How about faction specific stratagems having two values. One that is used if all detachments your using are specific, and the other value is used when your going for a free for all mix.
This would fix two things. mini factions like scions wouldn't be punished for being run along side "normal" IG. On the other hand while you would be able to rotate shields and blast away with your ravellan along side a full IG army, the CP cost of doing so would be 2 or even 3 times as high as doing the same thing in a pure knight list. Rotating shield for 1 CP in a mono knight lists that has 5-6 CP is, IMO balanced. It may even encourage some people not playing at the highest of the hight tournament levels to just play mono.
Ordana wrote: As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Downside of this is it would push Knights into havingneven more CP and only make them even stronger than they are with the loyal 32.
I'm not against CP fixes, but it feels like a blanket fix doesn't fix everything but would favor elite armies who have less units to worry about spending CP on.
If it was tied to the number of units or models (with certain keywords like titanic representing a minimum number of models) that'd instead give more CP to horde armies who run MSU spam or large blobs.
We can't just look at the average army but must look at the extremes when considering CP generation and hoe it favors certain armies over another.
Worried about Knights?
Make the Super Heavy Detachment cost more CP. Make the Aux Super Heavy Detachment really expensive to stop people slotting in single Lords of War.
Considering the constant complains about how bad small elite armies are, is giving them more CP a bad thing now?
Karol wrote: How about faction specific stratagems having two values. One that is used if all detachments your using are specific, and the other value is used when your going for a free for all mix.
This would fix two things. mini factions like scions wouldn't be punished for being run along side "normal" IG. On the other hand while you would be able to rotate shields and blast away with your ravellan along side a full IG army, the CP cost of doing so would be 2 or even 3 times as high as doing the same thing in a pure knight list. Rotating shield for 1 CP in a mono knight lists that has 5-6 CP is, IMO balanced. It may even encourage some people not playing at the highest of the hight tournament levels to just play mono.
I suggested this about 10+ pages back. Make it so non-warlord strategems cost +x, where x is the number of factions NOT belonging to your warlord. IE Guard warlord pays +2 for ion if he wants to soup banana bikes and knights in the same list. The harder you soup, the harder you get punished. Not sure how it would work with Ynnari if at all, but that's another problem altogether.
Ordana wrote: As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Downside of this is it would push Knights into havingneven more CP and only make them even stronger than they are with the loyal 32.
I'm not against CP fixes, but it feels like a blanket fix doesn't fix everything but would favor elite armies who have less units to worry about spending CP on.
If it was tied to the number of units or models (with certain keywords like titanic representing a minimum number of models) that'd instead give more CP to horde armies who run MSU spam or large blobs.
We can't just look at the average army but must look at the extremes when considering CP generation and hoe it favors certain armies over another.
Worried about Knights?
Make the Super Heavy Detachment cost more CP. Make the Aux Super Heavy Detachment really expensive to stop people slotting in single Lords of War.
Considering the constant complains about how bad small elite armies are, is giving them more CP a bad thing now?
Oh look, another Guilliman nerf.
There's no quick option that doesn't cause unintended consequences for armies in rougher spots.
The more I look at CP the more I feel like there isn't an option that doesn't imbalance the game in some way and won't be exploited by players looking for an edge.
The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.
I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.
Karol wrote: The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.
I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.
You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.
I feel like CP was an attempt to give us bonus rules like fornations did while not unbalancing the actual game by tying it to a limited resource. The problem is that so generation is always going to favor specific builds depending how you slice it.
So it's a good idea that ultimately is hampered by the fact there is no 100% fair way to generate CP as every army comes into it with different needs and options.
Karol wrote: The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.
I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.
You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.
No, Karol does not. She has a very poor grasp of her codex, but claims that her failure at playing them is 100% GWs fault, and any discussion that isn't focused soley on improving GK is a waste of time.
Because even though GK aren't great, with some skill, some tricks and some nonGK allies you can win. Or you could convert your GK to DW, SW, or whatever and try a different army. But it's easier to blame GW and rage, because your sister got an iPad and you bought an army you don't know how to play.
Karol wrote: The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.
I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.
You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.
No, Karol does not. She has a very poor grasp of her codex, but claims that her failure at playing them is 100% GWs fault, and any discussion that isn't focused soley on improving GK is a waste of time.
Because even though GK aren't great, with some skill, some tricks and some nonGK allies you can win. Or you could convert your GK to DW, SW, or whatever and try a different army. But it's easier to blame GW and rage, because your sister got an iPad and you bought an army you don't know how to play.
i get your point, but theres no reason for personal attacks. Karol also had a point, different armies having very similar stratagems but with different wording/CP cost is unintuitive (the Auspex variants or Tide of chaos variants are a good example of strange wording, and the special ammo point that they brought up is a valid one).
Now, just because its unintuitive doesnt mean its necessarily bad and i feel like a normalized CP count following the pts level of the game, along with faction-balanced stratagem costs would fix a good bunch of problems.
I also think that no matter what fixes are brought up, being "fixed cp count" or "5 ppm guards" or "paying CP to soup" wont stop people from souping it up. The big problem with competitive are these keywords: Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari. They allow for units/armies that have inherent weaknesses to shore them up with units from other armies. Assassins are the perfect example for this and they are being pushed by GW. I'm not saying to remove these keywords or completely stop souping, in fact, i dont have any solution for this "problem" im just pointing it out.
I generally hate the concept of CP in this game. I think it takes away more than it adds. Especially the CP Reroll. Rolling a 1 is supposed to suck, but it's supposed to happen once every 6 dice. And any one die being no different from any other one die was awesome.
To make things worse, they tied CP to how many detatchements you can *add*, not how little you diverge from a well-rounded-ish army (IOW, detatcments add CP when they should instead cost CP).
Now, all that said, one place where CP really add to the game: FIre & Fade. Everyone hated facing entire Eldar or T'au armies that would move-shoot-move. But Eldar being able to move-shoot-move is an awesome fluffy mechanic. So they made it an option, but at a cost - and that cost feels fair.
As long as we have CP in the game, I hope we see more stuff like Fire & Fade and Auspex Scan (although the latter needs a buff), and fewer Rerolls/FightTwice.
Stratagems are really unbalanced. (we literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better that cost the same)
ie Forwarned/Auspex scan
We do literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better at the same cost. However, Forewarned/Auspex is not one. Forewarned does mostly the same thing mostly better for the same cost. But not the exact same thing.
When using precision terms like 'literally' or 'better', try to keep your examples precise. Or use less precise terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
A dying race of hyper-specialized Space Elves should be able to quantify "rank and file" - they're the guys who project force and control the situation, as opposed to the guys who zip around or specialize in melting tanks or specialize in heavy weapons.
