In a recently released video they droped a fairly big hint on the next Big FAQ stating that troops are gonna be retaking the meta (or at least become far more important).

Being that these guys are based in the UK they might have gotten to talk to a GW games designer and gotten some insider information, or it could all just be hearsay.


Do you think we are going back to the days of only troops can score objectives? This would actually be a unintended buff to flyer armies, as they were doing good without objective grabbers.

Well... guess I should really finish my other 3 eldar flyers!

I'm not sure that actually solves anything. One of the problems with how GW designs armies is that they can't decide whether Troops should be equally prominent in all of them, so you get some armies that can actually function really well taking almost nothing but Troops (GSC and DW spring to mind) while others take Troops more as a tax to fill out Battalions. I'd rather they balanced out the role of Troops properly in each Codex before doing something like this - if that is in fact what's going to happen.

This sort of change doesn't magically make Tacticals or basic CSM better, for example. Those units are still bad and giving them a buff that isn't related to actually improving their basic efficiency isn't some magic bullet that will suddenly make them useable.

They are possibly addressing the change that has been getting "teased" since 2019ish. Make troops the only thing that can hold objectives. Bam - troops just became relevant, and meta gets a shakeup.

I agree

 Eihnlazer wrote:
In a recently released video they droped a fairly big hint on the next Big FAQ stating that troops are gonna be retaking the meta (or at least become far more important).

Being that these guys are based in the UK they might have gotten to talk to a GW games designer and gotten some insider information, or it could all just be hearsay.


Do you think we are going back to the days of only troops can score objectives? This would actually be a unintended buff to flyer armies, as they were doing good without objective grabbers.

Seeing as 80+ troops in the norm right now, why they think troops are not a must take now and changing rules for them to be more popular is kinda unsettling... are they that out of touch?


To add, you will always have some armies with lack of Troops, unless 8th says (You have to have a Battalion) we will always have that, but most top armies/lists are taking massive amounts of troops, for cheap CP and bubble wrap. You need troops for CP.

I'm not sure that will fix things, soup needs to be reigned in so there's a valid reason to take a mono-faction as opposed to taking a unit from here, a unit from this other faction, and a unit from this third faction all in different detachments. Fix that (along with one those detachments feeding CP to the other two) and that will be a better fix.

Cheap troops already dominate the meta, not sure how this is actually a fix.

80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Seeing as 80+ troops in the norm right now, why they think troops are not a must take now and changing rules for them to be more popular is kinda unsettling... are they that out of touch?


To add, you will always have some armies with lack of Troops, unless 8th says (You have to have a Battalion) we will always have that, but most top armies/lists are taking massive amounts of troops, for cheap CP and bubble wrap. You need troops for CP.

The equation changes considerably when those disposable models suddenly become not disposable.

I would even go a step further, only troops from your warlords detachment should score objectives, and only that detachment should give stratagems.

KILL THAT SOUP WITH FIRE

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

IG, GSC, Nids, Orks, Chaos, CSM, SoB, so.. basically everyone but Marines, Aeldari, Admech, and some Necrons

Marines will never have many troops, its the nature of 8th and their points (unless they seriously go down in points) Aeldari can, but its better to have units like Shining Spears, Flyers, Ravagers, even if Troops are more important (I dont see how unless ONLY troops can hold, then you'll just see 6 units of Rangers as Alaitoc, compare to Store Guardians and 1 guardian blog, and 3 kabals, same points, same numbers, just different purpose).

We might see different troops, but you still see many blobs now.

Edit: NOT SAYING its bad, im saying they are important now, and large amounts of players takes large amounts of them already.

stormcraft wrote:
I would even go a step further, only troops from your warlords detachment should score objectives, and only that detachment should give stratagems.

KILL THAT SOUP WITH FIRE

Do you mean Detachment or faction/army? Your suggestion would hurt mono-Codex lists as well.

Sure, you should of course be able to bring 3 Detachments full of scoring Troops, if they are from the same Army, so "All Troops with the same Army Keyword as your Warlord" should be the Rule.

Generally all Allies should be handled the same as GSC handels AM: No Traits, No stratagems, No CP from Allies

So Imperial Knights just couldn't function standalone?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

IG, GSC, Nids, Orks, Chaos, CSM, SoB, so.. basically everyone but Marines, Aeldari, Admech, and some Necrons

Marines will never have many troops, its the nature of 8th and their points (unless they seriously go down in points) Aeldari can, but its better to have units like Shining Spears, Flyers, Ravagers, even if Troops are more important (I dont see how unless ONLY troops can hold, then you'll just see 6 units of Rangers as Alaitoc, compare to Store Guardians and 1 guardian blog, and 3 kabals, same points, same numbers, just different purpose).

We might see different troops, but you still see many blobs now.

I forgot about nids and GSC/nids. That being said, I still think it's exaggerating to say IG armies bring 80 models of IS. I've only seen two plays in the last 2 years bring Scripts, and those were playing old pre-nerf rules.

stormcraft wrote:
I would even go a step further, only troops from your warlords detachment should score objectives, and only that detachment should give stratagems.

KILL THAT SOUP WITH FIRE

This will add to soup even more, everyone will take IG, CWE, DG as their Warlord and load up on good troops then add damage, anything that counters infantry.


Imagine 30 Alaitoc Rangers in Wave Serpents and Dark Reapers to back them up. Cool want to shoot them? Well they are -1/+2 save and the 1st unit you shoot at you need 6's to hit, also can make them have invuls or -2 to hit, while the Ynnari Dark reapers will shoot twice killing your troops.

