So, with the next FAQ closing in, what do you see around the corner? Here are my limited ideas:
1. Deathwatch will get a ruling on the Beacon shenanigans.
2. Deathwatch may get some sort of rule regarding limiting weapons in squads, because right now the cheese is on with SS/SB squads. FAQs won't do point increases, but I do think those are coming for weapons as well.
This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:
1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?
Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.
This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:
1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?
Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.
1) the designers commets in the GSCFAQ makes be doubt they'll change vect
2) Given the complaining I suspect your right and knights go from almost balanced as a primary list to bad, but the castellen plus Catachan battalion will still trundle on.
3) i suspect so too though they really should tone it down on DW.
4) I seriously doubt they will do anything regardless of what the players think as some like it and it's boosting their bottom line.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
I expect recosting of some stratagems. Order of Companions to go to 4 CP mostly. Hopefully that is only for Dominus Class though.
I hope for:
Changing CP to game size and some mechanics to change how armies are built favoring Mono faction and prioritizing filling detachments. One I put out some time ago would be.
Set CP for game size, say 15 CP(includes battleforged). Lose 1 CP for each detachment past the first. Lose a second CP if the faction of the second detachment doesn't match the first.
So a Yanarri/craftworld/drukkari force would have 11 CP to play with. A brigade of Ultramarine Primaris with Gulliman as a super aux would have 14.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
"Well-balanced" when it was all Imp soup and Ynnari in the top 8? And what, 6 of those Imperial lists had the Castellan? That's well balanced?
Thing is about the Bolter Rule, this is proof positive the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
The people who wrote the rules for DW didn't talk with the people who wrote the Bolter rule. They didn't realize they can field units with 3++ saves and 4 s5 ap-1 shots per model, re-rolling misses and wounding on 2+. PER MODEL. DW vet squads are already bloated in points cost, the only change I can see is restricting the unit to a set number of SS/SB combos. Only 2 per squad? Or making the combination cost appropriate.
Make it a dedicated combo for the model, like Termies. YOu can take a SS/SB on this model, but it's cost is 15-20 points.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
"Well-balanced" when it was all Imp soup and Ynnari in the top 8? And what, 6 of those Imperial lists had the Castellan? That's well balanced?
That depends on your definition of well balanced, as most ITC people are defining it at the moment is between a 40% and 60% win ratio with the idea of achieving 45-55%. The current out performing lists are Ynarri obvious why and the Catachan brigade, Emperors wrath and Raven Castellen.
Guard plus anything else including knights avaraged 55% win ratio, and about 50% mono.
Knights plus avaraged a similar but did worse mono at 47%.
At the other end GK are super bad, and adaptes astartes did badly, orks were low but not as low as it first appeared, I suspect the upset is because people where hyping orks as the meta breaking codex and they arn't. However GSC codex wasn't valid for LVO so lets see what the first big even with them involved does to the meta before people jump off the nerf everything deep end.
They game doesn't need another Blood angles codex.
I really think you are in for disappointment on DW getting any Errata/FAQ that does anything to limit their access to weapons. It's been their thing for forever. And SBs are already twice the cost for them than other Marine armies.
I'm also not sure you actually know the rules for them, at least not completely. That could certainly contribute to your outrage. For example, in a YMDC thread, you mentioned using 3 Beacons being OP, which it would be, but as a Relic you can only have 1. You also just mentioned StormBolters as S5 AP-1, but they are only s4 AP-0. And you cannot have BOTH AP-1 AND wound on 2+. You have to pick one or the other SIA. And a SB/SS Vet is already 20ppm and die just as fast as a 13ppm Marine to small arms fire.
If GW addresses the "issue" at all it will only be if StormVets start dominating tourney results, which thus far they have not made a significant enough impact. And if that starts to happen and GW does take action, it will be to outright remove the StormBolter from the DW equipment list. I truly believe this would be GW's answer to the "problem" because the DW kit doesn't actually come with any Stormbolters at all and historically, GW has paired down options when the kit doesn't come with them.
But, again, this will only happen if StormVets start having significant showings AND results at organized events. And right now, they are not. At best, 1 or so list has been making it to the top 10, but that's it.
My guess would be that they would change something a sentence or two could cover. Like they did with the change to Deep strike... How about: "All in game stratagems can only be used once per game with the exception of BRB stratagems."
This would effectively destroy the need for CP farms, and would force the players to think strategically. Especially for those big units like the Castellan.
Covers a couple of marketing points as well. Encourages players to use the card decks that they sell to keep track of what has and hasn't been used.
SaganGree wrote: My guess would be that they would change something a sentence or two could cover. Like they did with the change to Deep strike... How about: "All in game stratagems can only be used once per game with the exception of BRB stratagems."
This would effectively destroy the need for CP farms, and would force the players to think strategically. Especially for those big units like the Castellan.
Covers a couple of marketing points as well. Encourages players to use the card decks that they sell to keep track of what has and hasn't been used.
This would have a massive effect on the game, actually. And maybe one that I like, maybe. GW could have this apply to Matched Play only If only BRB strats can be multi-use, it really tones down spamming things like Rotate-Ion shields every turn and making it more of a once per game gambit. This would actually be a pretty big blow to Knights and Aeldari
The downside, I feel, is that it would probably encourage MORE soup, but instead of doing so to farm CPs, you would do this to gain access to more Strats.
The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Galef wrote: I really think you are in for disappointment on DW getting any Errata/FAQ that does anything to limit their access to weapons. It's been their thing for forever.
And SBs are already twice the cost for them than other Marine armies.
I'm also not sure you actually know the rules for them, at least not completely. That could certainly contribute to your outrage. For example, in a YMDC thread, you mentioned using 3 Beacons being OP, which it would be, but as a Relic you can only have 1.
You also just mentioned StormBolters as S5 AP-1, but they are only s4 AP-0. And you cannot have BOTH AP-1 AND wound on 2+. You have to pick one or the other SIA.
And a SB/SS Vet is already 20ppm and die just as fast as a 13ppm Marine to small arms fire.
If GW addresses the "issue" at all it will only be if StormVets start dominating tourney results, which thus far they have not made a significant enough impact.
And if that starts to happen and GW does take action, it will be to outright remove the StormBolter from the DW equipment list. I truly believe this would be GW's answer to the "problem" because the DW kit doesn't actually come with any Stormbolters at all and historically, GW has paired down options when the kit doesn't come with them.
But, again, this will only happen if StormVets start having significant showings AND results at organized events. And right now, they are not. At best, 1 or so list has been making it to the top 10, but that's it.
-
I will freely admit that I am extremely new to them, (Less than 2 weeks) and to the hobby (less than 2 years). That being said, my comment was in complete error. Thank you for the correction.
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
This would work but there's more than just Knights abusing CP farms and stratagems.
I really think they just need to do something to fix being able to use multiple stratagems from multiple detachments. The 1/game is a fix, but I think a bit too extreme. The real problem isn't mono faction using their stratagems multiple times, it's things like taking two detachments, each a different faction, and getting the stratagems of both. I think that rule needs to be reverted (maybe just for Matched Play) so that you no longer unlock stratagems for a faction by including a detachment of that faction.
That would remove things like taking an Alpha Legion detachment with Death Guard to get Tide of Traitors for Cultists (is that even used anymore with the cultist nerfs?) or using a Caftworld <Aeldari> stratagem on a Drukhari detachment.
I think that might be enough to fix it; you're essentially limited to only the stratagems of your "primary" detachment. Yes this means something like you could take multiple CSM detachments with different Legions and still use the stratagems on each but that's arguably still "mono faction" (although I think that's an issue too but not as bad as getting multiple stratagems for different factions unlocked).
I think the best solution would be something like:
1) Brood Brothers rule for any detachment that doesn't contain your Warlord (or some other way to identify a primary detachment) and has a different keyword to your main faction (maybe going so far as to require 2 keywords, so for example <Heretic Astartes> isn't enough to get traits, you'd need <Heretic Astartes> and <LEGION> ). So that means the allied detachments don't get traits or relics, give half CP (to a minimum of 1), etc. Maybe even keep the 1 per rule (so you'd have at most 1 in games that use the 3 detachment limit). Losing traits and relics for allied detachments kill things like taking a guard battery with a Blood Angels Supreme Command or taking 3 detachments with different legion/chapter/etc. traits to min/max what is contained in them.
2) Revert the rule unlocking stratagems for an entire faction simply by having a detachment with that keyword. This prevents taking two different factions in two different detachments and getting the stratagems of both.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
GK sit at 30% win rate, so I expect 20% point drops on most units then.
I hope for some fix to GK psychic powers, maybe new nemezis weapon rules as in don't make falchions always better, when models come with halabards and swords on them. Some fix to the normal NDK, so it doesn't suck comparing to the GM. Maybe just merge strikes and interceptors in to one unit, or substentialy lower the cost of strikes.
This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:
1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?
Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.
Pretty much agree with you here.
I don't think Vect will change, the comment in the FAQ made it seem like the difference is very much intentional. Different armies get slightly different toys.
Limiting the Castellan to 4++ is a really good solution. I don't think big impactful models should get 3++ anyway, it's just too powerful. But it doesn't gut Imperium lists by any means.
Really like the idea of making Brood Brothers the standard for all allies. Makes allies viable, powerful even, but makes them a genuine cost/benefit choice rather than just being able to shove in all the best units from different books. I don't think it's likely mind, I think they'll consider it too big a change to the BRB, but I would be very happy with it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I will freely admit that I am extremely new to them, (Less than 2 weeks) and to the hobby (less than 2 years). That being said, my comment was in complete error. Thank you for the correction.
I certainly agree with you that they are powerful. Arguably the best Marine Troops in the game. But they do have weaknesses preventing them from dominating tourneys. But I am prepared to swap to just bolters if GW ever removes the option for Stormbolters, which is think is the most likely change, even if I don't think a change is likely at all.
This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:
1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game) 2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan) 3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway) 4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?
Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.
Pretty much agree with you here.
I don't think Vect will change, the comment in the FAQ made it seem like the difference is very much intentional. Different armies get slightly different toys.
Limiting the Castellan to 4++ is a really good solution. I don't think big impactful models should get 3++ anyway, it's just too powerful. But it doesn't gut Imperium lists by any means.
Really like the idea of making Brood Brothers the standard for all allies. Makes allies viable, powerful even, but makes them a genuine cost/benefit choice rather than just being able to shove in all the best units from different books. I don't think it's likely mind, I think they'll consider it too big a change to the BRB, but I would be very happy with it.
It doesn't have to be exactly brood brothers. I outlined an idea above but I'll retype (maybe reword) it here:
For Matched Play 1) If your army contains more than one detachment you need to declare a "primary" detachment 2) For detachments that are not primary, they follow the "Allied" rule unless they share two of the same keywords (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Tyranid) as your primary detachment
Allied Rule 1) Allied detachments do not benefit from their army-specific trait (e.g. Chapter traits) or have access to relics for their army 2) Allied detachments do not unlock stratagems for their faction if different from your primary (e.g. no taking a Dark Eldar patrol and getting access to Agents of Vect or a Castellan in a Superheavy Aux and getting access to the Knight stratagems). Note they can still BENEFIT from stratagems if it would affect them, they just don't also give you their faction's stratagems. 3) Allied detachments give half their normal CP value (to a minimum of 1)
So basically you can't take Craftworld + Drukhari and get the stratagems of both; you can't take two different subfactions in the same force and have both of them benefit from their traits (e.g. no more Guard battalion with BA Supreme Command Smash Captains; one of them isn't geting access to traits/relics/stratgems), and non-primary detachments give half CP to limit batteries. Mono armies aren't affected e..g you could take two <MARS> detachments and have no problem, but not <MARS> and <STYGIES VIII> without having a penalty for mixing multiple subfactions (i.e. one would not get traits/relics/give half CP but you would still get and be able to use stratagems since they are both the same parent faction)
I don't think a rule like that would be too difficult to implement as a matched play rule.
Castellant to be capped at 4++, if my Chaos Daemon stratagem was capped at 4++, I see no damn reason why a infinitely more durable platform than my units should get a better version.
Wishful thinking - GK players get a triple blessed bone thrown at them, hell make all grey knights primaris for all I care That may begin to justify their cost if the basick PAGK was W2
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
"Well-balanced" when it was all Imp soup and Ynnari in the top 8? And what, 6 of those Imperial lists had the Castellan? That's well balanced?