The hyper-specialized Space Elves have both a unit hyper specialized in that (Dire Avengers), and a unit of militia, specialized in non-combat tasks (Guardians). They actually fit that structure really, really well.
(They can also take exiles who refused to specialize as their other troops choice.)
Exact same thing but better is kind of an oxymoron anyways. The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.
Stratagems are really unbalanced. (we literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better that cost the same)
ie Forwarned/Auspex scan
We do literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better at the same cost. However, Forewarned/Auspex is not one. Forewarned does mostly the same thing mostly better for the same cost. But not the exact same thing.
When using precision terms like 'literally' or 'better', try to keep your examples precise. Or use less precise terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
A dying race of hyper-specialized Space Elves should be able to quantify "rank and file" - they're the guys who project force and control the situation, as opposed to the guys who zip around or specialize in melting tanks or specialize in heavy weapons.
The hyper-specialized Space Elves have both a unit hyper specialized in that (Dire Avengers), and a unit of militia, specialized in non-combat tasks (Guardians). They actually fit that structure really, really well.
(They can also take exiles who refused to specialize as their other troops choice.)
Exact same thing but better is kind of an oxymoron anyways. The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.
"Exact same thing but better" is a phrase that means "Is the same in every way *except* for ways in which it's a direct upgrade". Like a deal that makes a screwdriver cost $1 is the "exact same thing but better" as a deal for the same screwdriver at $2.
A 3+ Sv can be considered "the exact same thing but better" as a 4+ Sv. Or WS, BS, whatever.
T4 can be considered "the exact same thing but better" as T3.
The difference between "Exact same thing but better" and "similar thing but better" is that, in the first case, the thing must be a direct upgrade.
Intercepting whatever just showed up in LOS of a Farseer using a unit right next to the Farseer is not a direct upgrade to intercepting a unit with whatever is within 12" of it. It involves an HQ, can be avoided by LOSing a single backfield area, etc. Auspex is harder to dodge entirely, and doesn't require as specific army positioning. Now, Auspex is certainly worse, but it does something somewhat different.
They do the same thing, but not the exact same thing. One is better, and they cost the same. Clearly a problem. But you're ovestating with "Exact same thing but better". Which is why we're always discussing Eldar armies where everything is -3 to hit, or every Marine having free reroll hits/wounds, or Guardsmen being free, or Doom never failing. It's a lot easier to discuss stuff when you're not spouting random drivel.
Xenomancers wrote: The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.
Agreed, but arguably, Eldar are not SUPPOSSED to have as many CPs as Imperial armies, and therefore they *should* get a bit more out of their Stratagems. This is both good balance (in theory), and shows just how "superior" Aeldari are compared to humans fluff-wise. The problem with that is two-fold: A) Eldar already have super efficient units due to their specialist nature, so giving them more effective Strats on top of that is too much and B) While Eldar lists in general have less CPs than Imperial Soup, it's not THAT much less. Cheap Kabalite Battalions are almost as good as the Loyal 32 for cheap CP generation.
So while I like the direction and apparent intent of those Strats being similar but better for certain Factions, the execution of the rules falls flat.
Ordana wrote: As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Downside of this is it would push Knights into havingneven more CP and only make them even stronger than they are with the loyal 32.
I'm not against CP fixes, but it feels like a blanket fix doesn't fix everything but would favor elite armies who have less units to worry about spending CP on.
If it was tied to the number of units or models (with certain keywords like titanic representing a minimum number of models) that'd instead give more CP to horde armies who run MSU spam or large blobs.
We can't just look at the average army but must look at the extremes when considering CP generation and hoe it favors certain armies over another.
Mono Knights have 9 CP in general. Most of my Knight centric lists have 8-10 CP in soup, but if I field a short Ultra battalion, up to 14.
So right now I can field 3x Crusaders, with 500 points of Ultramarines and have 14 CP on the table.
This would make it so mono knights might have 12, but Mono knights arn't that good. And I'd have to pay 2 CP down to 10 CP to have that loyal 32, something I really need for board control, bubble wrap, and all that.
I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.
Start with 12 CP First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.
Xenomancers wrote: The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.
Agreed, but arguably, Eldar are not SUPPOSSED to have as many CPs as Imperial armies, and therefore they *should* get a bit more out of their Stratagems. This is both good balance (in theory), and shows just how "superior" Aeldari are compared to humans fluff-wise.
The problem with that is two-fold:
A) Eldar already have super efficient units due to their specialist nature, so giving them more effective Strats on top of that is too much and
B) While Eldar lists in general have less CPs than Imperial Soup, it's not THAT much less. Cheap Kabalite Battalions are almost as good as the Loyal 32 for cheap CP generation.
So while I like the direction and apparent intent of those Strats being similar but better for certain Factions, the execution of the rules falls flat.
-
I'm with you on this. For example I am okay with Eldar having better reactionary stratagems due to better weapon systems and being faster and general and such. While Marines would have better defensive stratagems. Just to give armies more flare and flavor.
The current system has no CP restrictions though. Plus in regards to space marines. Eldar make CP a lot easier than space marines. Rangers and warlocks is a really cheap detachment and its all good units too. So we agree on that too.
I'm not entirely sold on paying for Factions. Factions aren't as tight as they seem.
Wouldn't paying for Detatchments, with the generalist ones (Bat, Brig) cheaper than others, push the same doctrine? If you want to add an Uthwe Banshee squad to an army with an Uthwe Bat/Brig, you put it in an Elite slot. You save CP by using slots you've already "paid" for. If you want to add a Samm-Hain Banshee squad, you're going to have to pay for a different detatchment. If you want to add an Archon, you're going to have to pay for a different detatchment.
This incentivises mono-Faction, mono-Subfaction lists that roughly fit what we want from a CAD, without overpenallizing soup/allies.
I could stomach the Faction CP cost too, though, if that's what it took to move to Detatchments-Cost. I just don't think it's necesarry.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.
Start with 12 CP First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.
I just want to standardize CP cost based on army size and no minus or plus shenanigans. Then have stratagems given objective cost instead of relative cost.
Any minus to CP because of extra additions like Assassins/Roboute means that assassins/Roboute must make up for the lack of CP making them even stronger which brings its own balancing issues. This also ignores the fact that a flat -1 for each detachment does not indicate in any way how powerful the detachment is or how powerful the unit is in it. In that respect you could just as well just say that Roboute takes away 1 CP for being fielded. The problem with that is that this means we are now no longer using just points to balance the game, but also CP which just means even higher balancing complexity which is really not needed.
Plus those -1 per detachment/faction is a completely arbitrary approach in no way taking into account actual balance between factions and detachment. Now, I get why the approach is like this: To basically remove all allying, multi-detachment armies from the game. I get it, some people want to play only and exclusive with mono-army and mono-detachment rules and therefore want to remove everything else. This will never work because some of us like having it the other way around.