I’m the opposite end. I play, and love, soup. Have since beginning of 6th edition with battle brothers. If they kill soup, they know they kill a player base that buys a huge line of models. Chaos..(marines/daemons), tyranids (nids, cults) imperium as a whole, and Aeldari as a whole. GW would be massively stupid to kill that. If you like a mono factionc play it. If you’re bringing fluff to competetive, you’re bringing a knife to a gun fight. My suggestion if you feel that you aren’t having fun is talk with your opponent on what kind of game you wanna play. Fun and fluffy or competetive. I love playing both ways, and if someone told me please bring a fluffy army, you’d see my Ulthwé en masse guardian squads running up the field, while Eldrad and some warlocks pump their heads to try and shoot better and survive. You ask me to bring competetive and you’re gonna see ynnari, dark reapers, etc. just because something isn’t fun for you doesn’t mean it isn’t for others, so don’t wish something dead that someone else might actually be finding joy in. This game has a million ways to play.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
80+? What army using 80? Chaos or Orks? I can't see any soup lists bringing 8 full squads of IG, or SMs. It has to be cultists and Boys. In which case, what meta are you looking at?

IG, GSC, Nids, Orks, Chaos, CSM, SoB, so.. basically everyone but Marines, Aeldari, Admech, and some Necrons

Marines will never have many troops, its the nature of 8th and their points (unless they seriously go down in points) Aeldari can, but its better to have units like Shining Spears, Flyers, Ravagers, even if Troops are more important (I dont see how unless ONLY troops can hold, then you'll just see 6 units of Rangers as Alaitoc, compare to Store Guardians and 1 guardian blog, and 3 kabals, same points, same numbers, just different purpose).

We might see different troops, but you still see many blobs now.

I forgot about nids and GSC/nids. That being said, I still think it's exaggerating to say IG armies bring 80 models of IS. I've only seen two plays in the last 2 years bring Scripts, and those were playing old pre-nerf rules.

Top LVO IG list did..... https://i.imgur.com/MYp9xkt.png + Knight

Another IG had 60 + large Conscript squad, and more had some as well, a couple players took 40+ wyches as well as 20 guardians and Storm Guardians

Edit: Link

They (announcers and video reviewers, as well as several websites) also made a point of saying how radical and innovative that list was. As in, not the standard meta. The loyal 32 is the norm, not the 80+. For IG

Yeah, Troops being the most impactful models in the game would be a big change..like...in 7th edition?

Certainly not since 8th lol. any army that doesn't take at least 1/3 its points value in troops and units supporting those troops tends to be in trouble these days.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I’m the opposite end. I play, and love, soup. Have since beginning of 6th edition with battle brothers. If they kill soup, they know they kill a player base that buys a huge line of models. Chaos..(marines/daemons), tyranids (nids, cults) imperium as a whole, and Aeldari as a whole. GW would be massively stupid to kill that. If you like a mono factionc play it. If you’re bringing fluff to competetive, you’re bringing a knife to a gun fight. My suggestion if you feel that you aren’t having fun is talk with your opponent on what kind of game you wanna play. Fun and fluffy or competetive. I love playing both ways, and if someone told me please bring a fluffy army, you’d see my Ulthwé en masse guardian squads running up the field, while Eldrad and some warlocks pump their heads to try and shoot better and survive. You ask me to bring competetive and you’re gonna see ynnari, dark reapers, etc. just because something isn’t fun for you doesn’t mean it isn’t for others, so don’t wish something dead that someone else might actually be finding joy in. This game has a million ways to play.

I would say the biggest issue with soup right now is that is has zero downsides, GW arn't going to remove it regardless of how many posters complain, but they could atleast take some attempt at balancing all the bonuses with a downside.

I hope this isn't going to be another GW of old style fix, if troops become mandatory well everyones playing one of 3 factions, Guard, GSC or Orks. No other codex will be worth trying to make a functional list out of. This smacks of the no-one takes Choas marine's, cultists must be too good, lets make Cultists 5ppm, guess what people still take cultists just less because 1 marines isn't worth 2.5 cultist in 8th edition, this is just going to render a number of codex's effectively unplayable if true.

It could be something as simple as a small rewards system for taking more troops. Maybe not even anything to significant.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
They (announcers and video reviewers, as well as several websites) also made a point of saying how radical and innovative that list was. As in, not the standard meta. The loyal 32 is the norm, not the 80+. For IG

But its not... every tournament go look, you always see many payers with 60-100 troops, this isnt outside of normal, its just he did well enough to take top. How many times you see lots of Poxwalkers? hmm what about the 20 guardian blobs with 15 man wych units, 2x8 Storm guardians?, When Aeldari soup is taking 60+ on average thats crazy. Then what about GSC, Orks, etc.. they always took a lot.

The point is, every since beta rules troops have been very popular. Saying they are going to be more popular is odd.


Now saying they will be used differently and "SM" will be using them more often outside of Gants, Neophyts, Guardsmen, Cultist, Pox, and Sob, now that will be a welcome change.

More diverse selection is always better, im not saying that its not welcome. Just that they are popular already, and would like the game to make other units better instead of adding more rules, if the problem troops go up 1pt and the ones no one takes goes down 1pt we might see a shift anyways.

Nobody is talking about killing soup, it just should not be rewarded to take the best units from 3 books instead of one, especially because some armys cant soup.

And to link soups and competitive play is BS, competitive play can happen in whatever Ruleset GW set as standard. If you severely nerf souping to the point that mono-list are stronger, all competitive players will tend to play mono.

Dont set yourself on a pedal because you pick the strongest options from 3 books instead of one.


PS: Of course armys who dont have a troop choice should get some kind of exception the keep them functional.

I actually really enjoy being able to finally field the force I've wanted for years, it fit the lore, and has no troops, until I hit a certain points level, which is just fine.

Troops can be nice, but for some armies, like Necrons, they can be a massive tax. There are lists I run that have all 60 of my Warriors, and lists with none at all. The no Warrior lists are far more fun to play. Being able to hold objectives with Scarabs, like in the lore, is what I've been wanting since 3rd ed.

I doubt we'll see something as inane as "only troops can score objectives". Troops are absolutely being used in the game right now. Generally, most lists that aren't skew-lists are running 6 units of Troops in order to gain Command Points through Battalions. That's a minimum of 30 bodies, sometimes 60 bodies. The quantity of units of Troops is, I feel, exactly where it should be in the game.