You should take some time and actually listen to the chapter tactics where they analyzed the win percentages for all the armies
> Yes there were a couple high and low armies castalin lists and yanarri are the primary offenders
> There were some low armies mainly GK > The vast majority of armies fell in the 47-53% win ratio which is very close to ideal balance the designers are looking to make
heck even IG the boogie man of Dakka had an exact 50% win rate when not paired with a castalin. The balance changes are clearly moving the field closer to balance with each update. For example, while yannari and the castalin were still dominant both of their win rates have been declining with each change. Look at really positive changes from the last faq where armies like necrons and ad mech shot up from "pure trash" to respectable win rates
Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
We won't see any major changes to GK in a FAQ, as their problems are strictly numbers based. Their Anti tank weapons are glorified HBs. Their points costs are insane. Their ammo stratagems need to be basic unit abilities, ala deathwatch.
You could overnight make GK basically viable if you made their Psybolt ammo a point cost option on their units. They lack no real definition currently, as their current chosen enemy (Chaos daemons) have a stratagem that basically nullifies their special ability.
GK are to D&D rangers what Deathwatch is to the D&D Expanded Ranger.
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: We won't see any major changes to GK in a FAQ, as their problems are strictly numbers based. Their Anti tank weapons are glorified HBs. Their points costs are insane. Their ammo stratagems need to be basic unit abilities, ala deathwatch.
You could overnight make GK basically viable if you made their Psybolt ammo a point cost option on their units. They lack no real definition currently, as their current chosen enemy (Chaos daemons) have a stratagem that basically nullifies their special ability.
GK are to D&D rangers what Deathwatch is to the D&D Expanded Ranger.
You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.
If GW is committing to a full re-write of GK, I wonder if that means in 9th, or if 8th is going to keep going and we'll just see revised codecies as part of an expanded DLC based system.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
I'm of the opinion that we may not ever see a "9th Edition". The way the game is set up now, they could update armies and the core rules incrementally without ever needing to increase the edition number.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
We're gonna need an apothecary. We've got a burn victim.
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.
...
THE CATEGORY IT SHOULD STICK INTO IS SOUP.
There's no "primary" faction caveat in a reasonable fricking world where that list should be Guard because everyone knows the heavy fricking lifting of the list is being done by the Castellan.
If FLG is giving them data where Guard lists with Castellans and BA/Custodes/whatever elements are really doing the heavy lifting but are classed as Guard? That's disingenuous as hell, and quite frankly inaccurate data.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is about the Bolter Rule, this is proof positive the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
The people who wrote the rules for DW didn't talk with the people who wrote the Bolter rule. They didn't realize they can field units with 3++ saves and 4 s5 ap-1 shots per model, re-rolling misses and wounding on 2+. PER MODEL.
I mean, they don't know that because they actually can't do that, but, details I guess.
Best DW can do is 4 shots, hitting on 3s rerolling (character aura) wounding on 2s rerolling (SIA + Mission Tactics), no AP, OR hitting on 3s, S4 AP-2, reroll 1s to wound, with 9" rapid fire range rather than 12".
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.
...
THE CATEGORY IT SHOULD STICK INTO IS SOUP.
There's no "primary" faction caveat in a reasonable fricking world where that list should be Guard because everyone knows the heavy fricking lifting of the list is being done by the Castellan.
If FLG is giving them data where Guard lists with Castellans and BA/Custodes/whatever elements are really doing the heavy lifting but are classed as Guard? That's disingenuous as hell, and quite frankly inaccurate data.
While I agree soup is obviously different than a pure faction they aren't simply turning over faction win rates like that. They are turning over complete statistical breakdowns all the war to individual unit/ faction win rates (for example the win rate changes depending on vostroyan vs catachan). The data breakdown they did was incredibly thorough and that gives me a tremendous amount of hope. GW isn't simply receiving "1001 points of guard won so guard is broken" they are getting a full breakdown all the way to unit level
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
While I agree soup is obviously different than a pure faction they aren't simply turning over faction win rates like that. They are turning over complete statistical breakdowns all the war to individual unit/ faction win rates (for example the win rate changes depending on vostroyan vs catachan). The data breakdown they did was incredibly thorough and that gives me a tremendous amount of hope. GW isn't simply receiving "1001 points of guard won so guard is broken" they are getting a full breakdown all the way to unit level
I’m surprised you’re not concerned. What do you think GW will do when they see Infantry squads en masse in any successful Imperial soup list and taken in huuuuge quantities in lists generally? I’ll give you a clue. It rhymes with ‘turf’.
EnTyme wrote: I'm of the opinion that we may not ever see a "9th Edition". The way the game is set up now, they could update armies and the core rules incrementally without ever needing to increase the edition number.
I think this will be true for a while, but eventually all those incremental changes will add up to a big-'ole mess that will have to get cleaned up somehow. If it isn't 9E, it'll be 8.5E and involve a new book.
I'd expect something like the transition from 6E to 7E, which were basically the same ruleset, but with previous FAQs applied and a revamped Psychic Phase.
What really made 7E different from 6E was all the Formations and crazy list building shenanigans.
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
There is no way Bolter Drill will be official in the FAQ, that's not how it works. If you are going to do a beta test, you actually have to give time to get the results. If it becomes official, it will be in CA 2019. That won't stop people using it of course, but expecting it to be official is a pipe dream.
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
bullyboy wrote: There is no way Bolter Drill will be official in the FAQ, that's not how it works. If you are going to do a beta test, you actually have to give time to get the results. If it becomes official, it will be in CA 2019. That won't stop people using it of course, but expecting it to be official is a pipe dream.
I agree to an extent. I certainly feel that the "official" rule won't go into affect until CA2019, but that doesn't mean they won't tweak the Beta a little with the FAQ. Given that GW release the Beta rule alone just a few months before the next FAQ, it seems likely that they may actually incorporate some of the initial feedback they asked for into the FAQ itself. Like a final tweak to really shake any bugs out before the final version
At least, that is my hope. The Bolter Discipline is a step in the right direction, but is doesn't do enough for the units that need the help.
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
Wait? What? So the assumption here is that denying the SH Aux detachment from taking Strats would needlessly punish Primarhs? If you are taking Guillie, Magnus or Morty and NOT also taking UMs, Tsons or DG in other detachments to get access to their strats, you are already trying to game the system and there should be a drawback. I would amend that the SH Aux should still be able to USE Strats, but not give access to the Factions strats. So a Castellan or Primach could still use the Factions strats ... if you also take a non-SH Aux detachment of that Faction. That might fix the Castellan taking solo.
I'm thinking the next Big FAQ may well include some of the following:
- Points changes, stuff that missed out on chapter approved due to time of printing and anything that has proved a problem since. This would include the castellan, some dark eldar stuff (dissies, Gots and talos maybe), possible a couple of Ork things like the new buggies could do with a drop and a few of their weapon options are out of synch like the power Klaw and twin big shoota. Those and god forbid tactical and basic chaos marines could drop a point or two (this last one is a pipe dream obvs).
- New Beta rules: Including the better bolter rule, maybe an alteration to how soup is used (I favour increasing the cost of statagems used by and reducing the command points given by detachment of a different faction to your warlord) and perhaps something to change how models interact with flyers, I hope for them to no longer block movement.
- Change up some of the army abilities, hopefully adding chapter tactics to vehicle for marines and chaos, possibly altering some others like the dark eldar 4++ one and other outliers that are just better than the other options including possible the -1 to hit ones.
- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSCFAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
I hear that but looking at the Primarchs none are reliant on Strategems. With my suggestion you can still use their warlord traits and psychic powers and if there is some super strategem combo you want then just take a supreme command.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is about the Bolter Rule, this is proof positive the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
The people who wrote the rules for DW didn't talk with the people who wrote the Bolter rule. They didn't realize they can field units with 3++ saves and 4 s5 ap-1 shots per model, re-rolling misses and wounding on 2+. PER MODEL. DW vet squads are already bloated in points cost, the only change I can see is restricting the unit to a set number of SS/SB combos. Only 2 per squad? Or making the combination cost appropriate.
Make it a dedicated combo for the model, like Termies. YOu can take a SS/SB on this model, but it's cost is 15-20 points.
DW will need some tweaks, but that set up did not do so well at LVO. Perhaps when they have BBolters? Not sure though.
This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:
1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.
Who was using vect twice at a cost of 8 CP? Maybe against Castellans, but who cares about that?
I think the bigger question is...what changes can we rule out as possible?
Given the assassins I doubt we will see a reduction in CP generation, because of how the Callidus interacts with it. 4 point IS are also probably here to stay given GSC's setup, but mortars will be nerfed a bit.
.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
so hundreds of points of tax on already overpriced models? good plan
Alternatively, if you are taking a Primarch, also take a detachment with some of their legion to gain access to that Factions strats. Ya know, like you should already be taking instead of cherry-picking models.
That's the big issue with Soup is that there is no downside to just taking whatever floats your boat instead of building a thematic list that has limitations.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: We won't see any major changes to GK in a FAQ, as their problems are strictly numbers based. Their Anti tank weapons are glorified HBs. Their points costs are insane. Their ammo stratagems need to be basic unit abilities, ala deathwatch.
You could overnight make GK basically viable if you made their Psybolt ammo a point cost option on their units. They lack no real definition currently, as their current chosen enemy (Chaos daemons) have a stratagem that basically nullifies their special ability.
GK are to D&D rangers what Deathwatch is to the D&D Expanded Ranger.
You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.
Just want to correct this as the number I have seen publiahed are guard mono ie the weakest way to play them is running 50% win rate Guard plus any allies is 55% to 60% and Guard primary ie more points (new for LVO) plus raven Castellen is 60 plus%. Second only to Yannari.
However a knight primary lists including a Castellen had a 48% win rate apparently.
So once again it's the combo not the individual models that are a problem.
Either you look at the math of the unit, or you look at the math of the model. Saying it's just a 1 wound model is correct, but also completely irrelevant. The unit is the focus, because the unit is what's putting out the overwhelming dakka for less than 250pts, with a 3++ save.
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
Then make it so the Super Heavy Aux. Detachment cannot use Stratagems, unless another detachment that generates at least 3 CP is chosen from the same codex.
If you wanna use a Knight Super Heavy Aux, then you need to take a Super Heavy Detachment with a Questoris and 2 Armigers as well (so if you're a pure Knights player of maybe House Terryn, and you want to bring a Raven Castellan as well for ranged support, you're still able to).
If you're an Ultramarines player and you want to bring rowboat girlyman, then all you need to do is make sure you have an Ultramarines Battalion in there. Easy.
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
Easy there with the personal attacks tiger.
And au contraire, you clearly haven't been following my posts if you don't think I've looked at the data and analysed it myself. How do you think I came to my conclusions? Did you assume I made them up from a position of no knowledge? Shame on you.
Here's some facts for you, that I have collected myself. Though they're not directly connected to a discussion around the Guard and Castellan problem. E. - guess the faction.
Spoiler:
- 2 players went 5-1. 62 total players went 5-1. Every faction except GK represented.
- 46% win percentage.
- Top placed player finish 16th.
- Mono Space Marines (generally considered an underperforming faction) finished higher and had the same win percentage.
- Mono Tau (generally considered a mid-tier faction) also finished higher and had a higher win percentage.
- The top ITC player going into the event dropped to third after taking this faction and competing in a tournament he won he previous year.
- 5 players in top 100, despite being 8% of the total player base.
Re Guard + Castellan, you'll know, of course, that Infantry were the most taken unit bar none and that Guard and Knight detachments made up 30% of the player base combined at LVO? Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO? Do you believe its a pure coincidence that the Castellan and Guard friends (more than the loyal 32 I might add) list performed very well relatively and actually won the event? Your stats prove there is a problem with balance, not the opposite. As I said - a player who's faction is in the upper echelons of win percentages (and has been for an incredibly long time) probably thinks things are really balanced. That is your bias talking, not the stats though I'm afraid.
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex
That is stupid are FAQ holograms, so they can't change the rules, because they have to write them down ? FAQ are writen down, so what stops them from puting an extra A or extra AP or change to GK ammo in the faq. They did bigger changes in the past in FAQ. They changed the whole deep strike rule.
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
Easy there with the personal attacks tiger.
And au contraire, you clearly haven't been following my posts if you don't think I've looked at the data and analysed it myself. How do you think I came to my conclusions? Did you assume I made them up from a position of no knowledge? Shame on you.