So the better option might be to enforce two Matched styles of play. Standard and Mono, where Standard is core rules and mono is mono-army/mono-detachment. It would be something like Magic the Gathering has tried to do with their different format of Standard, Legacy, Pauper, and so on.
Xenomancers wrote: The point is - they both intercept. One does it a lot better and they cost the same.
Agreed, but arguably, Eldar are not SUPPOSSED to have as many CPs as Imperial armies, and therefore they *should* get a bit more out of their Stratagems. This is both good balance (in theory), and shows just how "superior" Aeldari are compared to humans fluff-wise.
The problem with that is two-fold:
A) Eldar already have super efficient units due to their specialist nature, so giving them more effective Strats on top of that is too much and
B) While Eldar lists in general have less CPs than Imperial Soup, it's not THAT much less. Cheap Kabalite Battalions are almost as good as the Loyal 32 for cheap CP generation.
So while I like the direction and apparent intent of those Strats being similar but better for certain Factions, the execution of the rules falls flat.
-
I'm with you on this. For example I am okay with Eldar having better reactionary stratagems due to better weapon systems and being faster and general and such. While Marines would have better defensive stratagems. Just to give armies more flare and flavor.
The current system has no CP restrictions though. Plus in regards to space marines. Eldar make CP a lot easier than space marines. Rangers and warlocks is a really cheap detachment and its all good units too.
Maybe we should add some "Not-Full-Marines" to the Marine book, maybe 11ppm but only a 4+ save?
And we can add lower-tier command staff. Maybe a TechMarine or Lt or something?
If we could add those things, SM could have even *cheaper* CP than CWE!
More seriously, CWE can take Troops at 1 point less per *squad* than SM, but they're terribad.
At the absolute cheapest, 3 Storm Guardian squads and a pair of Warlocks cost more points than 3 Scout squads and a pair of Techmarines. So Marines win at absolute-cheapest.
At the most basic, 3 Ranger squads and a pair of Warlocks cost more than 3 Scout squads with 2 Lts. So Marines win at cheaper with chaff+buffer HQs.
Once again, CWE is more powerful than Marines, but they are very slightly worse off for CP.
tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.
That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.
Eldarsif wrote: I just want to standardize CP cost based on army size and no minus or plus shenanigans. Then have stratagems given objective cost instead of relative cost.
Any minus to CP because of extra additions like Assassins/Roboute means that assassins/Roboute must make up for the lack of CP making them even stronger which brings its own balancing issues. This also ignores the fact that a flat -1 for each detachment does not indicate in any way how powerful the detachment is or how powerful the unit is in it. In that respect you could just as well just say that Roboute takes away 1 CP for being fielded. The problem with that is that this means we are now no longer using just points to balance the game, but also CP which just means even higher balancing complexity which is really not needed.
Plus those -1 per detachment/faction is a completely arbitrary approach in no way taking into account actual balance between factions and detachment. Now, I get why the approach is like this: To basically remove all allying, multi-detachment armies from the game. I get it, some people want to play only and exclusive with mono-army and mono-detachment rules and therefore want to remove everything else. This will never work because some of us like having it the other way around.
So the better option might be to enforce two Matched styles of play. Standard and Mono, where Standard is core rules and mono is mono-army/mono-detachment. It would be something like Magic the Gathering has tried to do with their different format of Standard, Legacy, Pauper, and so on.
Unfortunately there are not enough players or interest to support multiple formats for the most part.
That said I like the CP cost to detachment and faction idea, allying in has advantages and as such should have a cost. The points do not really take allies into account and unless you are providing separate costs for Soup and non-soup armies, they can never actually be balanced for use in both formats. I don't think paying a few CP for allies is a huge downside given the upside for it. Right now the game looks like this.
SOUP > MONO because soup has no downside.
If you have slight downside to soup like the cost of a few CP then it gives a bump to mono armies, while still allowing soup to be playable.
One amendment I might make is to give +1 CP for fully filling out a detachment. Essentially negate the penalty to taking a second detachment if you have filled up your first detachment. Or perhaps just negate a single -1 for having a detachment filled out if you don't want players able to get more than the cap on CP.
I think you are off on thinking that a 1-4 CP penalty will cause all soup to disapear, people just will need to make a choice about which they value more the CP, or the flexibilty of soup.
That's the same reason I swapped out Storm Guardians for Rangers in the "most basic" comparison - I included the Storm Guardians vs Techamarines to show the floor, but the Rangers/Warlocks vs Scouts/Lts is the more valid comparison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.
That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.
And cheapest CWE troops used to be 12ppm. It cuts both ways.
Xenomancers wrote: tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.
That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.
Techmarines are best bought attached to a Thunderfire Cannon.
Xenomancers wrote: tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.
That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.
Techmarines are best bought attached to a Thunderfire Cannon.
Xenomancers wrote: tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.
That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.
Techmarines are best bought attached to a Thunderfire Cannon.
Agreed - they aren't HQ int hat case though.
True, but at leas their useful. Servitors suck too much anymore for Techmarines to be good.
Thinking about it, I'd rather see mono <faction> armies get a bonus than mark it as a penalty. Like if your army shares the same <faction> keyword get +3 CP. Phrasing it that ways makes it sound like a reward for having a single faction instead of a punishment for taking multiple factions.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.
Start with 12 CP First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.
8 doesn't go far with that Castellan.
Yeah - this is good stuff.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Xenomancers wrote: tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.
They're dirt cheap HQs now.
They don't do anything.
They can carry the Eye of Hypnoth in an Imperial Fist Seige Breaker detachment. And repair the Dreads you're probably taking there. And they do have a very interesting gun available.
I think you are off on thinking that a 1-4 CP penalty will cause all soup to disapear, people just will need to make a choice about which they value more the CP, or the flexibilty of soup.
Too bad this flexibility of soup is apparently only tied with Imperium and mostly Imperial Knights with Imperial Guard. People seem to forget easily that Aeldari have a super faction called Ynnari that more or less have all Aeldari except covens in a single army. Giving a -1 to CP/Detachment is a blanket nerf just to nerf a single combo.
Plus this -1 CP for faction/detachments is made purely to spite Drukhari players who have a faction built on multiple detachment shenanigans.
I am actually getting on board with the idea of removing stratagems and make them hero/unit level command abilities(we can call it Command Stratagem) a la Age of Sigmar and have CP be generated per turn like AoS and Kill Team. That would be the only proper method that would appease most people. It would also force you to take certain heroes/units to get that command stratagem instead of the current buffet we have.
I think you are off on thinking that a 1-4 CP penalty will cause all soup to disapear, people just will need to make a choice about which they value more the CP, or the flexibilty of soup.