HOWEVER, what we aren't seeing are different kids of troops. What do you see? Scouts, Cultists, Guardsmen, Rippers. Thank the Orks that both their troops are cheap, so you do actually often see both Grots and Ork Boyz. Drukhari's weird way of breaking down also means that you see variety in their troops. But yeah, Guardsmen everywhere, even in Xenos armies (looking at you GSC). Maybe there's a change coming that could offer more distinctive levels of troops. Over at Proposed Rules we have a neat discussion going about using either Leadership or Power Level to differentiate troops more; that the Troop with the highest Ld/Power Level is able to hold objectives over Troops with a lower Ld/Power Level. This would make Tacticals, Chaos Space Marines, etc. more useful over the lower tier Troop units, without invalidating the lower tier Troop units. Infantry squads, Rippers, and Grots would all still be great for holding objectives for cheap, and being able to steal objectives from non-Troops, but Tactical Marines or Chaos Space Marines or the like could steal objectives from these units (and the Ultramarine/Black Legion +1Ld buff would actually really matter, as these Chapters/Legions could grab objectives even from their brethren).

Just something to think about.

 Yarium wrote:
This would make Tacticals, Chaos Space Marines, etc. more useful over the lower tier Troop units, without invalidating the lower tier Troop units. Infantry squads, Rippers, and Grots would all still be great for holding objectives for cheap, and being able to steal objectives from non-Troops, but Tactical Marines or Chaos Space Marines or the like could steal objectives from these units (and the Ultramarine/Black Legion +1Ld buff would actually really matter, as these Chapters/Legions could grab objectives even from their brethren).

Just something to think about.

That is a great idea. A Squad of (Chaos) Marines should absolutely hold an Objective over 10 Cultists or Grots.

 Yarium wrote:
I doubt we'll see something as inane as "only troops can score objectives". Troops are absolutely being used in the game right now. Generally, most lists that aren't skew-lists are running 6 units of Troops in order to gain Command Points through Battalions. That's a minimum of 30 bodies, sometimes 60 bodies. The quantity of units of Troops is, I feel, exactly where it should be in the game.

HOWEVER, what we aren't seeing are different kids of troops. What do you see? Scouts, Cultists, Guardsmen, Rippers. Thank the Orks that both their troops are cheap, so you do actually often see both Grots and Ork Boyz. Drukhari's weird way of breaking down also means that you see variety in their troops. But yeah, Guardsmen everywhere, even in Xenos armies (looking at you GSC). Maybe there's a change coming that could offer more distinctive levels of troops. Over at Proposed Rules we have a neat discussion going about using either Leadership or Power Level to differentiate troops more; that the Troop with the highest Ld/Power Level is able to hold objectives over Troops with a lower Ld/Power Level. This would make Tacticals, Chaos Space Marines, etc. more useful over the lower tier Troop units, without invalidating the lower tier Troop units. Infantry squads, Rippers, and Grots would all still be great for holding objectives for cheap, and being able to steal objectives from non-Troops, but Tactical Marines or Chaos Space Marines or the like could steal objectives from these units (and the Ultramarine/Black Legion +1Ld buff would actually really matter, as these Chapters/Legions could grab objectives even from their brethren).

Just something to think about.

Right! If problem troops goes up 1pt and units like SM goes down 1pt you might see a shift without changing any rules, 8th needs some rules tweaks for sure, but IMO troops are fine, we already gain good bonuses for taking them, work with the system we have, fix the really bad things and balance it before change core rules to much. Right now its clear its a points imbalance. Why are marines 13pts and Ig is 4pts? +2 save and +1 S/T isnt worth 9pts more when you add the core rules of IG into it vs SM. Its simple math.

Your idea will help a problem that really isnt there, people will still not take Scouts of IG sadly. It is a nice idea tho, i like it, but i dont think it will fix anything.

stormcraft wrote:
Nobody is talking about killing soup, it just should not be rewarded to take the best units from 3 books instead of one, especially because some armys cant soup.

And to link soups and competitive play is BS, competitive play can happen in whatever Ruleset GW set as standard. If you severely nerf souping to the point that mono-list are stronger, all competitive players will tend to play mono.

Dont set yourself on a pedal because you pick the strongest options from 3 books instead of one.


PS: Of course armys who dont have a troop choice should get some kind of exception the keep them functional.

Actually people talk all the time about killing soup. Also saying soup is competetive isn’t BS, it’s factual. The more units you have, the more combinations and strategies become available, the more artistic you can become with an army list, which means the more competetive one can be. It has been this way since 6th edition, either get with the times or play an older edition. GW is 100% not going to make it go anywhere, it’s a big cash cow, it’s why the imperium is one big pot of stuff that can just be munched together into one. They love their models selling, and they are a business first. Sorry man, the truth is the truth
I also never put myself on a “pedal”

You dont understand what im trying to say.

Of course at the moment soup is the most competitive option for most armys, but that doesnt mean you can only play competetive 40k in a souping world.

IF GW changes to rules tomorrow that mono codex Armys get +20CP you bet all hardcore competetive players will swear on playing mono codex armys.

So yea, yit may be more "artistic" to make the hardest combination from 3 books and the range of combinations is bigger and more complex, but that also makes balancing a lot harder for GW and screws those armys that cant soup.

Should you be able to bring your Knights with some Fluffy Guard Ground Support and some Assasins? Sure of course, but you shouldnt get Traits, Stratagems and CP from alle 3 Books to build increasingly unbalanced Combinations.

Its the same as the 7th Edition Deathstar clusterfeth again, just on a bigger scale.

No I understood and agree that hyper competetive players will follow flavor. However to say mono Codexes aren’t in a good spot is also wrong. GSC, tau, and even mono guard are in good spots for mono Codexes. So is Craftworlds and drukhari. It’s just ynnari and imperium soup beat them out. The OTHER mono codex to fall short, but that’s been a thing since.. well 40k existed that some mono codex were underwhelming

Sure, but thats no reason to resignate and not change it.

I just think it would be a lot easier to balance for ecxample a new Codex SM/GK/DA/BA etc if you dont have to crosscheck every unit and stratagem how it could be abused with Loyal32 and a Castellan.