Here's some facts for you, that I have collected myself. Though they're not directly connected to a discussion around the Guard and Castellan problem. E. - guess the faction.
Spoiler:
- 2 players went 5-1. 62 total players went 5-1. Every faction except GK represented.
- 46% win percentage.
- Top placed player finish 16th.
- Mono Space Marines (generally considered an underperforming faction) finished higher and had the same win percentage.
- Mono Tau (generally considered a mid-tier faction) also finished higher and had a higher win percentage.
- The top ITC player going into the event dropped to third after taking this faction and competing in a tournament he won he previous year.
- 5 players in top 100, despite being 8% of the total player base.
Re Guard + Castellan, you'll know, of course, that Infantry were the most taken unit bar none and that Guard and Knight detachments made up 30% of the player base combined at LVO? Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO? Do you believe its a pure coincidence that the Castellan and Guard friends (more than the loyal 32 I might add) list performed very well relatively and actually won the event? Your stats prove there is a problem with balance, not the opposite. As I said - a player who's faction is in the upper echelons of win percentages (and has been for an incredibly long time) probably thinks things are really balanced. That is your bias talking, not the stats though I'm afraid.
text removed
Reds8n
I said that both yanarri and castalin lists were high too high win%...... but that a vast majority of faction fell into a healthy win percentage. At no point did i make the claim that the game is perfectly balanced or we should throw up our hands and say "well that's close enough". The fact is that other than a couple underperforming and a few over performing lists, most lists fell into a very balanced win%. Also with the number of lists that a castalin and yannari effectively invalidate its not unreasonable to think a small fix to those 2 lists won't bring factions even closer to balance (such as tyranids who anything but gaunt spam is essentially invalidated by the castalin).
Its also laughable that you claim "Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO?" meanwhile your excuse for guard lists without a castalin having a balanced 50% win percentage is that those are just weak lists from crap players..... you should try not to contradict yourself with your arguments
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
Although, we shouldn't base balance off the worst codex in the history of 8th. DW are what GK is supposed to be, only against Xenos. GK are supposed to be this good, against Chaos. Only problem, GK sucks at all phases except when properly buffed facing troops in melee. I don't think DW were in tended to be this good.
That being said, I would love to see SM in general be brought closer to this level, rather than DW being nerfed down to GK levels.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
so hundreds of points of tax on already overpriced models? good plan
Alternatively, if you are taking a Primarch, also take a detachment with some of their legion to gain access to that Factions strats. Ya know, like you should already be taking instead of cherry-picking models.
That's the big issue with Soup is that there is no downside to just taking whatever floats your boat instead of building a thematic list that has limitations.
-
Then, instead of thinking of ways to nerf the soup lists.
Maybe GW ought to consider some way to buff mono-codex lists.
Ie, a detachment that can only be use by mono-codex armies, extra CPs, or 2nd relic for free, etc...
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex
That is stupid are FAQ holograms, so they can't change the rules, because they have to write them down ? FAQ are writen down, so what stops them from puting an extra A or extra AP or change to GK ammo in the faq. They did bigger changes in the past in FAQ. They changed the whole deep strike rule.
They could add those changes in an FAQ but if they are already working on a new codex with a complete rewrite to fix them i could see them just focusing on other faction and allowing the GK codex to bring them in line. If they thought they could fix GK with an FAQ i wouldn't see the point of them admitting that they need a new dex and that they are working on one
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
Although, we shouldn't base balance off the worst codex in the history of 8th. DW are what GK is supposed to be, only against Xenos. GK are supposed to be this good, against Chaos. Only problem, GK sucks at all phases except when properly buffed facing troops in melee. I don't think DW were in tended to be this good.
That being said, I would love to see SM in general be brought closer to this level, rather than DW being nerfed down to GK levels.
This. DW does not need nerfs, instead other SMs need more love (especially those poor GK!).
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
Easy there with the personal attacks tiger.
And au contraire, you clearly haven't been following my posts if you don't think I've looked at the data and analysed it myself. How do you think I came to my conclusions? Did you assume I made them up from a position of no knowledge? Shame on you.
Here's some facts for you, that I have collected myself. Though they're not directly connected to a discussion around the Guard and Castellan problem. E. - guess the faction.
Spoiler:
- 2 players went 5-1. 62 total players went 5-1. Every faction except GK represented.
- 46% win percentage.
- Top placed player finish 16th.
- Mono Space Marines (generally considered an underperforming faction) finished higher and had the same win percentage.
- Mono Tau (generally considered a mid-tier faction) also finished higher and had a higher win percentage.
- The top ITC player going into the event dropped to third after taking this faction and competing in a tournament he won he previous year.
- 5 players in top 100, despite being 8% of the total player base.
Re Guard + Castellan, you'll know, of course, that Infantry were the most taken unit bar none and that Guard and Knight detachments made up 30% of the player base combined at LVO? Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO? Do you believe its a pure coincidence that the Castellan and Guard friends (more than the loyal 32 I might add) list performed very well relatively and actually won the event? Your stats prove there is a problem with balance, not the opposite. As I said - a player who's faction is in the upper echelons of win percentages (and has been for an incredibly long time) probably thinks things are really balanced. That is your bias talking, not the stats though I'm afraid.
Either your reading comprehension is terrible or you willfully ignoring parts of my posts.
I said that both yanarri and castalin lists were high too high win%...... but that a vast majority of faction fell into a healthy win percentage. At no point did i make the claim that the game is perfectly balanced or we should throw up our hands and say "well that's close enough". The fact is that other than a couple underperforming and a few over performing lists, most lists fell into a very balanced win%. Also with the number of lists that a castalin and yannari effectively invalidate its not unreasonable to think a small fix to those 2 lists won't bring factions even closer to balance (such as tyranids who anything but gaunt spam is essentially invalidated by the castalin).
Its also laughable that you claim "Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO?" meanwhile your excuse for guard lists without a castalin having a balanced 50% win percentage is that those are just weak lists from crap players..... you should try not to contradict yourself with your arguments
First off - enough breaking of rule 1.
Second - please explain to me why a good player who has access to the Castellan and Guard would choose not to take both in a competitive environment? We have known for some time that adding a Castellan to a Guard list makes it stronger (and vice versa, of course).
Third - its not a contradiction in terms - good players (those who want to give themselves the best chance of winning) take a Castellan + Guard for obvious reasons. Those who don't take both, generally speaking, are weaker players (for obvious reasons also) and therefore lose more often. Even with the Guard crutch.
Fourth - didn't mono Guard finish top 8 or top 16?
Technically the list that won was Mono Guard + a Castellan. Sure it had the Castellan but it was a legit guard army, not Loyal 32 and extras. And not pure trash like that douche with the 7 flyers.
Wayniac wrote: Technically the list that won was Mono Guard + a Castellan. Sure it had the Castellan but it was a legit guard army, not Loyal 32 and extras. And not pure trash like that douche with the 7 flyers.
The second there's a Castellan in there, it's soup.
Why do people set some arbitrary standard of % or whatever? Once you have a single damn unit that isn't from your book, you've gone soup.
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
Easy there with the personal attacks tiger.
And au contraire, you clearly haven't been following my posts if you don't think I've looked at the data and analysed it myself. How do you think I came to my conclusions? Did you assume I made them up from a position of no knowledge? Shame on you.
Here's some facts for you, that I have collected myself. Though they're not directly connected to a discussion around the Guard and Castellan problem. E. - guess the faction.
Spoiler:
- 2 players went 5-1. 62 total players went 5-1. Every faction except GK represented.
- 46% win percentage.
- Top placed player finish 16th.
- Mono Space Marines (generally considered an underperforming faction) finished higher and had the same win percentage.
- Mono Tau (generally considered a mid-tier faction) also finished higher and had a higher win percentage.
- The top ITC player going into the event dropped to third after taking this faction and competing in a tournament he won he previous year.
- 5 players in top 100, despite being 8% of the total player base.
Re Guard + Castellan, you'll know, of course, that Infantry were the most taken unit bar none and that Guard and Knight detachments made up 30% of the player base combined at LVO? Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO? Do you believe its a pure coincidence that the Castellan and Guard friends (more than the loyal 32 I might add) list performed very well relatively and actually won the event? Your stats prove there is a problem with balance, not the opposite. As I said - a player who's faction is in the upper echelons of win percentages (and has been for an incredibly long time) probably thinks things are really balanced. That is your bias talking, not the stats though I'm afraid.
Either your reading comprehension is terrible or you willfully ignoring parts of my posts.
I said that both yanarri and castalin lists were high too high win%...... but that a vast majority of faction fell into a healthy win percentage. At no point did i make the claim that the game is perfectly balanced or we should throw up our hands and say "well that's close enough". The fact is that other than a couple underperforming and a few over performing lists, most lists fell into a very balanced win%. Also with the number of lists that a castalin and yannari effectively invalidate its not unreasonable to think a small fix to those 2 lists won't bring factions even closer to balance (such as tyranids who anything but gaunt spam is essentially invalidated by the castalin).
Its also laughable that you claim "Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO?" meanwhile your excuse for guard lists without a castalin having a balanced 50% win percentage is that those are just weak lists from crap players..... you should try not to contradict yourself with your arguments
First off - enough breaking of rule 1.
Second - please explain to me why a good player who has access to the Castellan and Guard would choose not to take both in a competitive environment? We have known for some time that adding a Castellan to a Guard list makes it stronger (and vice versa, of course).
Third - its not a contradiction in terms - good players (those who want to give themselves the best chance of winning) take a Castellan + Guard for obvious reasons. Those who don't take both, generally speaking, are weaker players (for obvious reasons also) and therefore lose more often. Even with the Guard crutch.
Fourth - didn't mono Guard finish top 8 or top 16?
Once again contradicting yourself "why would a good player not bring a castalin"... "nick nanavatti is a good player and he didn't win with ork". A far better player then you will ever be didn't bring a castalin even though he could have brought whatever army in the game. Every person is bringing a list they hope can win including those that didn't bring a castalin. Discounting data because "hurr dur they must just suck" is not only stupid but not how statistics works. Using your logic every player that attended the event without guard castalin was trash as they could have all brought that list.
One mono guard list finished in the top 16 and ran a flying circus with 5 FW planes (not any of the conventional dakka wisdom for how to instantly win with guard). His list was actually the imperium equivalent of the number 2 yannarri list and functioned in the same way.
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
Although, we shouldn't base balance off the worst codex in the history of 8th. DW are what GK is supposed to be, only against Xenos. GK are supposed to be this good, against Chaos. Only problem, GK sucks at all phases except when properly buffed facing troops in melee. I don't think DW were in tended to be this good.
That being said, I would love to see SM in general be brought closer to this level, rather than DW being nerfed down to GK levels.
This. DW does not need nerfs, instead other SMs need more love (especially those poor GK!).
It is highly frustrating seeing how much better DW are than ordinary marines, and then realizing how much of any WYSIWYG vanilla Marine collection is unusable in DW. It feels like all those other options ought to be balancing the scales, but they just aren't.
Wayniac wrote: Technically the list that won was Mono Guard + a Castellan. Sure it had the Castellan but it was a legit guard army, not Loyal 32 and extras. And not pure trash like that douche with the 7 flyers.
The second there's a Castellan in there, it's soup.
Why do people set some arbitrary standard of % or whatever? Once you have a single damn unit that isn't from your book, you've gone soup.
^
Yeah, it's 100% soup and not "mono guard".... just listen to the Brandon Grant interviews and how much he talks about the castalin and what it allows him to do. I think it was on Forge the Narrative where he even talked about why the shadow sword would have instantly lost his final game but the Castalin gives him a chance to win it
Although it's more wish listing, adding some of the cover rules from urban conquest wouldn't be out of the question.
On the whole, I think GW likes the concept of soup. So I would be surprised (and actually disappointed) to see anything drastic. I think changing the 3 CP battleforged bonus to a monodex bonus and make the Vanguard, Spearhead, and outrider detachments worth 2-3 CP would help considerably while also being simple enough for an FAQ.
Although they are some of the best space marines, Deathwatch vets haven't seemed to break the meta at this point. If they did get changed in the future, I would expect a simple points increase. I'm not sure where this talk of removing storm bolters is coming from. About half of the veterans load out isn't available in the kit so its not like storm bolters are anything special in that regard.