Too bad this flexibility of soup is apparently only tied with Imperium and mostly Imperial Knights with Imperial Guard. People seem to forget easily that Aeldari have a super faction called Ynnari that more or less have all Aeldari except covens in a single army. Giving a -1 to CP/Detachment is a blanket nerf just to nerf a single combo.
Plus this -1 CP for faction/detachments is made purely to spite Drukhari players who have a faction built on multiple detachment shenanigans.
I am actually getting on board with the idea of removing stratagems and make them hero/unit level command abilities(we can call it Command Stratagem) a la Age of Sigmar and have CP be generated per turn like AoS and Kill Team. That would be the only proper method that would appease most people. It would also force you to take certain heroes/units to get that command stratagem instead of the current buffet we have.
Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment, you just don't get to power game the system with Ynnari spears/ reapers, then Alitoc-2 to hit rangers and flyers and Drukari FnP and vect.
You can have 12 CP if you just stick to an actual Ynnari army not some grand Aldari Soup.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.
Start with 12 CP First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.
8 doesn't go far with that Castellan.
Yeah - this is good stuff.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Really having 10CP over what double battalion and spear head for 14 total under the current system is too much of a nerf?
You can maybe argue starting at 12 is a bit low but 2 CP to be able to pick the best subfaction traits doesn't seem like a cost that's high enough to render them unplayable, just enough of a downside to balance out the benifit of having the best subfaction traits for each set of units.
I think you are off on thinking that a 1-4 CP penalty will cause all soup to disapear, people just will need to make a choice about which they value more the CP, or the flexibilty of soup.
Too bad this flexibility of soup is apparently only tied with Imperium and mostly Imperial Knights with Imperial Guard. People seem to forget easily that Aeldari have a super faction called Ynnari that more or less have all Aeldari except covens in a single army. Giving a -1 to CP/Detachment is a blanket nerf just to nerf a single combo.
Plus this -1 CP for faction/detachments is made purely to spite Drukhari players who have a faction built on multiple detachment shenanigans.
I am actually getting on board with the idea of removing stratagems and make them hero/unit level command abilities(we can call it Command Stratagem) a la Age of Sigmar and have CP be generated per turn like AoS and Kill Team. That would be the only proper method that would appease most people. It would also force you to take certain heroes/units to get that command stratagem instead of the current buffet we have.
Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment, you just don't get to power game the system with Ynnari spears/ reapers, then Alitoc-2 to hit rangers and flyers and Drukari FnP and vect.
You can have 12 CP if you just stick to an actual Ynnari army not some grand Aldari Soup.
Yes it does. The rules for Ynarri stop it, unless you don't want to have Craftworlders and Drukharii and Harlequins in one army... which is the whole point from a fluff perspective. If theya re just a special character then, sure.
Ice_can wrote: Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment,....
Except, of course, the Matched Play amendment for Battle Brothers that disallows detachemtns from sharing specific Keywords, including YNNARI, along with AELDARI, CHAOS, IMPERIUM, etc
You still have to organize them in CWE, DE or Harlie detachments separately. For now at least. The May White Dwarf is likely to change how Ynnari work fairly dramatically.
Most likely making Soulbursts into Stratagems, which would mean the -1CP suggestion on additional detachments would disproportionally punish mixed Ynnari lists
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Chances are their needs to be a Faction list. Drukari isn't a good one, as its sort of the equivalent of Adeptus Astartes. but thats beyond my pay grade. And where does it stop? I run Knights as House Tanaris.. Does adding in House Krast stop me now? Still pure knights?
Overall I think its best to define factions on the Chapter level of Spacemarines. But that would leave you with choosing a cult, and Knight players choosing a house, and Nide players choosing a hive type, and Craftworld Eldar choosing a specific Craftworld.
Xenomancers wrote: tech marines are so bad they might as well not exist.
That also didn't used to be the case. Warlocks used to be cheaper than tech marines but they got nerfed because of Ynnari. Warlocks are currently extremely overcosted.
Techmarines are best bought attached to a Thunderfire Cannon.
Agreed - they aren't HQ int hat case though.
True, but at leas their useful. Servitors suck too much anymore for Techmarines to be good.
Thinking about it, I'd rather see mono <faction> armies get a bonus than mark it as a penalty. Like if your army shares the same <faction> keyword get +3 CP. Phrasing it that ways makes it sound like a reward for having a single faction instead of a punishment for taking multiple factions.
Isn't a servitor at this point a 2-point T3 4+ body with a single imperial guard powerfist attack?
I'm fairly sure I ran the numbers on them at some point and relized if they could be taken in any significant numbers (you are limited to a total of 12 since they're fixed unit size 4) they would be crazy OP.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Chances are their needs to be a Faction list. Drukari isn't a good one, as its sort of the equivalent of Adeptus Astartes. but thats beyond my pay grade. And where does it stop? I run Knights as House Tanaris.. Does adding in House Krast stop me now? Still pure knights?
Overall I think its best to define factions on the Chapter level of Spacemarines. But that would leave you with choosing a cult, and Knight players choosing a house, and Nide players choosing a hive type, and Craftworld Eldar choosing a specific Craftworld.
Choosing a Cult, Coven or Kabal, which was my point. Whichever one you choose locks out 2/3 of the codex.
Ice_can wrote: Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment,....
Except, of course, the Matched Play amendment for Battle Brothers that disallows detachemtns from sharing specific Keywords, including YNNARI, along with AELDARI, CHAOS, IMPERIUM, etc
You still have to organize them in CWE, DE or Harlie detachments separately. For now at least. The May White Dwarf is likely to change how Ynnari work fairly dramatically.
Most likely making Soulbursts into Stratagems, which would mean the -1CP suggestion on additional detachments would disproportionally punish mixed Ynnari lists
-
Funnily enough I've never once seen a multiple Ynnari detachment list, it always Ynnari plus Craftworld units but using craftworld rules,or Ynnari Plus Drukari unit but using Drukari Rules, not Ynnari Craftworld plus Ynnari Drukari.
At this point Ynnari either need a codex or squatted, this halfway house of shopping from 3 codex's for units designed faction shouldn't have left the designer's sketch book. It's a balance problem they still haven't addressed.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.
Start with 12 CP First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.
8 doesn't go far with that Castellan.
Yeah - this is good stuff.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Drukhari are honestly strong enough that they could probably weather this nerf. Yeah, it hurts them, but they're very clearly a top tier army so it's not the end of the world for them.
Might also encourage GW to flesh out the unit variety for Kabals, Cults and Covens as well, which would be a definite win.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Chances are their needs to be a Faction list. Drukari isn't a good one, as its sort of the equivalent of Adeptus Astartes. but thats beyond my pay grade. And where does it stop? I run Knights as House Tanaris.. Does adding in House Krast stop me now? Still pure knights?
