completely, its a garbage mechanic and outshines everything else in the game (as well as making more complicated) in a game of limited numbe rof actions per unit unless spending rare/finite resources somehow one faction just gets extra actions)
G00fySmiley wrote: my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.
You'll find that this suggestion is actually not that simple. We've had multi-page post on how to go about making this work, and it required entire overhaul of CP gerenated for detachments etc.
this is 8th, GW wants everything simple.
I have read this whole thread, played a ton of games, and have almost every faciton in that game as an army/with play time. I think this is just the simplest and most viable solution. maybe add a chart for scale like 3 cp for sub 1k, 4 cp for 1k-1500, 5 cp for 1500+. but honestly even that is more complicated than it needs to be. It makes using your command points more impactful, and it gets rid of a lot of the advantages of soup.
... also remove soulburst completely, its a garbage mechanic and outshines everything else in the game (as well as making more complicated) in a game of limited numbe rof actions per unit unless spending rare/finite resources somehow one faction just gets extra actions)
I think many of us here agreed with your suggestion at one point, and some of us are still continuing to play with similar ideas trying to develop it into readily implementable level.
The issue is that changing how CP is generated & spent at a fundamental level as a whole causes a cascade of changes that needs to be made, which we all jokingly end up at "maybe in 9th ed".
If we focus on making a command point more impactful per CP spent, it will actually benefit armies comprised of 1 CP spender and rest CP generator more than it does now.
True, a lot of earily codex had unit rules changed in to stratagams. Later codex got their rules as rules. To balance the discrepancy, some old stratagams would have to be made 1 or even 0 CP in cost.
But how much stuff should cost is a thing to find out for people smarter then me.