Instead of messing up storm bolters, it would be much better to rework the other DW specific weapons. Stalkers, shotguns, IHBs, and HTH could all do with some rule tweaks.
I really don't think that the Super Aux detachment is going to get nerfed. I think they learned the lesson from Patrol and Aux detachment.
Also I think that there is a huge amount of wishful thinking in Castellan getting points nerfed.
I think there is a big gear up to redo Marines in general. With that oncoming, I don't think that your going to see much change for any of the Marine factions, DA, SW, Ultra, BA, DW, or GK.
I'd love to see:
CP change.
Some help for Mono Faction.
Adding a bunch of stratagem to the universal stratagem pool. Specificaly stuff like Restore a vehicle to top level for a turn, and a character dying can fight/shoot again, and a most importantly...
I'd love to have a stratagem that let you join 2x5 man Marine squads into a single 10 man before the game started. Or 2 3 man into a 6 man. It should cost 1 and on a 4+ you get that CP back, but you can't try to roll for it with Adept or anything.
- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSCFAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)
What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.
Second - please explain to me why a good player who has access to the Castellan and Guard would choose not to take both in a competitive environment? We have known for some time that adding a Castellan to a Guard list makes it stronger (and vice versa, of course).
Third - its not a contradiction in terms - good players (those who want to give themselves the best chance of winning) take a Castellan + Guard for obvious reasons. Those who don't take both, generally speaking, are weaker players (for obvious reasons also) and therefore lose more often. Even with the Guard crutch.
Fourth - didn't mono Guard finish top 8 or top 16?
Once again contradicting yourself "why would a good player not bring a castalin"... "nick nanavatti is a good player and he didn't win with ork". A far better player then you will ever be didn't bring a castalin even though he could have brought whatever army in the game. Every person is bringing a list they hope can win including those that didn't bring a castalin. Discounting data because "hurr dur they must just suck" is not only stupid but not how statistics works. Using your logic every player that attended the event without guard castalin was trash as they could have all brought that list.
Now I'm on a computer I can properly edit my posts but I'm leaving the above quotation from me in because there's obviously been a misunderstanding. Apologies I should have been clearer, my fault, I thought you'd understand my meaning given the context of our discussion. I don't mean to say that every player who didn't bring a Castellan + Guard is a noob (I can kinda see how you read it that way). Given the context of our discussion I mean the following - pretty much any decent Guard player who wants to do well at a tournament, would always add a Castellan to their list if they are able. It makes their list better every time. In fact I'd say the Castellan and Infantry squads are two staple units of and Imperial soup list. Including the two of them is almost mandatory because they are so good and this is the definition of an overpowered unit.
One mono guard list finished in the top 16 and ran a flying circus with 5 FW planes (not any of the conventional dakka wisdom for how to instantly win with guard). His list was actually the imperium equivalent of the number 2 yannarri list and functioned in the same way.
How many Infantry squads/mortar teams did it have?
Second - please explain to me why a good player who has access to the Castellan and Guard would choose not to take both in a competitive environment? We have known for some time that adding a Castellan to a Guard list makes it stronger (and vice versa, of course).
Third - its not a contradiction in terms - good players (those who want to give themselves the best chance of winning) take a Castellan + Guard for obvious reasons. Those who don't take both, generally speaking, are weaker players (for obvious reasons also) and therefore lose more often. Even with the Guard crutch.
Fourth - didn't mono Guard finish top 8 or top 16?
Once again contradicting yourself "why would a good player not bring a castalin"... "nick nanavatti is a good player and he didn't win with ork". A far better player then you will ever be didn't bring a castalin even though he could have brought whatever army in the game. Every person is bringing a list they hope can win including those that didn't bring a castalin. Discounting data because "hurr dur they must just suck" is not only stupid but not how statistics works. Using your logic every player that attended the event without guard castalin was trash as they could have all brought that list.
Now I'm on a computer I can properly edit my posts but I'm leaving the above quotation from me in because there's obviously been a misunderstanding. Apologies I should have been clearer, my fault, I thought you'd understand my meaning given the context of our discussion. I don't mean to say that every player who didn't bring a Castellan + Guard is a noob (I can kinda see how you read it that way). Given the context of our discussion I mean the following - pretty much any decent Guard player who wants to do well at a tournament, would always add a Castellan to their list if they are able. It makes their list better every time. In fact I'd say the Castellan and Infantry squads are two staple units of and Imperial soup list. Including the two of them is almost mandatory because they are so good and this is the definition of an overpowered unit.
One mono guard list finished in the top 16 and ran a flying circus with 5 FW planes (not any of the conventional dakka wisdom for how to instantly win with guard). His list was actually the imperium equivalent of the number 2 yannarri list and functioned in the same way.
How many Infantry squads/mortar teams did it have?
I cant seem to find it in my screenshots but I remember being surprised by how few it had
>2 maurader bombers
>3 vendetta gunships
>a couple squads of elesian drop infantry
and some other random stuff. It was in no way a conventional list
Also for the guard castellin conversation the assumption of "why not bring a castelin" falls into a winners fallacy where it is easy to say after the fact that it was the obvious choice but look at some of the weird lists that did incredibly well at the even (thus beat multiple castellin lists to be in that placing). All SM went 6-0 only getting knocked out in ghost round, Flying circus IG 5-1, Demons with 600 points of summoning ect ect ect. There are tons of lists that did well without the "convential thinking" so thinking that it should have been obvious to take a castellin and thus only bad players didnt is a very poor observation
My hope (/not sarcasm) is that they leave or boost any Aeldari faction/soup potential while needing any imperium factions, mono or soup potentials. Guys, we have a really decent GW now, let’s hope they listen to our please. The fall of all codex imperium and rise of all codex Xeno or chaos is necessary!
Asmodios wrote: I cant seem to find it in my screenshots but I remember being surprised by how few it had
>2 maurader bombers
>3 vendetta gunships
>a couple squads of elesian drop infantry
and some other random stuff. It was in no way a conventional list
Interesting. Shame you can't remember the Infantry and Mortar numbers.
Also for the guard castellin conversation the assumption of "why not bring a castelin" falls into a winners fallacy where it is easy to say after the fact that it was the obvious choice but look at some of the weird lists that did incredibly well at the even (thus beat multiple castellin lists to be in that placing). All SM went 6-0 only getting knocked out in ghost round, Flying circus IG 5-1, Demons with 600 points of summoning ect ect ect. There are tons of lists that did well without the "convential thinking" so thinking that it should have been obvious to take a castellin and thus only bad players didnt is a very poor observation
How is it a "winner's fallacy"? It has been proven waaay before this year's LVO time and time and time again. I didn't say "only bad players" either. I said the majority. Which is very likely a fair assessment (particularly given what Brandon Grant said about the Castellan compared to the Shadowsword....). Finally, how many of the top 62 5-1 lists were Imperial soup that contained a Castellan and Infantry? Now count all those Imperium lists in the top without. I think that should prove my point.
let's be careful throwing out the "all-marine list" as a herald for marine success at LVO, there is no way that list gets close to that far without Bobby G. Best to call it an Ultramarine list for clarity as most other SM lists are going to fall far down that scale. There is no question that marine lists are getting help, that's a great thing, but most still souped to get a modicum of success.
Asmodios wrote: I cant seem to find it in my screenshots but I remember being surprised by how few it had
>2 maurader bombers
>3 vendetta gunships
>a couple squads of elesian drop infantry
and some other random stuff. It was in no way a conventional list
Interesting. Shame you can't remember the Infantry and Mortar numbers.
Also for the guard castellin conversation the assumption of "why not bring a castelin" falls into a winners fallacy where it is easy to say after the fact that it was the obvious choice but look at some of the weird lists that did incredibly well at the even (thus beat multiple castellin lists to be in that placing). All SM went 6-0 only getting knocked out in ghost round, Flying circus IG 5-1, Demons with 600 points of summoning ect ect ect. There are tons of lists that did well without the "convential thinking" so thinking that it should have been obvious to take a castellin and thus only bad players didnt is a very poor observation
How is it a "winner's fallacy"? It has been proven waaay before this year's LVO time and time and time again. I didn't say "only bad players" either. I said the majority. Which is very likely a fair assessment (particularly given what Brandon Grant said about the Castellan compared to the Shadowsword....). Finally, how many of the top 62 5-1 lists were Imperial soup that contained a Castellan and Infantry? Now count all those Imperium lists in the top without. I think that should prove my point.
Its a winners fallacy because the event had not occurred yet and you are now looking at it in as it was a given that the castalin list would win. Look at events like the so cal open where blightlord terminators that everyone called trash stole the show. Also, yannari has been the most winning faction this entire edition so theoretically you are trying to build a list that could counter them. In Some of the Brandon Grant interviews, he talks about how on paper that final matchup wasn't good for him (meaning that theoretically another list would have been preferred). Even if someones plan to game the meta does not work out it doesn't mean they are bad or sub-par. Once again look at one of the top Warhammer players in the world nick nanivatti.... he didn't take orks to loose he thinks they could win and he lost to his nightmare list by only 1 VP (same list brandon grant won against coming down to a single dice roll). Or look a Sean Naden who brandon grant said was his hardest opponent and probably the list that scared him the most one that he said he was lucky had a longer time before he had to play it. His list wasnt even close to the same as the "top yanarri" list.... this doesn't make him bad or sub par. Or for example look at the top 16 all guard list that beat out ton and tons and tons of castalins to get that 5-1 record...... does that make that guard player a bad player because he didnt take a castalin?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: let's be careful throwing out the "all-marine list" as a herald for marine success at LVO, there is no way that list gets close to that far without Bobby G. Best to call it an Ultramarine list for clarity as most other SM lists are going to fall far down that scale. There is no question that marine lists are getting help, that's a great thing, but most still souped to get a modicum of success.
Salamanders actually had the highest win % of all SM lists outclassing UM.
Asmodios wrote: I cant seem to find it in my screenshots but I remember being surprised by how few it had
>2 maurader bombers
>3 vendetta gunships
>a couple squads of elesian drop infantry
and some other random stuff. It was in no way a conventional list
Interesting. Shame you can't remember the Infantry and Mortar numbers..
Well...
Shadowsword 3x THB
2x Marauder
3x Vulture TPGC
Elysian CC CC 3x10 Drop Guard
2x Officer of the Fleet
Astropath
Asmodios wrote: I cant seem to find it in my screenshots but I remember being surprised by how few it had
>2 maurader bombers
>3 vendetta gunships
>a couple squads of elesian drop infantry
and some other random stuff. It was in no way a conventional list
Interesting. Shame you can't remember the Infantry and Mortar numbers..
Well...
Shadowsword 3x THB
2x Marauder
3x Vulture TPGC
Elysian CC CC 3x10 Drop Guard
2x Officer of the Fleet
Astropath
glad someone found it not sure what I did with the screenshot but yeah I would call that list very unconventional.... and obviously it performed very well. I think its the first time i saw elesians after the plasma nerf from like a year ago
Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.
Didn#t stop them from changing points in previous faq's. And money is reason to change in faq to make new things sell again.
They can and provenly have changed points in faq. No wonder as that's good way to change what sells to make people replace old units with new. Then they later release ca with yet more changes. Just as before
glad someone found it not sure what I did with the screenshot but yeah I would call that list very unconventional.... and obviously it performed very well. I think its the first time i saw elesians after the plasma nerf from like a year ago
It looks like it just aims to BRRRRRRRRRRRT any soft targets off the board ASAP.
Then once they're dead it's all S5+ so the Castellan gets whacked.
And a SB/SS Vet is already 20ppm and die just as fast as a 13ppm Marine to small arms fire.
If GW addresses the "issue" at all it will only be if StormVets start dominating tourney results, which thus far they have not made a significant enough impact.
And if that starts to happen and GW does take action, it will be to outright remove the StormBolter from the DW equipment list. I truly believe this would be GW's answer to the "problem" because the DW kit doesn't actually come with any Stormbolters at all and historically, GW has paired down options when the kit doesn't come with them.
But, again, this will only happen if StormVets start having significant showings AND results at organized events. And right now, they are not. At best, 1 or so list has been making it to the top 10, but that's it.
-
I'd like to point out that this is a bit of a red herring here - sure, the 20 ppmDW Vets would die just as fast as a 13 ppm Marine to small arms fire - but that ignores common context. The 13 ppm Marine will face small arms fire much more readily than the 20 ppmDW Vet who is standing in a squad next to 2-4 wounds of 1+ in cover Terminators purpose built to soak that attrition fire before the Vet is even touched.