Overall I think its best to define factions on the Chapter level of Spacemarines. But that would leave you with choosing a cult, and Knight players choosing a house, and Nide players choosing a hive type, and Craftworld Eldar choosing a specific Craftworld.
Choosing a Cult, Coven or Kabal, which was my point. Whichever one you choose locks out 2/3 of the codex.
First, that seems a little dramatic. Second, it would apply to all. Should a force of Ultramarines, Grey knights, and Spacewolves count as soup, or not?
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.
Start with 12 CP First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.
8 doesn't go far with that Castellan.
Yeah - this is good stuff.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Really having 10CP over what double battalion and spear head for 14 total under the current system is too much of a nerf?
You can maybe argue starting at 12 is a bit low but 2 CP to be able to pick the best subfaction traits doesn't seem like a cost that's high enough to render them unplayable, just enough of a downside to balance out the benifit of having the best subfaction traits for each set of units.
It's not about picking the best subfaction traits for each unit, it's about being able to pick those units at all if I choose Flayed Skull as my Obsession I can't take 2/3 of the units in the codex. If I choose Red Grief a different 2/3 are locked out and I can't take a brigade as I have no heavy support at all. Drukharii have to take multiple traits, not because they are better, but because you are not allowed to take most of your units with any one trait.
Ice_can wrote: Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment,....
Except, of course, the Matched Play amendment for Battle Brothers that disallows detachemtns from sharing specific Keywords, including YNNARI, along with AELDARI, CHAOS, IMPERIUM, etc
You still have to organize them in CWE, DE or Harlie detachments separately. For now at least. The May White Dwarf is likely to change how Ynnari work fairly dramatically.
Most likely making Soulbursts into Stratagems, which would mean the -1CP suggestion on additional detachments would disproportionally punish mixed Ynnari lists
-
Funnily enough I've never once seen a multiple Ynnari detachment list, it always Ynnari plus Craftworld units but using craftworld rules,or Ynnari Plus Drukari unit but using Drukari Rules, not Ynnari Craftworld plus Ynnari Drukari.
This is probably because their current rules force you to take multiple special characters if you want to do that, and it's just not worth it. The Yncarne's super expensive and has the same limited pool of psychic powers as Yvraine, and the Visarch is pretty overcosted for what he brings to the table. Unless you're playing a fluffy list it's easiest to just pick one of the Yncarne or Yvraine and then build the rest of your army around that choice.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Chances are their needs to be a Faction list. Drukari isn't a good one, as its sort of the equivalent of Adeptus Astartes. but thats beyond my pay grade. And where does it stop? I run Knights as House Tanaris.. Does adding in House Krast stop me now? Still pure knights?
Overall I think its best to define factions on the Chapter level of Spacemarines. But that would leave you with choosing a cult, and Knight players choosing a house, and Nide players choosing a hive type, and Craftworld Eldar choosing a specific Craftworld.
Choosing a Cult, Coven or Kabal, which was my point. Whichever one you choose locks out 2/3 of the codex.
The Triple Patrol option in the DE codex would need to be amended for detatchments-cost anyways.
Ideally, I'd think their rule would be that the Triple Patrol costs the same as a single Battalion. That'd be fair, and really push the fluff vibe the rule is aiming for.
Now, factions-cost being added into the mix does complicated that further.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Chances are their needs to be a Faction list. Drukari isn't a good one, as its sort of the equivalent of Adeptus Astartes. but thats beyond my pay grade. And where does it stop? I run Knights as House Tanaris.. Does adding in House Krast stop me now? Still pure knights?
Overall I think its best to define factions on the Chapter level of Spacemarines. But that would leave you with choosing a cult, and Knight players choosing a house, and Nide players choosing a hive type, and Craftworld Eldar choosing a specific Craftworld.
Choosing a Cult, Coven or Kabal, which was my point. Whichever one you choose locks out 2/3 of the codex.
First, that seems a little dramatic. Second, it would apply to all. Should a force of Ultramarines, Grey knights, and Spacewolves count as soup, or not?
DE already, as-is, have rules aimed at making them more intra-book soupy than other books. It'd be more like would First, Third, and Tenth Company members in one army be considered Soup? Of course not.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Chances are their needs to be a Faction list. Drukari isn't a good one, as its sort of the equivalent of Adeptus Astartes. but thats beyond my pay grade. And where does it stop? I run Knights as House Tanaris.. Does adding in House Krast stop me now? Still pure knights?
Overall I think its best to define factions on the Chapter level of Spacemarines. But that would leave you with choosing a cult, and Knight players choosing a house, and Nide players choosing a hive type, and Craftworld Eldar choosing a specific Craftworld.
Choosing a Cult, Coven or Kabal, which was my point. Whichever one you choose locks out 2/3 of the codex.
First, that seems a little dramatic. Second, it would apply to all. Should a force of Ultramarines, Grey knights, and Spacewolves count as soup, or not?
Those are from 3 different books. Choosing to play Ultramarines doesn't mean you lose access to Assault Marines and Land Speeders, but if you played Raven Guard you could have those, but no Devastators or Intercessors and any unit that can be taken in different flavours, well tehy get no trait at all. That's how the DE book is structured. So I don't really think it's dramatic it's jsut a description of how the rules work.
Ice_can wrote: Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment,....
Except, of course, the Matched Play amendment for Battle Brothers that disallows detachemtns from sharing specific Keywords, including YNNARI, along with AELDARI, CHAOS, IMPERIUM, etc
You still have to organize them in CWE, DE or Harlie detachments separately. For now at least. The May White Dwarf is likely to change how Ynnari work fairly dramatically.
Most likely making Soulbursts into Stratagems, which would mean the -1CP suggestion on additional detachments would disproportionally punish mixed Ynnari lists
-
Funnily enough I've never once seen a multiple Ynnari detachment list, it always Ynnari plus Craftworld units but using craftworld rules,or Ynnari Plus Drukari unit but using Drukari Rules, not Ynnari Craftworld plus Ynnari Drukari.
At this point Ynnari either need a codex or squatted, this halfway house of shopping from 3 codex's for units designed faction shouldn't have left the designer's sketch book. It's a balance problem they still haven't addressed.
They don't shop around "3 Codexes designed for mono" any more than a Company Commander does. Only the 3 Ynnari Characters are allowed to be present in any one Codex's detatchment.
I do support further nerfs, of course. But Ynnari Soup isn't any worse than Imperial or Chaos Soup, rules-wise.
Isn't a servitor at this point a 2-point T3 4+ body with a single imperial guard powerfist attack?