 Yarium wrote:
Over at Proposed Rules we have a neat discussion going about using either Leadership or Power Level to differentiate troops more; that the Troop with the highest Ld/Power Level is able to hold objectives over Troops with a lower Ld/Power Level.

There were a couple of objective-even-more-secured rules in 7th, but it's a game of one-upmanship.

An alternative is the rule chaos knights have, one model can be worth more than one model for the purposes of deciding who holds the objective. Still easy to use but less of an all-in proposition.

So lets clear up this again.

Stratagems from other detachments are never going away. Period.

it would invalidate several armies, and choices. Like Imperial Assassins.

At this point, soup isn't going away. What you might see, and what is desired is that Mono faction get bonuses to allow them to compete better against soup.

What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

So for units like some tyranid monsters that are already over costed, you want to further increase their cost for a gene stealer cult player to take them for fluff purposes..

At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

So for units like some tyranid monsters that are already over costed, you want to further increase their cost for a gene stealer cult player to take them for fluff purposes..

I see your point. But soup is a problem. I would say thematic battles off fluff might not play by competitive level rules? I dunno. But either soup is a problem for all armies, or none. You can't say that 'nids get an out because fluff.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

So for units like some tyranid monsters that are already over costed, you want to further increase their cost for a gene stealer cult player to take them for fluff purposes..

I see your point. But soup is a problem. I would say thematic battles off fluff might not play by competitive level rules? I dunno. But either soup is a problem for all armies, or none. You can't say that 'nids get an out because fluff.

I’m not saying that, I don’t even play nids, I play Aeldari soup. My point was that the idea wouldn’t work, nor would GW go for something along those lines. I am
By no means insulting you, because at least you’re trying to think of something. I’m just saying

Soup is not going anywhere - GW makes money, and a lot of people love the ability to mix/match units. Its even pretty fluffy.

Mono-Dex armies definitely need a buff against Soup. Soup gives you more options, but it shouldn't be as dominate as it is. I've heard a lot of good ideas, and I definitely think pts reduction is a huge factor (especially SM vs IG). But I think the best solution is to look at CP costs. I just finished a local GT with a Blood Angels army. I'm not the best competative player by ANY means, but I often felt that a big reason I couldn't keep up was I started with 10 CP (Battalion/Vangaurd/Spearhead), and a most other players had MINIMUM 13-18 CP. By turn 3 I'm out of CP, and they are still throwing Strategems around like candy.

So I suggest that if your army is Mono-Dex (everyone share the right keyword with your Warlord) - then the bonuses for battle-forged detachments would go up by maybe 1-3 CP. Maybe if you have 2 datachements that match keywords you get 1 CP, and if all three match you get 3 CP or something. That gives you an incentive to play a single faction, but if you have a cool soup combo you like you CAN play it for a CP cost. Looking at the new assassin rule for inspiration. I think this could work really well.


Thoughts?

EDIT: Spelling

Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

Would it be crazy to have soup be allowed in binary terms?

Imperium vs. Everyone else?

A List of Orks, Tau, and Eldar would be awesome!

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Would it be crazy to have soup be allowed in binary terms?

Imperium vs. Everyone else?

A List of Orks, Tau, and Eldar would be awesome!

*7th edition intensifies*

TauDar is the worst thing on the planet.

I suppose I wouldn't mind running triple riptide on top of my DE list. But it wouldn't be fair.

 Marmatag wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Would it be crazy to have soup be allowed in binary terms?

Imperium vs. Everyone else?

A List of Orks, Tau, and Eldar would be awesome!

*7th edition intensifies*

TauDar is the worst thing on the planet.

I suppose I wouldn't mind running triple riptide on top of my DE list. But it wouldn't be fair.

Xenos/Chaos/Imperial

That would put Dark Eldar in with Chaos.

I love how yet another topic not about soup is not about soup...

As for the OP.
I dont buy it, Troops already have great value from obsec. not allowing anyone else to hold objectives is going way way to far.

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

I'd just do points. Otherwise very high PL units with minimal upgrades will create the imbalanced scenario we have now. 5 Deathwatch Veterans with no upgrades would provide 3 CP.

Generally speaking the biggest problem right now is ultra cheap troops for only certain factions, which is why cultists, guardsmen, GSC and others have such good troops. Anything paying 10 points or more for troops sucks by comparison.

That, and the ability to have ultra-cheap troops providing CP to fuel powerful units like Castellans means the framework of the game breaks down.

We should just basically relegate CP to be used by the army that generated them. Guard only get guard CP, knights only get knight CP. Ynnari are irrevocably messed up, and need to be completely overhauled to fit into the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

I'd just do points. Otherwise very high PL units with minimal upgrades will create the imbalanced scenario we have now. 5 Deathwatch Veterans with no upgrades would provide 3 CP.

Yeah but not everyone uses points, because you need many more books for that, while PL is something that you are sure that every player has. For this reason all rules always refer to PL and never to points.

They changed tactical reserves to points. If you're playing PL then they can have a separate rule, but there is nothing stopping use of points for proper balance.

what if there was a cp bonus for single codex armies?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

I'd just do points. Otherwise very high PL units with minimal upgrades will create the imbalanced scenario we have now. 5 Deathwatch Veterans with no upgrades would provide 3 CP.

Wouldn't that be a great way to show the elite factor of the troops?

Point values are far more accurate to the matched play environment than PL for the same objective.

Reemule wrote:


it would invalidate several armies, and choices. Like Imperial Assassins.

"These stratagems may be used even if your Warlord doesn't have the [insert faction name here] keyword" It takes exactly one line to fix that issue. Outlier factions do not stop GW from restricting stratagems to the Warlord's faction.

What video?

 Blndmage wrote:


Wouldn't that be a great way to show the elite factor of the troops?

I think that is better served by what they do on the table. Under this system you would need 200 points of IS before commanders for 5 CP. This would mean 128 points of DW SB Vets could "cap out" that max 5 CP. You just shifted the problem instead of fixing it.