And I'd like to point out that it's a mistake to think that GW will only worry about external balance vis a vis the competitive meta here. The change to Veteran costs and the addition of the bolter discipline beta rule completely skewed the Marine story yet again because of DW. For one, it significantly devalued DW Primaris units and the bolter discipline beta rule could not go further for other Astartes as the relationship with SIA multiplies the beneficial effect of any change or boost.
I think that's worth their attention, and I suspect they are discovering the same thing is true as well. But ultimately we're speculating on what might happen and at this point if GW has shown us anything it's that they can still surprise.
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
No that would be dependent on what you fill the rest of the points with.
In the past we've seen two dominant variants of imperial soups:
-IG brigade + raven castellan + smash captains (Guard with splash of meta)
-Super heavy + loyal 32 + smash captains (Knights with splash of CP)
Asmodios wrote: Its a winners fallacy because the event had not occurred yet and you are now looking at it in as it was a given that the castalin list would win.
Not what I said. Read my posts again.
Look at events like the so cal open where blightlord terminators that everyone called trash stole the show. Also, yannari has been the most winning faction this entire edition so theoretically you are trying to build a list that could counter them. In Some of the Brandon Grant interviews, he talks about how on paper that final matchup wasn't good for him (meaning that theoretically another list would have been preferred). Even if someones plan to game the meta does not work out it doesn't mean they are bad or sub-par.
No, if someone tries to game the meta they are not necessarily sub par at all. However this isn't that. THE meta list of Castellan + Guard exists for a reason. It is incredibly well performing and considered one of the "lists to beat" for a reason. It has been this way since the Knight codex dropped. We have literally known it to be amazing since then and it is the reason that Guard are always in the top 3 performing armies, month after month after month. And would you look at that? The stats back it up. If I'm a Guard player and I add a Castellan the odds of me winning increase from 50%(ish) to 60%(ish). This isn't new news. I'll reiterate - we've known this for some time. Now I'll ask again - as an IG player, why am I not taking a Castellan?
Once again look at one of the top Warhammer players in the world nick nanivatti.... he didn't take orks to loose he thinks they could win and he lost to his nightmare list by only 1 VP (same list brandon grant won against coming down to a single dice roll).
But he did lose. It makes no difference if he lost by 1 VP or 20 VP. There were games he had earlier that were close victories. They could have also gone the other way. Either way he dropped from 1st to 16th compared to last year and from 1st to 3rd for the season. I guess that means that even the best players can make mistakes, Nick's was selecting Orks IMO.
Or look a Sean Naden who brandon grant said was his hardest opponent and probably the list that scared him the most one that he said he was lucky had a longer time before he had to play it. His list wasnt even close to the same as the "top yanarri" list.... this doesn't make him bad or sub par. Or for example look at the top 16 all guard list that beat out ton and tons and tons of castalins to get that 5-1 record...... does that make that guard player a bad player because he didnt take a castalin?
The Ynarri flyer list had many of the hallmarks of successful Ynarri lists. Many recurring characters and units. How many Castellans did that Guard list beat out of interest? As I keep saying - one outlier does not prove your point. You need to address the entire data sample. Nor did I ever say "every player that doesn't take a Castellan is poor". I'm saying that not taking a Castellan, in an IG primary detachment, literally makes your chances of winning less all things equal. And if you actively decide to do this you arelikely not a good player. Not definitely. Likely.
I'll ask again as you keep completely ignoring it - count the Imperial soup armies with Infantry squads and Castellans in the top 62 lists, then count those without and let me know the split. There's a few by the way, an AdMech primary list that I don't think took Guard. A Space Marine list we know of. But let's see what the majority of the top lists contained shall we?
Kanluwen wrote: If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
No that would be dependent on what you fill the rest of the points with.
In the past we've seen two dominant variants of imperial soups:
-IG brigade + raven castellan + smash captains (Guard with splash of meta)
-Super heavy + loyal 32 + smash captains (Knights with splash of CP)
He's arguing in bad faith, we know that the Primary detachment has nothing to do with the "most model count" and is actually the points spend. Which makes absolute sense. Which faction do you spend the most of your finite pre-game resources on? That's the primary faction. In many instances of Imperial soup the majority of points spent are on Guard.
Asmodios wrote: Its a winners fallacy because the event had not occurred yet and you are now looking at it in as it was a given that the castalin list would win.
Not what I said. Read my posts again.
Look at events like the so cal open where blightlord terminators that everyone called trash stole the show. Also, yannari has been the most winning faction this entire edition so theoretically you are trying to build a list that could counter them. In Some of the Brandon Grant interviews, he talks about how on paper that final matchup wasn't good for him (meaning that theoretically another list would have been preferred). Even if someones plan to game the meta does not work out it doesn't mean they are bad or sub-par.
No, if someone tries to game the meta they are not necessarily sub par at all. However this isn't that. THE meta list of Castellan + Guard exists for a reason. It is incredibly well performing and considered one of the "lists to beat" for a reason. It has been this way since the Knight codex dropped. We have literally known it to be amazing since then and it is the reason that Guard are always in the top 3 performing armies, month after month after month. And would you look at that? The stats back it up. If I'm a Guard player and I add a Castellan the odds of me winning increase from 50%(ish) to 60%(ish). This isn't new news. I'll reiterate - we've known this for some time. Now I'll ask again - as an IG player, why am I not taking a Castellan?
Once again look at one of the top Warhammer players in the world nick nanivatti.... he didn't take orks to loose he thinks they could win and he lost to his nightmare list by only 1 VP (same list brandon grant won against coming down to a single dice roll).
But he did lose. It makes no difference if he lost by 1 VP or 20 VP. There were games he had earlier that were close victories. They could have also gone the other way. Either way he dropped from 1st to 16th compared to last year and from 1st to 3rd for the season. I guess that means that even the best players can make mistakes, Nick's was selecting Orks IMO.
Or look a Sean Naden who brandon grant said was his hardest opponent and probably the list that scared him the most one that he said he was lucky had a longer time before he had to play it. His list wasnt even close to the same as the "top yanarri" list.... this doesn't make him bad or sub par. Or for example look at the top 16 all guard list that beat out ton and tons and tons of castalins to get that 5-1 record...... does that make that guard player a bad player because he didnt take a castalin?
The Ynarri flyer list had many of the hallmarks of successful Ynarri lists. Many recurring characters and units. How many Castellans did that Guard list beat out of interest? As I keep saying - one outlier does not prove your point. You need to address the entire data sample. Nor did I ever say "every player that doesn't take a Castellan is poor". I'm saying that not taking a Castellan, in an IG primary detachment, literally makes your chances of winning less all things equal. And if you actively decide to do this you arelikely not a good player. Not definitely. Likely.
I'll ask again as you keep completely ignoring it - count the Imperial soup armies with Infantry squads and Castellans in the top 62 lists, then count those without and let me know the split. There's a few by the way, an AdMech primary list that I don't think took Guard. A Space Marine list we know of. But let's see what the majority of the top lists contained shall we?
E-Format.
this quote here "No, if someone tries to game the meta they are not necessarily sub par at all." is the only part of your response that really matters. Discounting players that did not take a castalin as bad its just a fallacy. Using your logic the best preforming mono IG player and top 16 out of 660 players is "bad" for not taking a castalin.
You also again are looking after the results of a tournament and taking them as a fact. Everyone coming in is scared of the castellan (for obvious reasons) thus everyone is looking to counter it. By not taking it you are probably looking to discredit lists that over prepared for it. You're missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of how many castalins made the top 62 the fact that lists not including the castalin made it show that it's a valid tactic to not take it. Thus the premise that not taking it makes you a subpar player is wrong.
Hopefully address some of the faction rules and unit rules related to deep striking to take account of the "no reserves on the first turn" thing, e.g. the tyranid hive fleet thats basically "meah" as a result of this.
ideally keep the reserves rule but give the factions and units something else
I think the smarter players tried to out fox the Castellan.
The S5 spam guard list beat out DW Vet spam, Castellan & Basilisk, Castellan & Bullgryn, Castellan and 3 TCs, drew vs Grotesques and Skyweavers, and Castellan / Custodes / Gallant .
He played a Castellan 4 out of 6 games. The wins weren't overwhelming, but they were consistent.
If you making it to the top 8 out of a 600+ person tourney any of those guys could have been on the final table. The ones who did make it could most likely play against the other 6 and be 50/50 most days. Trying to pretend X list, or Y play and this guy is clearly better isn't meaningful, if they made it to top 8.
TechnoWitch wrote: The only thing I really expect at this point is another unnecessary nerf to Deep striking and/or Blood Angels.
"Nerf".
No. They put put deep striking back to how it was in every prior edition. 8th is the outlier here.
Then why when they did the change hadn't they change GK rules which had turn 1 deep strike in mind when they wrote the rules for the codex?
Although, we shouldn't base balance off the worst codex in the history of 8th. DW are what GK is supposed to be, only against Xenos. GK are supposed to be this good, against Chaos. Only problem, GK sucks at all phases except when properly buffed facing troops in melee. I don't think DW were in tended to be this good.
That being said, I would love to see SM in general be brought closer to this level, rather than DW being nerfed down to GK levels.
Why not? GK nerfs happened because BA had good stuff, or because Gulliman re-rolls were too good. Why shouldn't DW be fixed to be as good as GK were?
Specially as DW are good vs everything not just xeno. GK give a stratagem to make demons better, DW ammo works on xeno, eldar, chaos and everything else.
I suspect that the nerf bat will be swung wildly this FAQ. I can't say what exactly, but if I were to bet, it would be whatever stratagems are used too much, and Ynnari in general (as rumours are they don't like them).
Hopefully they will also redress certain armies which are currently underpowered - grey knight point reductions, Necron buffs for things like Lychguard etc
Something about 3++ (and even 4++) on big high-toughness targets. That'd go a long way to bringing the Guard+Castellan in line.
That might even help out armor that doesn't have invuns since it suffers under the need to deal with the meta-monsters.
But Imperium and Aeldari soup is still super advantageous because of the optimization you can do with access to so many units and something really has to give there.
But it has to avoid single-codex armies and not nerf mixed-regiment Guard or multi-sept Tau or several-craftworld Eldar.
Perhaps, instead, it will be a buff to mono-codex situations somehow.
DW 2+ ammo is absolutely stupid. But i doubt they FAQ it.
DW make balancing the rest of marine shooting almost impossible. Because they are far and away better than any other form of marines right now.
And i like Reemule's idea for fixed CP.
Even if the Castellan is reigned in, it's absolutely stupid that Guard gets more CP than anyone else. There is no reason for one faction to have such easy access to them while no one else has that.
I think the most important change to make is to have another pass and the costing on the Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy, maybe another look at Burna Boyz as well.
But Imperium and Aeldari soup is still super advantageous because of the optimization you can do with access to so many units and something really has to give there.
But it has to avoid single-codex armies and not nerf mixed-regiment Guard or multi-sept Tau or several-craftworld Eldar.
This is totally unfair to armies that don't have multiple factions.
For example, Dark Angels and Space Wolves can't bring two different tactics. They're at a colossal disadvantage if they can't ally but you can ally multiple different kinds of Guard.
If they're nerfing soup they need to nerf mixed regiment Guard and multi-sept Tau. Drop your bias.
Marmatag wrote: DW 2+ ammo is absolutely stupid. But i doubt they FAQ it.
DW make balancing the rest of marine shooting almost impossible. Because they are far and away better than any other form of marines right now.
And i like Reemule's idea for fixed CP.
Even if the Castellan is reigned in, it's absolutely stupid that Guard gets more CP than anyone else. There is no reason for one faction to have such easy access to them while no one else has that.
Go ahead, mono guard won't be bothered by fixed cp because the stratagems are irrelevant for then in most cases.
But Imperium and Aeldari soup is still super advantageous because of the optimization you can do with access to so many units and something really has to give there.
But it has to avoid single-codex armies and not nerf mixed-regiment Guard or multi-sept Tau or several-craftworld Eldar.
This is totally unfair to armies that don't have multiple factions.
For example, Dark Angels and Space Wolves can't bring two different tactics. They're at a colossal disadvantage if they can't ally but you can ally multiple different kinds of Guard.
If they're nerfing soup they need to nerf mixed regiment Guard and multi-sept Tau. Drop your bias.