I'm fairly sure I ran the numbers on them at some point and relized if they could be taken in any significant numbers (you are limited to a total of 12 since they're fixed unit size 4) they would be crazy OP.
With the servo arm at 0, yea it would be a huge problem.
12 of them with PC and a TM is 266. 24 plasma shots isn't too bad at that price save for trying to keep them alive.
Ice_can wrote: Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment,....
Except, of course, the Matched Play amendment for Battle Brothers that disallows detachemtns from sharing specific Keywords, including YNNARI, along with AELDARI, CHAOS, IMPERIUM, etc
You still have to organize them in CWE, DE or Harlie detachments separately. For now at least. The May White Dwarf is likely to change how Ynnari work fairly dramatically.
Most likely making Soulbursts into Stratagems, which would mean the -1CP suggestion on additional detachments would disproportionally punish mixed Ynnari lists
-
Funnily enough I've never once seen a multiple Ynnari detachment list, it always Ynnari plus Craftworld units but using craftworld rules,or Ynnari Plus Drukari unit but using Drukari Rules, not Ynnari Craftworld plus Ynnari Drukari.
At this point Ynnari either need a codex or squatted, this halfway house of shopping from 3 codex's for units designed faction shouldn't have left the designer's sketch book. It's a balance problem they still haven't addressed.
They don't shop around "3 Codexes designed for mono" any more than a Company Commander does. Only the 3 Ynnari Characters are allowed to be present in any one Codex's detatchment.
I do support further nerfs, of course. But Ynnari Soup isn't any worse than Imperial or Chaos Soup, rules-wise.
If Ynnari are supposed to be a full faction sporting X,Y,Z units create a codex detailing what they should and shouldn't have, and points cost them according to the rules they have in the Ynnari codex.
Saying here's a faction you can choose units from these 3 codex's and they gain X rules means that points changes arn't an option to balance said army, bad design choice.
A company commander doesn't suddenly gain a 5+ FNP in exchange for nolonger being cadian in imperial soup. He's still following the guard codex rules so the points are for the same rules.
Reemule wrote: I really envision them putting out a faction list.
Counts as a factions:
Ultramarines
Spacewolves
Ulthwe
House Tanris
House Raven
Goffs
Evil Suns..
and so on.
Perhaps Drukari shows up as a single faction in that list.
That could work, but then I'd lean the other way, because taking Flayed Skull for your Venoms and Black Heart for your Ravagers (Those are both Kabals, so could all be tkaen in one trait) is exactly the sort of mixing you'd be prohibiting Ultramarines and Raven Guard doing. I don't want it to be unfair in either direction!
Reemule wrote: I really envision them putting out a faction list.
Counts as a factions:
Ultramarines
Spacewolves
Ulthwe
House Tanris
House Raven
Goffs
Evil Suns..
and so on.
Perhaps Drukari shows up as a single faction in that list.
These kinds of arguments are part of why I don't like rules driven by Factions, whenever it's avoidable.
Ice_can wrote: Except nothing stops Ynnari armies in a single detachment,....
Except, of course, the Matched Play amendment for Battle Brothers that disallows detachemtns from sharing specific Keywords, including YNNARI, along with AELDARI, CHAOS, IMPERIUM, etc
You still have to organize them in CWE, DE or Harlie detachments separately. For now at least. The May White Dwarf is likely to change how Ynnari work fairly dramatically.
Most likely making Soulbursts into Stratagems, which would mean the -1CP suggestion on additional detachments would disproportionally punish mixed Ynnari lists
-
Funnily enough I've never once seen a multiple Ynnari detachment list, it always Ynnari plus Craftworld units but using craftworld rules,or Ynnari Plus Drukari unit but using Drukari Rules, not Ynnari Craftworld plus Ynnari Drukari.
At this point Ynnari either need a codex or squatted, this halfway house of shopping from 3 codex's for units designed faction shouldn't have left the designer's sketch book. It's a balance problem they still haven't addressed.
They don't shop around "3 Codexes designed for mono" any more than a Company Commander does. Only the 3 Ynnari Characters are allowed to be present in any one Codex's detatchment.
I do support further nerfs, of course. But Ynnari Soup isn't any worse than Imperial or Chaos Soup, rules-wise.
If Ynnari are supposed to be a full faction sporting X,Y,Z units create a codex detailing what they should and shouldn't have, and points cost them according to the rules they have in the Ynnari codex.
Saying here's a faction you can choose units from these 3 codex's and they gain X rules means that points changes arn't an option to balance said army, bad design choice.
A company commander doesn't suddenly gain a 5+ FNP in exchange for nolonger being cadian in imperial soup. He's still following the guard codex rules so the points are for the same rules.
If Assasins are supposed to be a full faction supporting.... everything... wait, what?
Ynnari are techincally the warlord and faction, but practiaclly they're drop-in into other armies. They do replace certain Traits, and there are balance problems in the execution, but Ynnari are not their own faction.
Ynnari rules are too strong, and the faction changing rules aren't clean enough. Those are problems. But, at the end of the day, you have a DE, CWE, Harlie, or Corsair detatchment that takes a Ynnari special character. You do *not* mix any 2 of those factions into a single detatchment (anymore).
These kinds of arguments are part of why I don't like rules driven by Factions, whenever it's avoidable.
Honestly though though it is a discussion worth having. Right now its some poor communications from the rules dev in this. The idea is that Ultramarines are a faction. This is backed up with some 25+ years of example. The Drukari book clearly leaves people with other ideas. If the game is to be a tight ruleset, something like that should be easy to iron out.
And I'm not even getting involved in the Ynarri thing. We know they are getting something in the next WD. Why get worked up till that happens?
Reemule wrote: If the game is to be a tight ruleset, something like that should be easy to iron out.
It would seem that your expectations, and those of the game developers, may be at odds.
Reemule wrote: And I'm not even getting involved in the Ynarri thing. We know they are getting something in the next WD. Why get worked up till that happens?
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
Depends on how you want to count it I guess. My vision is the first Detachment and Faction is free. So if you take a Ultramarine Battalion, 12 CP. Add in Super heavy Aux for Gman, down to 11 CP (-1 for second detachment), and if you then added in a Excution force of Assassins down to 9 CP.
Start with 12 CP First detachment and faction ultramarine battalion for Free.
-1 for 2nd detachment (Gman)
-1 for 3rd detachment (assassins)
-1 for 2nd Faction (assassins)
= 9 CP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm less worried about losing to pure-Knight lists that can get a 3++ every turn than single-Castellian Soup lists that can get a 3++ every turn. The pure-Knight list will struggle to adapt. If I can force an early declaration of RIS, I can put most of my firepower into a different Knight, and try to win by outpositioning. You can't do that against a horde of IG frontrunning the Knight.