I think they should redress the Detatchment CP bonuses for armies with detatchments from multiple factions, leaving Soup playable but strongly curbing the incentive for doing the Loyal 32:

Mono Codex gets 3CP for battleforged, 5CP for a batallion etc as normal

Soup get 2CP for battleforged and 2 for *any* additional detatchment. Max of 8CP for soup armies.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

If you take soup armies, you're only tied into 1 set of maelstrom cards.

Just do the same with Soup strats. If you're taking Craftworlds and Drukhari in one list for instance, you can only use Craftworld or Drukhari stats, not both.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

Maybe if you play ITC Champions missions it's kill everything in three turns, but not using real missions.

*BOOM* Headshot.

Amishprn86 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

Wait, the game exists without total tableage, never would know that based on how some people act.

Wayniac wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

Maybe if you play ITC Champions missions it's kill everything in three turns, but not using real missions.

*BOOM* Headshot.

Can you say that's true when LVO games are scoring in the 4th and 5th rounds quite commonly?

I still support CP based off points, losing CP for taking more than 1 detachment, and more than 1 faction.

GW really needs to go back to the original printing of 3CP's for a Battalion and 9 CP's for the Brigade.

If they want to change Battle-forged to 5 CP's to compensate, fine. But one of the worst things to have happened to this edition is the increase in CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments.

Beyond this, GW should make it so that in Matched Play games you need to pay CP's to add Faction keywords to the army.

 oni wrote:
GW really needs to go back to the original printing of 3CP's for a Battalion and 9 CP's for the Brigade.

If they want to change Battle-forged to 5 CP's to compensate, fine. But one of the worst things to have happened to this edition is the increase in CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments.

Beyond this, GW should make it so that in Matched Play games you need to pay CP's to add Faction keywords to the army.

That change was helpful to marines and just fine in the context of Guard not being able to use all that CP, but the surplus now has an outlet. Reducing it still just hurts elites more, because Guard get it more cheaply. Forcing people to pay for factions just hurts elites more, because Guard get CP more cheaply.

The thing is GW have said a lot of things recently that they haven't necessarily followed up on and I'm not sure how much TT are in the know.

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

We agree! #heartattack

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

We agree! #heartattack

I typically run anywhere from 15-18 pl of troops in my ynnari anyway. So I’d be 100% ok w that even from a competetive standpoint

that's not a bad idea really. Interesting!

So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

Spoletta wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

Yeah cause otherwise we would
Be simply handing out more to the terrible guard/castellan/DW/ad mech group. Honestly another fix for the castellan, just to say, is if you bring him and only him, you can’t use CP or relics/warlord traits on him. You have to at least bring a lance. Doesn’t hurt knight players, or players who run more than one knight. Only those trying to abuse the castellan

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

Yeah cause otherwise we would
Be simply handing out more to the terrible guard/castellan/DW/ad mech group. Honestly another fix for the castellan, just to say, is if you bring him and only him, you can’t use CP or relics/warlord traits on him. You have to at least bring a lance. Doesn’t hurt knight players, or players who run more than one knight. Only those trying to abuse the castellan

The problem with these 4th quarter changes is that the units established back in 2017/8 were built with a style of gameplay in mind. The problem is allowing titans and lords of war in an infantry based game. Setting the rules to Apoc style skewed the game into this.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

Sorry no

That beta rule adds a limit on the CPs given, does not give MORE. You can have 60 PL in a battalion, it would still be 5 CP.

Yeah cause otherwise we would
Be simply handing out more to the terrible guard/castellan/DW/ad mech group. Honestly another fix for the castellan, just to say, is if you bring him and only him, you can’t use CP or relics/warlord traits on him. You have to at least bring a lance. Doesn’t hurt knight players, or players who run more than one knight. Only those trying to abuse the castellan

The problem with these 4th quarter changes is that the units established back in 2017/8 were built with a style of gameplay in mind. The problem is allowing titans and lords of war in an infantry based game. Setting the rules to Apoc style skewed the game into this.

I don’t mind titants. I’m just saying a way to kill single castellan models while having zero negative affects on people who want to run mono titans or a mix of some titants and a few troops

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I'm excited for the Chaos players who're excited about the new Abaddon model. Does that count?

ccs wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I'm excited for the Chaos players who're excited about the new Abaddon model. Does that count?

Yes lol, it’s a nice model. I do feel like the sword got smaller? Or did they not scale it up when they scaled him up

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, my DW Army would have about 30CP.....

YOU GET STRATAGEMS, AND YOU GET STRATAGEMS, EVERYONE GETS A STRATAGEM!

I'm actually 100% with this, assuming Strategems are faction locked.

It Really shows the Elite nature of DW, as they can do the exceptional consistently. I wonder how it would break down for other forces?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I have zero interest in chaos stuff, but I am excited whenever a super old kit gets replaced - and we know chaos marines are getting three super fething old kits revamped. That's awesome.

I'm sorry if you feel betrayed by standard hype language. no, dedicated players of a single one of what, 24 factions out now, are not going to be excited about *any* given release if their criteria is "only things that pertain to my faction and only things that pertain to my faction that I specifically want!!"

Youtubers often get early looks at GW stuff so that they can prep/paint the models and prepare videos for when the stuff is about to be released, which helps GW build up hype for relatively little cost.

It's great for GW since they get youtubers to sell their product and great for the youtubers since brand new content tends to drive up views which helps their own income.

The youtubers have to sign a fat NDA and adhere to strict rules, and those that don't follow them get removed from the 'in crowd'.

The effect, however, is that youtubers often know more about upcoming GW product than GW's own staff! But, if anyone knows anything about GW's plans, it would be the playtesters and youtubers that work closely with them. I wouldn't be surprised if Tabletop Tactics knew a thing or two about the upcoming FAQ.

As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Deal.

the_scotsman wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

As an example - didn't they say that every player would be excited for what turned out to be the Shadowspear/Abaddon reveal?

This news seems really, really bizarre to me - Troops are already critical in any list because they generate CPs. What I'd rather see is more CPs for taking themed armies like all bikes, all Termies etc

Where did you hear that? On stream? Could it be every hobbyist would be excited? Because that Abaddon model is baller.