Maybee because a lot of these factions should not have a separate codex?
Marmatag wrote: DW 2+ ammo is absolutely stupid. But i doubt they FAQ it.
DW make balancing the rest of marine shooting almost impossible. Because they are far and away better than any other form of marines right now.
And i like Reemule's idea for fixed CP.
Even if the Castellan is reigned in, it's absolutely stupid that Guard gets more CP than anyone else. There is no reason for one faction to have such easy access to them while no one else has that.
Go ahead, mono guard won't be bothered by fixed cp because the stratagems are irrelevant for then in most cases.
Said no one ever.
Guard have better stratagems than a lot of people. A double shooting Wyvern is pretty solid, for example.
Marmatag wrote: DW 2+ ammo is absolutely stupid. But i doubt they FAQ it.
DW make balancing the rest of marine shooting almost impossible. Because they are far and away better than any other form of marines right now.
And i like Reemule's idea for fixed CP.
Even if the Castellan is reigned in, it's absolutely stupid that Guard gets more CP than anyone else. There is no reason for one faction to have such easy access to them while no one else has that.
Go ahead, mono guard won't be bothered by fixed cp because the stratagems are irrelevant for then in most cases.
Said no one ever.
Guard have better stratagems than a lot of people. A double shooting Wyvern is pretty solid, for example.
Which is a formation, which imo is basically a repeat of the same mistake gw did in 7th.
Also double shooting is solid on all units that get access to it, some pay cp others just are a bunch of space Elfs.
What if Guard were nerfed in how many CP their formations got? BNs only get 3, Brigades get 8? CP remains the same for other detachments.
And tothe guy who just suggested we nerf DW down to GK levels, that is a dumb comment and you should feel bad for saying it. GK is the worst performing codex, bar none. It's not even close. Even the factions that had NO CODEX outperformed it. And DW already pays the GK tax in points. It's their rules that make them better. GK have to pay for their special sauce, DW gets it for free.
I guess name for me please the pure DW lists that are performing well?
The best answer is to simply give everyone 15 CP and deduct one per <FACTION>, <DETACHMENT> that isn't a battalion or brigade, and for each SUPER HEAVY.
There's no reason for all lists not to have equal access to CP, and there's no reason for soup armies to have as many command points as non-soup armies.
I would also flatly remove command point regeneration abilities altogether and replace them with a new mechanic.
Command points have real value in 8th edition, despite what people may say about the quality of stratagems in a codex. That is a different problem, that merits looking into as well. It doesn't stop us from solving the first problem though, which is unfair distribution of command points.
Just like formations created major imbalances in 7th, access to CP and good stratagems do the same thing in 8th.
Karol has sort of a victim complex. He doesn't seem to understand that GK weren't directly nerfed, they were just overreliant on mechanics that other factions were better at exploiting, so they got hit the hardest when those mechanics were nerfed. They're the victims of being an early codex and won't really be fixed without a complete rework of the faction's mechanics. I feel his pain, though. I really don't see how my Necrons can be fixed until something is done with RP.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What if Guard were nerfed in how many CP their formations got? BNs only get 3, Brigades get 8? CP remains the same for other detachments.
And tothe guy who just suggested we nerf DW down to GK levels, that is a dumb comment and you should feel bad for saying it. GK is the worst performing codex, bar none. It's not even close. Even the factions that had NO CODEX outperformed it. And DW already pays the GK tax in points. It's their rules that make them better. GK have to pay for their special sauce, DW gets it for free.
I guess name for me please the pure DW lists that are performing well?
I’m technically an Astra Militarum player, but I play Militarum Tempestus, so I’m paying 9 ppm. Should I get reduced CP, or should detachments with the Militarum Tempestus keyword get an exception?
This is totally unfair to armies that don't have multiple factions.
For example, Dark Angels and Space Wolves can't bring two different tactics. They're at a colossal disadvantage if they can't ally but you can ally multiple different kinds of Guard.
If they're nerfing soup they need to nerf mixed regiment Guard and multi-sept Tau. Drop your bias.
That's a good point that I'd overlooked. I guess I'd view all Space Marines chapters as falling under the same umbrella as Septs, Kultures, ect. (There's certainly an argument to be made that these weirdo chapters should be folded into one book, but that's for another time). They all share the Adeptus Astartes keyword after all.
It's really the "super-faction" keywords where the problems come from because of breadth of specialized units something like Imperial soup allows. It's on a different level compared to the trading Tau's overwatch on 5s for Sacea's reroll a failed hit or mixing deathwatch marines with spacewolves.
I don't want Death Watched nerfed but if a default weapon that is essentially a superbolter and a built in 3++ is the only way to make marine infantry viable then something is very wrong with over all game design.
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
To answer your question, of your 1396 points after the Castellan, whichever Guard or BA has more than the other of those points, that is your faction. 600 point knight, 600 point guard, 800 point BA? You are Blood Angels.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I don't want Death Watched nerfed but if a default weapon that is essentially a superbolter and a built in 3++ is the only way to make marine infantry viable then something is very wrong with over all game design.
The Deathwatch infantry is the way that all marine infantry should be standard (without the inheriting stats from terminators, bikes etc).
The above logic gives a false idea of what a viable faction is. If 80 plus percent of a blood angel's codex is not worth taking then it's not a viable faction. The fact that IOM superfriends can cover that up by letting you cherry pick a super heavy and some cheer leading guardsmen doesn't mean that blood angels can win games.
The minute you take allies your not a pure army and should not be labeled as such.
The only problem with Deathwatch was allowing Stormbolters to have SIA. It pretty much eliminated all other weapon options. I'm a deathwatch player and I'd be happy if they just limited the stormbolter to watch sgt in a vet sqd (and terminators of course). No other nerf would be necessary.
Nemesis Strike Force
If all Models in your Army have the "GREY KNIGHT" Keyword you can put as many as you want in Tactical Reserve and your Tactical Reserverse can enter the Game Beginning Turn 1 Anywhere on the Board, more than 9 Inch Away from enemy modells.
It gives GK full unrestricted Deep Strike Turn 1. It wont completely fix GK until a new codex, but it gives a pure GK Army an unique and powerful niche with one simple rule.
bullyboy wrote: The only problem with Deathwatch was allowing Stormbolters to have SIA. It pretty much eliminated all other weapon options. I'm a deathwatch player and I'd be happy if they just limited the stormbolter to watch sgt in a vet sqd (and terminators of course). No other nerf would be necessary.
i'm not sure that is really the underlying issue that concerns players. DW arn't exactlly OP but I suspect the issue people have it's that DW pay x amount of points for y improvement in performance, where y is greater than x currently.
Aslong as GW peg deathwatch to the points vanilla marines pay at the current rate DW will always be better.
Currently GK need codex 2.0 even GW had to admit that.
I suspect Marines and Choas marine's to get 2.0 codex's due to new models but Guilliman could do with a rewrite to be less rerolling your reroll for reroll's and chapter tactics for all.
I suspect they will fiddle with necrons a bit more rather than admit imthey need a 2.0 codex yet.
It would be nice if Dakka and BCP/FLG made a distinction between using allies and using soup. I see them as two different things but apparently having so much as a single cheap ally unit (assassin) counts as soup these days.
Hmm confused by the outcry over DW, they are mid tier army at best lol,, nerfing them would just be silly, but hey its GW and they got no clue how to balance anything.
As for predictions for the FAQ, if the last big faq taught me anything, its that they will do nothing of any real note, so I predict they take a couple wild swings, hit a few things that should have been left alone, maybe FAQ something that actually needed it through luck, and otherwise accomplish nothing that truly helps the game.
Imo there really is no point in discussing this right now, as it’ll just turn into another 50-page Wishlist of arguments.
The FAQ won’t be out until mid-April at the earliest. This is simply because of Adepticon being at the very end of March. Chances are though, they’ll do what they did last time and release it just before the GW Grand Finals and then proceed to say it’ll not be in use for them. Which means early May/towards the end of Spring.
- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSCFAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)
What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.
Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.
They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.
So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.
They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")
They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.
- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSCFAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)
What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.
Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.
They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.
So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.
They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")
They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.
I do think that the GSC codex is going to be the gift that keeps oon giving us rules issues for 2019.
I also worry it's the start of the next wave of codex power creep
- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSCFAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)
What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.
Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.
They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.
So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.
They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")
They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.
I do think that the GSC codex is going to be the gift that keeps oon giving us rules issues for 2019.
I also worry it's the start of the next wave of codex power creep
I would be worried about that if it felt at all like any of this gak was working as intended. The rules for the new kits (which you'd expect them to want to hock) are nothing particularly amazing, or even anything you want to include in your list. Outside of the Kelermorph and the Nexos, none of the new characters are amazing, and the only new unit box worth buying is aberrants, who don't use any real goodies from the new kit to do it - everyone's exsiting aberrant models do all the new stuff.
The sanctus is broken against literally 3 units in the entire game. against any other unit he's aggressively average. The locus is broken because gw forgot they could just say "this model can heroically intervene 6" " like they did with the space wolves.
It all just feels sloppy, and I'm sure if any of this gak was done in front of the rules designers, they'd go "wait, what, you can't do that!"
- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSCFAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)
What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.
Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.
They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.
So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.
They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")
They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.
I think the FRF,SRF/Ordering Cult Ambushing BB is intended. Though I wonder to myself at times about it. 60 BB are already in a list I made with two CC to give them orders being brought in. They will make a good first wave at least.
The Locus ability does say it "May perform a Heroic Intervention..." With a preface that it may be done in the Charge Phase, after the opponent has made all their charge moves. As well as a note after saying it may move towards the nearest enemy character etc. It just needs a little clarification. I assume it means he can HI 6", towards whomever you like in your opponent's Charge phase....like normal?
As for the Sanctus, that seems like a problem with Rubrics, not the Sanctus.
Reemule wrote: I haven't really seen GW doing crazy wild eye'ed nerfs in the previous faqs. Not sure why people expect this one to be that way?
I think a lot of people are tired of the Guard + Ynnari meta.
A lot of people are playing ITC missions and that is what they are seeing. Killy armies with super-units do well in a kill points mission set, those kill points (especially secondaries) just tilt the table towards units like CP-buffed Castellans and psyker-buffed Shining Spears.
No Castellans or Ynnari on the podium in the latest GWGT heat. The CA18 missions are *very* objective focussed and that tends towards a different meta.
So GW might listen to the feedback on Castellan and Ynnari problems but I doubt if they will swing the nerf bat half as hard as some people want or expect. Only part of the issue there lies with the units/rules themselves.
However GK are in a horrible place in every mission set and GW appear to be aware of it so I really hope they throw them a bone. Also drop-pods, really has anyone seen one? Fixing drop pods will do a lot for Astartes armies in general and I think if anything should get a special pass for turn 1 deep strike it is the drop pod.
GW is much more competent in balancing that what dakka gives it credit for, but if you expects to balance around ITC results, you are in for a big disappointment.
The 40k meta is much different that ITC, and what is good in one place can be bad in the other.
Take Intercessors for example, in ITC they are considered a bad troop, while in 40k people are starting to realize that they are on the OP side of things.
GW will balance for 40K, not for ITC, and they will not do much, because the game is fairly balanced right now. Castellan though is an issue in both metas, so i do expect it to be hit.
I hope they do something about CP sharing. I personally would prefer codex specific CPs.
Then nerf Doom, Jinx, and Soulburst.
Here I would like to see the range on the spells being seriously nerfed. And if it's not enough, nerf it in some other way in a later FAQ.
Soulburst/strength from death should only work when Aeldari units die. It is seriously broken atm.
And I would like a maximum on negative hit modifiers you can give a unit. But that's never going to happen, so at least give us natural 6s always hit.
I'd tend to agree. Ynnari are good, but not nearly as bad as people make them out to be.
Play with GW terrain and terrain rules on a table that looks like something you'd see in a White Dwarf battle report, and you shouldn't have a problem getting some shots at those Reapers or evasive Shining Spears.
ITC (Nova, etc..) terrain (rules) are just idiotic. Of course it's gonna cause problems if you don't change points costs of units and CP costs of stratagems, etc.. to match changes in terrain rules (e.g. no LoS on the bottom floor, etc..).
It just doesn't make sense to me. If ITC makes such changes, they need to publish new points to go with these changes IMO. In the example, Fire & Fade should probably be 2-3 CP, Tau stuff should probably get a 10%-20% or so point drop in ITC, because of their difference in terrain, etc.. . etc..