MonoKnight lists aren't that scary, competitively, for more reasons than just not having enough CP.
All true. if you do Guard and Raven Castellan, for 10 CP.. Down to 8 if you give it Cawl's and Ion Bulwork.
8 doesn't go far with that Castellan.
Yeah - this is good stuff.
I guess I'm going to be told that no once cares about DE again, as tends to happen when I point out this stuff messes them up as a mono faction. If I was playing Flayed Skull/Red Grief/Prophets of Flesh in 3 detachements would that leave me with 10 CP or 8 under your system? Also being less than other mono factions and having to pay a HQ tax just to access more than 1/3 of the units in the codex would suck. It's hard now even getting extra CPs for taking more detachments as I either have to take an Outrider/Spearhead/Vanguard or buy an extra HQ and 3 Troops on top of the 5-6 troops I actually want (and they have to be different and inferior for the build). Punishing that further would just make me give up on trying to make a mono list work and only play soup.
Under my system it would be 13 CP or 12 CP depdning on wether you went 3 battalions or 2 battalions and spearhead.
Start with 15
First detachment free if battalion/brigade (batallions and brigades are free but additional detachments are not)
Second detachment -1
3rd detachment -1 (if its a spearhead or something it will be an additional -1)
These kinds of arguments are part of why I don't like rules driven by Factions, whenever it's avoidable.
Honestly though though it is a discussion worth having. Right now its some poor communications from the rules dev in this. The idea is that Ultramarines are a faction. This is backed up with some 25+ years of example. The Drukari book clearly leaves people with other ideas. If the game is to be a tight ruleset, something like that should be easy to iron out.
And I'm not even getting involved in the Ynarri thing. We know they are getting something in the next WD. Why get worked up till that happens?
That assumes that it's just pure communication and that they actually have an agreed definition of what a faction is.
However without that your correct that we're never going to be able to agree without a common understanding of what a faction is and isn't.
These kinds of arguments are part of why I don't like rules driven by Factions, whenever it's avoidable.
Personally I'd just like sub-faction traits to be removed from the game entirely when it comes to Matched play. Balancing an army that is Saim-hann or Alaitoc are two wildly different things as both amplify the codex differently. This problem is especially apparent when it comes to the Ynnari.
I mean, I take Prophets of Flesh and I get a 4+ invuln flat on my coven infantry? That is crazy good in comparison to many other coven traits, and for that there is little to no reason to play other sub-factions in matched play.
However, I'd argue that sub-faction traits are evidence that GW intends you to inter-ally with yourself. Ie. you run a certain hive with certain Nid models, and another hive with another set of models.
Grey Knights and Scions aren't a problem, even though Scions bring something that cover a weakness GK have, while the GKs give you some elite power and activity in the Psychic phase.
Vehicle heavy Iron Hands marines and cheap infantry Ad Mech aren't a major problem, even though they can cover each other's weaknesses. Or Black Templars with Sisters. Or any of the overwhelming majority of potential combinations you have available.
Almost nobody takes issue with Biel Tan Eldar souping in some Harlies. Almost nobody has a problem with Custodes crossing the battlefield alongside some Deathwatch. If you want to run two Necron Dynasties side by side, very few people are going to complain.
What folks really have issue with are the hyper-competitive lists that make up less than 2% of the potential combinations the ally system allows. And to address those, you think it's best to stuff the whole thing down the drain? Seems a tad overzealous. I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.
The soup lists we see in competitive tournaments are the outliers when compared to the vast majority of list combinations you can make with allies. In fact, ALL the lists we see at tournaments are essentially outliers by the very nature of the tournament scene. For every unit taken in a tournament list because of its competitive viability, 10 others are left by the wayside. It's much, much easier to drop those outliers down than to try and redesign an entire system that is fair for everybody right from the start. The only thing a new system will do is generate a new set of best choices and we'll be back here after a slight adjustment to the meta. If the goal is to temporarily shake up the meta, then you'll succeed. If it's to tweak it so there's less auto-takes, then you've only managed to kick the can down the road.
Any change doesn't need to address everybody - it needs to stamp down on the blades of grass growing taller than the rest of the field.
Somewhat related: I think the ITC best in faction change will have a larger impact on the way the meta shakes out for the next little while than people give it credit. If you want to take that trophy, you can't just go win at all costs soup - you need to play 4 events at the least in a season of mono-armies to actually compete for that title. Sure, the soup armies will likely take the tournament, but for the vast majority of competitors that weren't likely to compete for the top leaderboard in ITC, they now have a very compelling reason to go mono-faction.
Lemondish wrote: I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.
I don't think this works the way you want. If you don't address an underlying cause of an issue, your just going to spend all your efforts just addressing the next alliteration of the same issue. And I don't think its a "targetting" anyone, or any faction.
For me, i want all options to be available to play, with all options to be viable in some context. Now it might be that the context for some is a obscure formation build, and that is really the only place that something works, so be it.
Lemondish wrote: I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.
I don't think this works the way you want. If you don't address an underlying cause of an issue, your just going to spend all your efforts just addressing the next alliteration of the same issue. And I don't think its a "targetting" anyone, or any faction.
For me, i want all options to be available to play, with all options to be viable in some context. Now it might be that the context for some is a obscure formation build, and that is really the only place that something works, so be it.
Right. The issue with just addressing the immediate problem is the people who abuse that will just move onto the next abuse, and we're stuck with another year+ of that being abused, then the next thing, then the next thing. Fix the root cause to stop chasing the tail of the people that will try and break everything they can.
Lemondish wrote: I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.
I don't think this works the way you want. If you don't address an underlying cause of an issue, your just going to spend all your efforts just addressing the next alliteration of the same issue. And I don't think its a "targetting" anyone, or any faction.
For me, i want all options to be available to play, with all options to be viable in some context. Now it might be that the context for some is a obscure formation build, and that is really the only place that something works, so be it.
But the underlying cause of the issue is CP generation and sharing from unbalanced sources.
If Infantry Squads weren't so effective at providing you CP in a battery, then they are no longer an issue. If Castellans didn't gain so much benefit from excessively hoarding CP, then there won't be an issue. Traitor Castellans are manageable, after all.
Both of these outliers could be balanced around by slapping Astra Militarum with a nerf to their CP generation a la Brood Brothers, which only affects AM. Making a few specific Knight Stratagems limited in Matched Play solves the Castellan issue without affecting how DE detachments generate CP. Both are targeted nerfs to the outliers and do not create some new system from scratch with unforeseen consequences. That's a far more measured approach, and just like the Flyer nerf early in the edition, this is exactly what we should expect and hope for.
Like it or not, the solution will not be a new edition style rehaul of the CP system.