Yea stream. New Abaddon model is baller. Doesn't excite me though.

I have zero interest in chaos stuff, but I am excited whenever a super old kit gets replaced - and we know chaos marines are getting three super fething old kits revamped. That's awesome.

Good for you.

I'm sorry if you feel betrayed by standard hype language. no, dedicated players of a single one of what, 24 factions out now, are not going to be excited about *any* given release if their criteria is "only things that pertain to my faction and only things that pertain to my faction that I specifically want!!"

Not what I said or implied. Read my post again. There are plenty of things they could release/do that would actually excite the entire player base but releasing a sub faction specific model is not one of them. Nor is releasing a boxed set of new models for only 2 factions. There are Chaos players who aren't particularly excited for this release.

Claiming that everyone is going to be hyped for this release is like claiming everyone would be hyped for the Ork releases by your criteria. That also had ancient models getting an update.

Do you want to stop desperately trying to slander me now?

drbored wrote:
Youtubers often get early looks at GW stuff so that they can prep/paint the models and prepare videos for when the stuff is about to be released, which helps GW build up hype for relatively little cost.

It's great for GW since they get youtubers to sell their product and great for the youtubers since brand new content tends to drive up views which helps their own income.

The youtubers have to sign a fat NDA and adhere to strict rules, and those that don't follow them get removed from the 'in crowd'.

The effect, however, is that youtubers often know more about upcoming GW product than GW's own staff! But, if anyone knows anything about GW's plans, it would be the playtesters and youtubers that work closely with them. I wouldn't be surprised if Tabletop Tactics knew a thing or two about the upcoming FAQ.

Especially tabletop tactics as they seem really close to games workshop. They always have the codex before its released. They always upload a battle report with the new army in the week the codex drops. So I wouldn't be surprised, that the get hinted some new changes like "hey guys, we gonna update the troops rule, think about xy before".

Well if this means GW is going to fix GK termintors to be a valid option comparing to the paladins, why not. You guys think the change is going to happen in the big FAQ or through some sort of vigilus 2 errata ?

Big FAQ would be the place for this kind of (Beta?)Rules.

I'm really really hoping that they GK a blanket exemption to the 50% Deepstrike rule, that would be an easy band aid buff until a new codex.

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Yay, another CP thread.

Make CP for all armies - regardless of size and detachments - a fixed number(let's say 9-10 CP. For granularity we could have 5 CP for 1k games, 7 cp for 1.5k games, and 9 for 2k games). I have now single-handedly fixed all soup and battery issues that are not reliant on an OP unit or OP faction trait. Then cost stratagems according to this limit

I am truly the God Hand.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

On a more serious note it's because niether side see's anything wrong with how they want to play the game being the only way to play. Anyone else is just needs to "learn to play" 40k the "correct way".

 Eldarsif wrote:
Yay, another CP thread.

Make CP for all armies - regardless of size and detachments - a fixed number(let's say 9-10 CP. For granularity we could have 5 CP for 1k games, 7 cp for 1.5k games, and 9 for 2k games). I have now single-handedly fixed all soup and battery issues that are not reliant on an OP unit or OP faction trait. Then cost stratagems according to this limit

I am truly the God Hand.

For eldar maybe, because they need CP mostly for vect 1-2 per game. For someone playing BA, who needs around 20 CP, his army stops working after turn 1 with 10 CP.

For eldar maybe, because they need CP mostly for vect 1-2 per game. For someone playing BA, who needs around 20 CP, his army stops working after turn 1 with 10 CP.

You forgot to take into account my statement about CP being balanced towards 10 CP overall. It's about normalizing CP deployment and use instead of the current flex-state we live in. Then there is literal codex balance that needs to be addressed that is in no way connected to CP generation, but units getting either subpar rules or badly costed. Your precious Grey Knights is an example of a codex that is just atrocious and needs to be burned down to ashes before being rebuilt as something that works.

Also, BA is never going to have 20 CP unless they are using Imperial Batteries. They will often average about 10 CP mono depending on composition.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
They are possibly addressing the change that has been getting "teased" since 2019ish. Make troops the only thing that can hold objectives. Bam - troops just became relevant, and meta gets a shakeup.

And Fast Attack becomes even more irrelevant (for most armies anyway)

Until the community starts playing Warhammer instead of ITChammer, it won't matter what gets changed.

Lemondish wrote:
Until the community starts playing Warhammer instead of ITChammer, it won't matter what gets changed.

That's a pile of gak and you should know better. Even GW has conformed to aspects of ITC. ITC is simply a mission style. It doesn't make a unit any better or worse than GW's mission that removes invulnerable saves or requires characters to capture an objective.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Until the community starts playing Warhammer instead of ITChammer, it won't matter what gets changed.

That's a pile of gak and you should know better. Even GW has conformed to aspects of ITC. ITC is simply a mission style. It doesn't make a unit any better or worse than GW's mission that removes invulnerable saves or requires characters to capture an objective.

BUY THIS MAN A BEER!

Grumble grumble wierd interactions with terrain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Yay, another CP thread.

Make CP for all armies - regardless of size and detachments - a fixed number(let's say 9-10 CP. For granularity we could have 5 CP for 1k games, 7 cp for 1.5k games, and 9 for 2k games). I have now single-handedly fixed all soup and battery issues that are not reliant on an OP unit or OP faction trait. Then cost stratagems according to this limit

I am truly the God Hand.

Eldarsif, when is your ascension near, also will you put in a good word for me?

I just found this article, and I think it proposes some great ideas.

I'm with the author, option 1 is his best idea.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/03/40k-doctor-putting-soup-out-of-its-misery.html

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just found this article, and I think it proposes some great ideas.