You can't houserule elements of the game like terrain and expect to not throw balance out of whack like ITC does.
If only more people realized that the ITC missions and terrain rules are what's skewing the game and used the CA18 missions we'd be better off. But look at every discussion about it here. A lot of folks think the ITC missions are better despite them drastically changing the game and *causing* the meta that people are complaining about.
You can't change the game drastically to cause X to be too good and then say X is too good it needs to be changed. But that's what's happening. The playtesters are using ITC to give feedback, not the "real" game. Their data is skewed. Basically, they are #FakeNews
I tried playing the new CA missions, they don't fix anything, just as bad as the rule book ones. Also we do play with GW terrain here it also helps little. All GW terrain is not tall enough to block LoS from knights, have windows or door every where, or they are of the it looks cool, but doesn't even give cover kind.
And ploping down huge LoS blockers only means that armies with jetbikes, flyers or that move as fast as catachan get buffed, and normal infantry now need 3 turns to walk around too an objective. And by that time the opposing army sits on 10+ VP.
Wayniac wrote: If only more people realized that the ITC missions and terrain rules are what's skewing the game and used the CA18 missions we'd be better off. But look at every discussion about it here. A lot of folks think the ITC missions are better despite them drastically changing the game and *causing* the meta that people are complaining about.
You can't change the game drastically to cause X to be too good and then say X is too good it needs to be changed. But that's what's happening. The playtesters are using ITC to give feedback, not the "real" game. Their data is skewed. Basically, they are #FakeNews
We do not know exactly what the playtesters are doing - it is under NDA - but I would be surprised if the actual playtest sessions use anything other than book-standard missions and rules. Stuff performs differently in the CA18 missions and should be balanced to that (the latest GW mission set) not to anything else.
Those playtesters may also be deeply immersed in the ITC ruleset and that may colour their feedback handling the different perceptions of different playtesters should not be beyond the wit of a games designer. If we suddenly see a huge knee-jerk response to Castellans or Ynnari then I guess I will just have to eat my words.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: I tried playing the new CA missions, they don't fix anything, just as bad as the rule book ones. Also we do play with GW terrain here it also helps little. All GW terrain is not tall enough to block LoS from knights, have windows or door every where, or they are of the it looks cool, but doesn't even give cover kind.
And ploping down huge LoS blockers only means that armies with jetbikes, flyers or that move as fast as catachan get buffed, and normal infantry now need 3 turns to walk around too an objective. And by that time the opposing army sits on 10+ VP.
I am left not quite knowing whether you like or dislike LOS blocking terrain.
My personal view on that is that the basic book terrain rules are a rather lacking and that the City Fight rules from CA18 are a decent fix for their problems that work well with the GW terrain. Massive LOS blocking is incredibly binary and often rather non-interactive - it also skews balance and tilts it in favour of units like Dark Reapers doing their jump-shoot-twice-jump thing.
I do not really expect any big FAQ changes to terrain rules, GW probably think they have given us the rules we need and it is up to us to try using them.
RE: Terrain they should just make the Cities of Death terrain for matched play; right now they don't get seen because they have the stigma of "Narrative Play", which automatically means "unsuitable for matched play" and therefore not something you will see being adopted. But then again even if they did, it seems like it would be beholden to what ITC wants to do as they seem to dictate the way tournaments (at least in the US) go. If the community feels it's not worth it, they won't use it. Case in point, GW went on record as saying that for AOS the crazy realm rules are part of the game's balance, units are pointed as though they are being used and they intend that they're used in all games, and the community roundly rejected them for Matched Play anyway despite GW saying that it's part of the game's balance, while at the same time complaining about how certain things are unbalanced.
RE: Missions, I'll spare the full ITC rant as I do that way too often but if the playtesters are using big event results to give feedback to GW, I hope that they or GW are realizing that it is NOT indicative of the game as a whole but the game under ITC champions missions and ITC terrain adjustments. They can use it for what it is but they can't kneejerk react to it because a large part of what you see being OP is due to the way those events are run and not necessarily the rules for the models themselves.
RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.
Wayniac wrote: RE: Terrain they should just make the Cities of Death terrain for matched play; right now they don't get seen because they have the stigma of "Narrative Play", which automatically means "unsuitable for matched play" and therefore not something you will see being adopted. But then again even if they did, it seems like it would be beholden to what ITC wants to do as they seem to dictate the way tournaments (at least in the US) go. If the community feels it's not worth it, they won't use it. Case in point, GW went on record as saying that for AOS the crazy realm rules are part of the game's balance, units are pointed as though they are being used and they intend that they're used in all games, and the community roundly rejected them for Matched Play anyway despite GW saying that it's part of the game's balance, while at the same time complaining about how certain things are unbalanced.
RE: Missions, I'll spare the full ITC rant as I do that way too often but if the playtesters are using big event results to give feedback to GW, I hope that they or GW are realizing that it is NOT indicative of the game as a whole but the game under ITC champions missions and ITC terrain adjustments. They can use it for what it is but they can't kneejerk react to it because a large part of what you see being OP is due to the way those events are run and not necessarily the rules for the models themselves.
RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.
Cities of death is good but really REALLY extra super needs a fix for the "you might as well give up, I have the high ground" problem caused by all those disastrous FAQ rulings.
A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".
A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".
Really like that house rule, handles the problem while still providing a small advantage for having the higher ground.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I'd tend to agree. Ynnari are good, but not nearly as bad as people make them out to be.
Play with GW terrain and terrain rules on a table that looks like something you'd see in a White Dwarf battle report, and you shouldn't have a problem getting some shots at those Reapers or evasive Shining Spears.
ITC (Nova, etc..) terrain (rules) are just idiotic. Of course it's gonna cause problems if you don't change points costs of units and CP costs of stratagems, etc.. to match changes in terrain rules (e.g. no LoS on the bottom floor, etc..).
It just doesn't make sense to me. If ITC makes such changes, they need to publish new points to go with these changes IMO. In the example, Fire & Fade should probably be 2-3 CP, Tau stuff should probably get a 10%-20% or so point drop in ITC, because of their difference in terrain, etc.. . etc..
You can't houserule elements of the game like terrain and expect to not throw balance out of whack like ITC does.
Hey, learn your tournament formats.
NOVA uses different terrain rules (much closer to pure BRB) and has noticeable differences in scoring compared to ITC.
Spoletta wrote: GW is much more competent in balancing that what dakka gives it credit for, but if you expects to balance around ITC results, you are in for a big disappointment.
The 40k meta is much different that ITC, and what is good in one place can be bad in the other.
Take Intercessors for example, in ITC they are considered a bad troop, while in 40k people are starting to realize that they are on the OP side of things.
GW will balance for 40K, not for ITC, and they will not do much, because the game is fairly balanced right now.
Castellan though is an issue in both metas, so i do expect it to be hit.
Fairly balanced right now...Thanks for the laugh. Balance and 40k don't fit in same sentence except how NOT balanced it is.
Cities of death is good but really REALLY extra super needs a fix for the "you might as well give up, I have the high ground" problem caused by all those disastrous FAQ rulings.
A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".
Progressive scoring and objectives on ground level seem to have kept that issue in check locally to me but I can see how the city fight rules could skew things towards a certain sort of stationary shooty infantry. Parking an expensive unit like that is a bit high risk high reward so far in my games, if anyone can put so much as a single base-size hole in that parked unit it can be charged from directly below where it gets no overwatch and it has nowhere that it can possibly fall back to - that unit is now functionally dead even it if takes all game to actually finish it off.
I find that it is only some very limited assault armies that lack tools to remove even a single model from that target unit to be able to pull off the charge - the issue in my opinion is with the very limited list choice rather than with the city fight rules. Happy to discuss further but I rather think that needs a different thread. A FAQ to the fly rules in the assault phase is possible, a FAQ to the city fight terrain rules very unlikely IMO.
Spoletta wrote: GW is much more competent in balancing that what dakka gives it credit for, but if you expects to balance around ITC results, you are in for a big disappointment.
The 40k meta is much different that ITC, and what is good in one place can be bad in the other.
Take Intercessors for example, in ITC they are considered a bad troop, while in 40k people are starting to realize that they are on the OP side of things.
GW will balance for 40K, not for ITC, and they will not do much, because the game is fairly balanced right now.
Castellan though is an issue in both metas, so i do expect it to be hit.
Yeah. Prove any of this.
Hard reality for you is that GW does watch the ITC results and games. And they do make decisions based of those results. That isn't to say that is the only standard for them, or the only things they look at, but it is a factor based of some of the decisions they made in the past.
GW is doing a pretty good job finally. I doubt they have a formula on what they look at, Like 2 things from ETC, and 1 thing for ITC, and 3 things from Filthy Casuals. Chances are its like "We see this in the game and we want to make a small move to try to move back towards the center. How do we do that with the least verbiage possible?".
Cities of death is good but really REALLY extra super needs a fix for the "you might as well give up, I have the high ground" problem caused by all those disastrous FAQ rulings.
A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".
Progressive scoring and objectives on ground level seem to have kept that issue in check locally to me but I can see how the city fight rules could skew things towards a certain sort of stationary shooty infantry. Parking an expensive unit like that is a bit high risk high reward so far in my games, if anyone can put so much as a single base-size hole in that parked unit it can be charged from directly below where it gets no overwatch and it has nowhere that it can possibly fall back to - that unit is now functionally dead even it if takes all game to actually finish it off.
I find that it is only some very limited assault armies that lack tools to remove even a single model from that target unit to be able to pull off the charge - the issue in my opinion is with the very limited list choice rather than with the city fight rules. Happy to discuss further but I rather think that needs a different thread. A FAQ to the fly rules in the assault phase is possible, a FAQ to the city fight terrain rules very unlikely IMO.
I made a thread in proposed rules discussing this a couple days ago.
It seems that in this instance you just used a different house rule to fix the problem - that being objectives on the ground. In my area, if an army has any kind of stationary gunline element they very frequently place the objectives that they get to place on those high perches, which allows them to hold onto them extremely easily.
And it doesn't need to be an expensive unit to do this. The examples I saw of this performing the best was someone running Admech, where he took the top floors of each ruin in his deployment zone and placed 5-man skitarii squads with 2 arquebi in each on top of them, and he had 2 objectives in those top floor perches. Those units of skitarii were sitting at a 2+ save in hard cover, targeted characters up to 72" away, and ignored 1 layer of cover. Thanks to the enormous bases of the arquebi, they could very easily prevent chargers from getting up to them, and even if they had been permalocked as you describe, the units are only like 70pts. If they're permalocked in combat with 1 enemy model and the rest of the enemy unit is stuck below them, they still hold the objective with obsec and are most likely tying up a more expensive enemy melee unit. They're still very much providing value.
All this reminds me of the various tricks you could pull to get around Invisibility in 7th edition, when that solidly became part of the meta. You could do all kinds of stuff to sneak around the 6+ to hit, block their movement, use blasts in tricky ways to hit them, etc...it still didn't make Invisibility a strong enough power to be basically autoinclude for every faction, and it deserved to be removed from the game.
Cities of Death adds enough power to the Unassailable Platform O' Doom tactic to warp the meta around it, and if the next big FAQ pulls some of those much improved cover rules into the game, something will need to be done to address that tactic or it will allow relatively small, cheap shooting units to punch way above their weight class.
Wayniac wrote: RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.
I like part of this but not all of this. I think the CP penalty and no strats are a good idea. However, the no chapter tactics is not, IMHO, a good idea. Without chapter tactics then it makes no difference if you take Salamanders or Ultras or whichever they are all now the same thing barring special units. It is the special rules that make a lot of codices a codex. For instance there is no difference between a Blood Angel tac squad and a Dark Angel tac squad except for their chapter tactics. Even though I'm using SM terms the same thing holds true for CWE, DE, Tau and, Necrons. My point being that sometimes the reason you use a second or even third detachment is because you are looking for some special ability from that specific subfaction. I think the no CP being generated and no strats being available is enough of a penalty.
Wayniac wrote: RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.
I like part of this but not all of this. I think the CP penalty and no strats are a good idea. However, the no chapter tactics is not, IMHO, a good idea. Without chapter tactics then it makes no difference if you take Salamanders or Ultras or whichever they are all now the same thing barring special units. It is the special rules that make a lot of codices a codex. For instance there is no difference between a Blood Angel tac squad and a Dark Angel tac squad except for their chapter tactics. Even though I'm using SM terms the same thing holds true for CWE, DE, Tau and, Necrons. My point being that sometimes the reason you use a second or even third detachment is because you are looking for some special ability from that specific subfaction. I think the no CP being generated and no strats being available is enough of a penalty.
I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.
That's one of the main reasons for allowing multiple detachments. If I take 3 detachments all from the same codex most people wouldn't call it soup and wouldn't object to the army. So what difference does it make if all 3 of my detachments have different special rules (except for keeping up with which unit has which rule)?
I would guess the bigger issue is the CP generation and the availability of stratagems. In fact I would limit strats to your Warlord's codex regardless of any other factors.
I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.
Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?
This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.
I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.
Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?
This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.
Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.
It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions
In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.
I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.
Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?
This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.
Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.
It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions
In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.
Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.
If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....
But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.
Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?
This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.
Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.
It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions
In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.
Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.
If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....
But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.
So, I don't think BB can apply to characters, named or otherwise. For instance Strakken can't be taken in a BB army. Secondly, I think all non BB units become BB units, and thus loose their original strats, abilities, etc.
Is this not correct?
Finally, Traitor Guardsmen are called cultists. Human helpers would be fire warriors, and human helpers for orks would be Grots. We don't need to ally everyone with everyone,
I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.
Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?
This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.
Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.
It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions
In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.
Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.
If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....
But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.
So, I don't think BB can apply to characters, named or otherwise. For instance Strakken can't be taken in a BB army. Secondly, I think all non BB units become BB units, and thus loose their original strats, abilities, etc.
Is this not correct?
Finally, Traitor Guardsmen are called cultists. Human helpers would be fire warriors, and human helpers for orks would be Grots. We don't need to ally everyone with everyone,
BBs can still use all their original stratagems, psychic powers, and orders. They just replace their "Regiment Tactic" with Brood Brothers, which grants +1LD and the "Willing Sacrifice" or whatever it's called rule.
Wayniac wrote: Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
That would kill soup, which despite everyone here seeming to want, is something I doubt GW will ever actually do.
I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.
Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?
This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.
Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.
It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions
In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.
Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.
If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....
But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.
So, I don't think BB can apply to characters, named or otherwise. For instance Strakken can't be taken in a BB army. Secondly, I think all non BB units become BB units, and thus loose their original strats, abilities, etc.
Is this not correct?
Finally, Traitor Guardsmen are called cultists. Human helpers would be fire warriors, and human helpers for orks would be Grots. We don't need to ally everyone with everyone,
Addressing your first point/question. A Company Commander is a character, and can definitely be a Brood brother in a Brood Brother Astra Militarum detachment alongside a GSC detachment. I never said anything about special or named characters.
They also simply REPLACE all instances of the <Regiment> keyword with <Brood Brother>. They do not lose any abilities or strategems.
Your second point. I disagree. The fluff has multiple instances of Guard being converted to another aides cause. gue'vesa by the Tau are definitely a thing, and at one point had rules back in 4th or 5th. Traitor Guardsman (who now have legitimate models to differentiate them from cultists) are a HUGE part of the ImperialxChaos war. Digganobz, while a throwback to the yesteryears, would be hilarious and I don't see a problem with giving numerous factions a slice of the Imperial Pie, to say, a faction that is so widespread and pervasive that you can just about anything with it.
As a sidenote I would be super duper jazzed to get White Dwarf rules for a Digganob unit using the Goliath necromunda kit for Orks.
An elite choice unit with Power Hammer or Renderizer on the sergeant, Krumper or Combat shotgun as a special weapon, and choice of melee gear or autogun on the basic digganobz.
Wayniac wrote: Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
That would kill soup, which despite everyone here seeming to want, is something I doubt GW will ever actually do.
I think for the benefit of the game longterm it has to happen at some point. Soup being allowed in tournaments is ruining the meta, and since GW seems to equate Matched Play with Tournament Play, they have to go together. That allied rule should be specific to matched play.
My guess is that there will another Ynnari change coming up. If they do not change Ynnari then my guess is that they are currently planning an Ynnari codex in the very near future.
I do thing they will address Cp somehow. I think the closest to a fix that MIGHT actually happen is restricting CP to be spent on the detachment that generated it.
as for hopes I would love to see Ynarri units actually be assigned different points than cratworld or dark eldar to balance them with how those unis preform there.
Wayniac wrote: Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
That would kill soup, which despite everyone here seeming to want, is something I doubt GW will ever actually do.
I think for the benefit of the game longterm it has to happen at some point. Soup being allowed in tournaments is ruining the meta, and since GW seems to equate Matched Play with Tournament Play, they have to go together. That allied rule should be specific to matched play.
How is it ruining the meta though? If anything, I think it allows more units to be playable. If you implement a rule like you're suggesting here, Eldar and Guard will likely be top tier armies still. Brandon Grant's LVO list could easily swap the Castellan for some Guard heavy artillery and play basically the same, for example. 3 Tank Commanders put out just as much hurt as the Castellan, they're just more fragile, but if the enemy isn't souping in a Castellan they're more viable anyway. The main difference is that you'll see less differences in allied detachments. Custodes units saw play as allies, as did some Space Marine and Knights units. With these proposed rules, these factions that are really mostly used in soup are now non-viable, and so are just used less.
Eliminating soup will not change which armies have good codex and which have bad, it will just make it so you can't sure up weaknesses with good units from codex that aren't viable solo.
Soup is a big problem for balance. When there is no restriction on what a force contains then it results in unforeseen combos, many units never seeing play (as an ally unit is better,) and results in a loss of army flavour. In my opinion mono dex armies should generate more CP than soup, while soup has the benefit of using ally units to shore up weaknesses in the codex.
Horst wrote: If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.
How does Nerfing Soup affect how units perform? If you move towards monodex armies more units from those will see play, rather than a select few and then some beatstick/CP battery from another army.
Horst wrote: If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.
How does that work? Soup is what makes a lot of units never used. Why take a bunch of tacticals when you can just take guard? Why take most of marine codexes when you can take the more effective Knights? Soup allows a free for all and therefore makes many units redundant as there will be a better choice in another army... the same choice many others will take.
Horst wrote: If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.
How does Nerfing Soup affect how units perform? If you move towards monodex armies more units from those will see play, rather than a select few and then some beatstick/CP battery from another army.
I would genuinely like to see your reasoning.
Because some armies are just not top tier if you look at their codex without allies. Knights without allies are SLAUGHTERED by Eldar, and often even buy Guard. Custodes are the same way, their codex, when played as a mono-dex list, is really not that good because they have so few models. Knights see a lot of play though, because Guard synergize with them so well. Custodes as well see a lot of play with Guard allies. If you nerf allies though, then Guard will just make due without allies. Yes, jetbike captains are great, but you can probably just include a 9 man squad of Bullgryn to act as a heavy melee component and play it a bit differently but still make it work. Yes, Guard + Knights is great, but if allies are nerfed then Guard will just spam tanks or artillery to make up for their loss.
Moving towards monodex doesn't change the fact that many codex are just overall inferior to others. Guard, Drukhari, Aeldari, and Harlequins would still be some of the best codex out there, you just see even fewer imperial and chaos models in play if they can't soup in select good units from other (generally weaker) books.
Horst wrote: If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.
How does that work? Soup is what makes a lot of units never used. Why take a bunch of tacticals when you can just take guard? Why take most of marine codexes when you can take the more effective Knights? Soup allows a free for all and therefore makes many units redundant as there will be a better choice in another army... the same choice many others will take.
Mono dex will not make tacticals any more viable. You'll just see less marine units on the tables, period. Now they at least function as allies to some degree. That won't be the case otherwise.
Wayniac wrote: Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
This doesn't solve the problem.
The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.
Wayniac wrote: Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
This doesn't solve the problem.
The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.
Since when was "dividing by two, rounding down" funky math?
Wayniac wrote: Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
This doesn't solve the problem.
The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.
Since when was "dividing by two, rounding down" funky math?
To be fair to Marm, this is a GW game. But then again I remember when they streamlined everything from 2nd -> 3rd because "maths is hard" (seriously that was one of their reasons, that 2nd had too much math).
I don't think that reversing how detachment works are any sort of viable solution not because it's bad, but because it requires adjusting the idea of the game. There's already a precedent for not giving different factions traits and halving their CP (i.e. Brood Brothers), so it's something that could be a Matched Play addendum in an FAQ or chapter approved or something.
I kinda agree with Horst that it will just reduce the number of units played per army and not increase. Mostly because units are picked because they are viable and not because you have to. So if you are picking X from one army and Y from the next which results in a set of Z units. Mono-ing those armies just means you pick X and not Y and the result becomes Z-Y.
How does that work? Soup is what makes a lot of units never used. Why take a bunch of tacticals when you can just take guard?
Mono Space-Marine armies tend to take scouts over tacticals to begin with so there is your problem. Limiting selection will not magically fix what people select, it just means you pick more of what you were already picking. I play mono-Craftworlds for the most part and I am not picking much of the units that you wouldn't pick in a soup army. I am still picking the core units and if anything I am fielding more of the same compared to the soup army. Only times I'd go beyond that is when I know I am going for an explicitly casual or narrative game.
Which brings to the core point that people seem to refuse to see and that is that there are ton of units that just won't see the light of day in any tourney/competitive setting because they are just worse than the best units in the army. If we would magically make every single unit 100% viable on the battlefield then soup would be a harder choice because picking soup means you can pick less from one army as you are picking stuff from another army. Only reason I can imagine people not realizing that is because a lot of people seem to be stuck in a bit of a rock-paper-scissor mentality where one army counters another and so on and so on which to be frank is a horrible game design. Every army should be able to counter each other. No army should be a hard counter to another army. Unit against unit perhaps, but never a whole army.
Also, make CP a fixed number and cost stratagems accordingly. Then you'd get rid of all CP batteries forever. Then drastically change Ynnari with their own separate point cost and you will have a much more balanced game. There are straightforward ways to address the big problems right now.
Wayniac wrote: Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.
So for posterity's sake:
ALLIED DETACHMENTS A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.
This doesn't solve the problem.
The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.
That would defeat the intended design of CP to reward an organic army. Your mono tank SM vanguard would have the same CP as a tau brigade. Just no. The current CP system is fine as a basic idea. What is needed, is to hardcap the CP that a detachment can give based on the cost of it, like max 1 CP per 100 points spent on the detachment. This way factions with cheap troops and HQs do not have an inbuilt advantage on CP.
I agree that introducing a FLAT cp for every battle forged army will make all MONO codex armies a lot more viable.
Custodes and marines will be far less likely to take the loyal 32, but they still might just for screens and bodies.
It'll be a nerf to straight guard army's CP total, but they don't need 20 CP when they play mono anyway.
It will bring back triple vanguard/spearhead detachment armies, but that's fine. Those lists tend to lack the amount of bodies to hold objectives or have good board control.
I am honestly a fan of soup conceptually. It fits the setting and you get to fun favorite factions next to each other. That's great. but it's clearly broken balance in 8th.
So, if you don't want to make soup more balanced to mono-codex via detachment/cp/ect. limitations then units need to be balanced according to their potential global-optimum use in soup armies. That's where the trouble is. Soup get to cherry pick, everybody else gets what they got in the book.
That means you either need to hit some globaly-optimum units, like the Castellan (Which I'm gonna pick on here, but it's not like it's the sole issue), with the nerf bat or buff up many codex units. Or really do both - if nerfing the Castellan to soup-appropriate levels hits pure-dex Knights too hard, the IKs need buffs in other ways.
If a Castellan was truly a similar power compared to 3 Tank Commanders, as was suggested earlier in the thread, this whole soup argument wouldn't exist like this.
Which brings to the core point that people seem to refuse to see and that is that there are ton of units that just won't see the light of day in any tourney/competitive setting because they are just worse than the best units in the army. If we would magically make every single unit 100% viable on the battlefield then soup would be a harder choice because picking soup means you can pick less from one army as you are picking stuff from another army. Only reason I can imagine people not realizing that is because a lot of people seem to be stuck in a bit of a rock-paper-scissor mentality where one army counters another and so on and so on which to be frank is a horrible game design. Every army should be able to counter each other. No army should be a hard counter to another army. Unit against unit perhaps, but never a whole army.
So much this. If mono armies have all the tools they need then allies become a thematic choice, not a crunch choice.
That may begin to justify their cost if the basick 