I'm with the author, option 1 is his best idea.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/03/40k-doctor-putting-soup-out-of-its-misery.html

You know, I would be fine with it as GW has already fixed Aeldari soup as a permanent addition in the game. Because when people discuss soup issues they seem to forget that Aeldari soup is for all intents and purposes a mono-faction called Ynnari. This would just mean Ynnari would just be more Ynnari, Word of the Phoenix would still be OP, Strength from death would still be OP, and you couldn't use covens, but that wouldn't change much as craftworlds would still have access to Drukhari, I mean Ynnari, flyers of all kinds as well as Ynnari Ravagers who will have access to psychic powers, Shining Spears, Skyweavers, and Dark Reapers.

This fix would at best remove IG+Castellan and therefore enforce that the strongest mono-faction in the game would be Ynnari. As a collector most things Elf I have just one thing to add: I like it.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That's a pile of gak and you should know better. Even GW has conformed to aspects of ITC. ITC is simply a mission style. It doesn't make a unit any better or worse than GW's mission that removes invulnerable saves or requires characters to capture an objective.

Yeah, fundamentally altering the ways in which particular units can interact with one another, and in some cases arbitrarily precluding it altogether, doesnt change anything at all.

Wait.

What?

They pretend that first floor ruins are LOS blockers. How is that different if I set up a table with ruins that have no windows or holes on the first floor?

I didn’t think of it that way. Let’s do it! The only “soup” possible is us! Wooh!

Not "soup", but "mega-mono" faction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfYnvDL0Qcw

I am not a fan of many of his proposed fixes from the Bell of Lost Souls article - it seems his issues are not just with soup but with 8th edition detachments in general. The first few look like "throw-away COAs." They would hurt mono-codex forces that are innocent bystanders to all of this. There are some fun builds in my Codex, for example, that would not really be possible with his suggestions. Those builds (Ravenwing) are not running away with the tournament scene either. Orks would also face major problems, probably Nids as well.

I could get behind some reigning-in of specific CP builds. Perhaps only the first detachment counts for full CP; after that you only get one 1 CP per detachment. So if you take two Battalions you get +6 CP instead of +10. You want lots of CP? You are bringing a Brigade. This would restrict some of the Astra Militarum/Aeldari shenanigans while still allowing diversity in mono-codex forces. I could also agree with forcing Supreme Command detachments to have to match the keyword of at least one other Detachment. You want your three Captains on Dawn Eagles? You also have to have at least some other Custodes Detachment in there somewhere.

Truth be told, I think that two rather specific fixes could take away much of the Soup angst:

a. Reword Rotate Ion Shields so that no invul save can be improved past a 4++. Suddenly Castellans don't need all those CP.

b. Only allow Aeldari Psychic powers Doom and Jinx to affect targets of <Craftworld> units. So an Alaitoc Farseer's powers would only affect the results of hits from Alaitoc units. Wounds/Saves from the shooting other units lacking <Craftworld> would be unaffected by those powers. Now Drukhari have to live without Psychic powers - like they were meant to.

Perhaps these would take two of the flies out of the Soup? I think that Smash Captains were already restricted by the last Big FAQ, although other Flyers suffered collateral damage.

Anyhoo, I'm a player and not a game designer. I'll happily play against Soup with my mono-Codex force, but I'd be happier if some of the shenanigans were curtailed.

(edited to make it more clear which proposals I was disagreeing with...)

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Im not sure how it would hurt my Salamanders or Metalica.

as long as you can still use the cp generated by the additional non-warlord detachment on that same detachment, it should be fine.

To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

Racerguy180 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Im not sure how it would hurt my Salamanders or Metalica.

as long as you can still use the cp generated by the additional non-warlord detachment on that same detachment, it should be fine.

If you have multiple detachments from the same faction then it would absolutely matter. I don't favour book-keeping as it is. Tracking CPs by detachment would be tedious, and pointless if you have all detachments from the same faction.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

Well... this is the first ever edition to use these mechanics.

"b. Only allow Aeldari Psychic powers Doom and Jinx to affect targets of <Craftworld> units. So an Alaitoc Farseer's powers would only affect the results of hits from Alaitoc units. Wounds/Saves from the shooting other units lacking <Craftworld> would be unaffected by those powers. Now Drukhari have to live without Psychic powers - like they were meant to. "

As long as we do this for everything.

So Khorne demons/marked can't benefit from Death Hex?
Although it should really be <Asuryani>, if you do this at all. Otherwise, the majority of their Special Characters can't get the benefit, even if they're part of the same detatchment as the Farseer/Warlock...

While we're at it, are we also going to make sure that Guardsmen can't benefit from their Knight buddy deleting threats to them?

I get that Null Zone is worthless, but it's fairly clear that Null Zone is supposed strip invulns from targets whether it's Marines or Other Chapter Marines (or even Guardsmen) shooting at the target. Same with every other debuff in the game. What reason is there to believe only Asuryani debuffs are supposed to work that way?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

These never existed before. Stratagems in particular I think were a good idea but very poorly implemented when A) they became special things for every faction and B) being so closely tied to CP that it makes you want to game CP to power them. When it was just the 3 ones in the core book it was fine. As soon as they started adding special snowflake stratagems to every faction, including some things that used to be baseline abilities, is when it went downhill IMHO.

The closest thing to them were the old Strategy Cards in 2nd edition and to be honest I don't remember how those worked. But they were nothing like these.

Wayniac wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

These never existed before. Stratagems in particular I think were a good idea but very poorly implemented when A) they became special things for every faction and B) being so closely tied to CP that it makes you want to game CP to power them. When it was just the 3 ones in the core book it was fine. As soon as they started adding special snowflake stratagems to every faction, including some things that used to be baseline abilities, is when it went downhill IMHO.

The closest thing to them were the old Strategy Cards in 2nd edition and to be honest I don't remember how those worked. But they were nothing like these.

Actually, no, you had stratagems in 7th with things like Ultramarine (and later SM in general) abilities granted by Gladius. The only difference was that they were X uses per game, instead of using CPs. I despised the extra book-keeping, at least with CPs you can just put d20 to the side and only track one number.

Sooooo what you’re saying is they weren’t Stratagems, and the previous poster was correct... Stratagems and associated CP resource management was a new way of covering this type of stuff introduced with 8th.

Bharring wrote:
"b. Only allow Aeldari Psychic powers Doom and Jinx to affect targets of <Craftworld> units. So an Alaitoc Farseer's powers would only affect the results of hits from Alaitoc units. Wounds/Saves from the shooting other units lacking <Craftworld> would be unaffected by those powers. Now Drukhari have to live without Psychic powers - like they were meant to. "

As long as we do this for everything.

So Khorne demons/marked can't benefit from Death Hex?
Although it should really be <Asuryani>, if you do this at all. Otherwise, the majority of their Special Characters can't get the benefit, even if they're part of the same detatchment as the Farseer/Warlock...

While we're at it, are we also going to make sure that Guardsmen can't benefit from their Knight buddy deleting threats to them?

I get that Null Zone is worthless, but it's fairly clear that Null Zone is supposed strip invulns from targets whether it's Marines or Other Chapter Marines (or even Guardsmen) shooting at the target. Same with every other debuff in the game. What reason is there to believe only Asuryani debuffs are supposed to work that way?

Sure. I think those are fairly minor cases compared to the Eldar/Dark Eldar wombo-combo but what's good for the goose I suppose. Still, wth bespoke rules we can be selective. Acknowledged on Asuryani vs <Craftworld>.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:
How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Warlord's faction seems fair to me. I'd also add that only detachments from the Warlord's faction may generate command points.

I had to go through this thread doing a lot of editing and would like to remind everyone that the rules here are not optional, please follow them.
Thanks,
ingtaer.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
To all the oldies out there, did there always used to be so many stratagems, or options for CP use? Or are we seeing far less these days? I'm just wondering if this is a 8th problem or has been for awhile.

You're cute Fezzik, I like you

As stated, this is the first edition with these mechanics, so no idea. However, there was a some-sorta-kind-of-if-you-squint-real-hard similar mechanic in something called Formations back in 6th and 7th edition. In 6th it was Apocalypse only, and you paid points for them. In 7th it moved to regular rules, and they were free. What you did is have some pre-arranged assembly of units, and they'd form a formation. For example, a simple formation was to take a Harlequin Shadowseer, Death Jester, and Solitaire, and called it a formation of "The Heroe's Path". This made all the models in that formation better in some way. In a way, it's like saying "take these specific units, and every turn you can use this stratagem on each of the units". GW made a LOT of these formations, of varying power. Some were cute and did very little (like making a near all-bike force immune to Dangerous Terrain tests, which were tests for avoiding crashing into trees and stuff). Others were very powerful (you get to reroll all failed hit rolls, and it ignores cover, and you can move and shoot at no penalty, and you make more shots, and all you had to take for this were 2 of a really powerful unit that you'd take anyways).

Then GW decided to go into OVERDRIVE and released the Decurion and the Gladius Strike Force and other stuff - formations of formations. Pretty much, these were forces that could double-dip into formation benefits, getting all the benefits of whatever formation they were in, plus additional bonuses for being part of the "Decurion". Infamously, the Gladius Strike Force gave Objective Secured to every unit in it, including the transports, and they got Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods for free (0 points). Yeah, playing the Gladius Strike Force often gave you +25% points to your army.


In effect, GW released too many formations, too many ways to abuse them, and because it looked like formations were helping to sell the game, they hypercharged them to push sales even harder. It's very much like how everyone getting more and more stratagems right now isn't maybe good for the game? There's better ways of doing it - but GW is a business, and the business sees that MOAR STRATAGEMS, MOAR CP is a seller, so they're pushing it MOAR. However, because 8th is just a fundamentally better game, with better pulleys and levers on the strength of armies, and GW is willing to be more involved with fixing problematic stuff... it's not so bad.

So, to answer you question; "Yes, it's always been this way", but the core of what "this way" is simply changes as time goes on.

Formations actually started in 6th.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Banville wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
As a hardcore fluff player, I don't think objective scoring should be limited to troops choices; it just doesn't fit the narrative. On the other hand, Stormcraft's suggestion that only the Warlord's detachment should score objectives is intriguing from both a matched play and a narrative perspective.

I can get behind this.

How about you add that only the Warlord's Detachment can use the CPs.

Warlord's Detachment or Faction? Why do people want to hurt mono-Codex armies with their anti-soup plans?

Im not sure how it would hurt my Salamanders or Metalica.

as long as you can still use the cp generated by the additional non-warlord detachment on that same detachment, it should be fine.

If you have multiple detachments from the same faction then it would absolutely matter. I don't favour book-keeping as it is. Tracking CPs by detachment would be tedious, and pointless if you have all detachments from the same faction.

I'm sorry, I think I didnt get it explained enough.

take my Most recent list

Salamanders
2 x Battalions
currently i would get 5 for each and 3 for battleforged.

my warlord is in 1 battalion but since other battalion is same faction.

now if I add a Metalica battalion I would get a total of 18 command points. 13 from SM & 5 from Admech.

my warlord is SM, so I get 13 cp to spend (on crappy strats) & 5 on Admech ones.

any of this make sense to anyone else?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Formations actually started in 6th.

Formations existed in Apocalypse in 5th and I think 4th as well. But they didn't give much in the way of benefits and were mostly for vehicles if memory serves.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sooooo what you’re saying is they weren’t Stratagems, and the previous poster was correct... Stratagems and associated CP resource management was a new way of covering this type of stuff introduced with 8th.

How about you actually read my post, with actual comprehension this time? They were exactly like stratagems, only using separate CP pool for each 'stratagem', which was both dumb and cumbersome. They even did the same things as current stratagems, rerolling 1s for various units, and Calgar did the same thing as he does now - gave you more 'CPs' to spend. Gee, that's totally isn't the same thing, eh?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What video?

Custodes vs thousand sons.
I didn't interpret it the same way as the OP. I'd have to watch again to be sure but I'm pretty sure TT were just speculating based on CA2018 missions.

This makes the meta less balanced. With the exception of eldar flyer spam.. (which would also benefit from this) the top tier factions are top tier because of their objectively better troop choices. Just compare guardsmen to chaos marines.