Lemondish wrote: I'm glad we understand now that the main source of the issue is CP fuel, but targeting everybody instead of focusing on the repeat offenders sounds rather foolish.
I don't think this works the way you want. If you don't address an underlying cause of an issue, your just going to spend all your efforts just addressing the next alliteration of the same issue. And I don't think its a "targetting" anyone, or any faction.
For me, i want all options to be available to play, with all options to be viable in some context. Now it might be that the context for some is a obscure formation build, and that is really the only place that something works, so be it.
Right. The issue with just addressing the immediate problem is the people who abuse that will just move onto the next abuse, and we're stuck with another year+ of that being abused, then the next thing, then the next thing. Fix the root cause to stop chasing the tail of the people that will try and break everything they can.
This comment, like the one it's referring to (and I addressed above) seems to assume that there is a solution available that will address this problem. A solution so perfect it doesn't itself create a new unbalanced source of abuse.
I'm sorry to say gentlemen, but you're being naive if you think such a solution exists.
Nothing in this thread can be said to come close to achieving that, evidenced by the vast majority of people specifically highlighting every single time one of these half-baked but well-intentioned plans is rightfully challenged for having a disproportionate impact on a faction or force that is not in any way the source of your ire. It's okay to want something addressed, but let's be real here - the real problem isn't Grey Knight strike squads in a Battalion fueling Sisters of Battle stratagems. That isn't an issue.
The problem is the outliers. Address the current outliers. Then address the next.
Should a new system be implemented the only thing we'll have achieved is a new set of outliers that will take time to develop. I fail to see how that is any different from the situation you described above. You will always be stamping down on problems as they arise, whether in a new system or the current one.
The least disruptive is to stay within the current one.
At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nothing will address all the issues; the game is too bloated for that. But sometimes for the good of the majority of the game, you need to fix it even if it breaks something else that's less impactful, then you can address that.
Otherwise it's just analysis paralysis and nothing will get done.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
I too feel this is a better solution overall, but to imagine we would change to it in an FAQ is naiveté incarnate.
Especially since we're simultaneously complaining about the speed at which these arrive while wanting from them far more than any previous FAQ or Errata has ever provided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Nothing will address all the issues; the game is too bloated for that. But sometimes for the good of the majority of the game, you need to fix it even if it breaks something else that's less impactful, then you can address that.
Otherwise it's just analysis paralysis and nothing will get done.
Analysis Paralysis is actually far more likely for a major adjustment to the structure of a system like this in the ways folks are suggesting. Let's ignore for a moment that it's entirely impossible to do in an FAQ.
I simply suggest that it's better to act NOW within the confines of that system as it stands currently, especially in an FAQ, than to try and test out a new format that may not actually address the issue at hand. Which is why addressing the outliers is easier to do in the short term and helps the majority of the game, because the majority of the game is not unbalanced due to CP generation and allies.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
I agree that each change is going to be something that causes other ripple effects. Some desired, some not.
I also feel the game has basic behavior I’d like to change. First issue, that soup is demonstrably better than mono-faction. Second being that the game rewards taking minimum detachment sizes, and last that weapons do not scale well in relation to the hordes.
None of these issues are faction related, I see them as game system related. My thought with my system is it changes the first and the second, and it will be interesting to see how it changes the game at all levels.
Yeah I don't see anything wrong with the way CP is spent. Perhaps a limit on how many stratagems can be played on a unit per turn. 1 Would actually be fine for that. Giving you access to all your CP actually adds a lot to the game because later in the battle no one has any CP left. That is kinda fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: I agree that each change is going to be something that causes other ripple effects. Some desired, some not.
I also feel the game has basic behavior I’d like to change. First issue, that soup is demonstrably better than mono-faction. Second being that the game rewards taking minimum detachment sizes, and last that weapons do not scale well in relation to the hordes.
None of these issues are faction related, I see them as game system related. My thought with my system is it changes the first and the second, and it will be interesting to see how it changes the game at all levels.
Yes. The game is slanted towards cheap troops and min detachments right now (obviously this is bad - not everyone has cheap troops and hq's). With the change we are suggesting where you start with CP and detachments cost you CP - the game becauses slanted to putting as many units in a detachment as you can....REALLY....that isn't a problem for anyone. What changes? Armies that need CP now get access to them. Armies that spam cheap troops will still do so to fill out brigades....everyone wins.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?
No because that just a supremely terrible list detachment requirement system your creating, so to play a codex ultramarine army you have to take a minimum of a battalion of to have any CP a vanguard and then a Super heavy aux for Gman, yeah hard pass of that cluster fudge, while a brigde of guard and a castellen is still rocking 15CP and no downside.
Isn't a servitor at this point a 2-point T3 4+ body with a single imperial guard powerfist attack?
I'm fairly sure I ran the numbers on them at some point and relized if they could be taken in any significant numbers (you are limited to a total of 12 since they're fixed unit size 4) they would be crazy OP.
With the servo arm at 0, yea it would be a huge problem.
12 of them with PC and a TM is 266. 24 plasma shots isn't too bad at that price save for trying to keep them alive.
I'll admit I had a moment where I thought "Huh, power fist IG for 5 ppm. I have 6 elite slots, that's 24 dudes for 120 points. Why have I not built some of those?" because I forgot about Rule of Three.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah I don't see anything wrong with the way CP is spent. Perhaps a limit on how many stratagems can be played on a unit per turn. 1 Would actually be fine for that. Giving you access to all your CP actually adds a lot to the game because later in the battle no one has any CP left. That is kinda fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: I agree that each change is going to be something that causes other ripple effects. Some desired, some not.
I also feel the game has basic behavior I’d like to change. First issue, that soup is demonstrably better than mono-faction. Second being that the game rewards taking minimum detachment sizes, and last that weapons do not scale well in relation to the hordes.
None of these issues are faction related, I see them as game system related. My thought with my system is it changes the first and the second, and it will be interesting to see how it changes the game at all levels.
Yes. The game is slanted towards cheap troops and min detachments right now (obviously this is bad - not everyone has cheap troops and hq's). With the change we are suggesting where you start with CP and detachments cost you CP - the game becauses slanted to putting as many units in a detachment as you can....REALLY....that isn't a problem for anyone. What changes? Armies that need CP now get access to them. Armies that spam cheap troops will still do so to fill out brigades....everyone wins.
This so much, the system as it is rewards playing cheap troops and min detachments instead of cramming as much of your list into a single detachment.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?
No because that just a supremely terrible list detachment requirement system your creating, so to play a codex ultramarine army you have to take a minimum of a battalion of to have any CP a vanguard and then a Super heavy aux for Gman, yeah hard pass of that cluster fudge, while a brigde of guard and a castellen is still rocking 15CP and no downside.
You are 100% correct, b.c i forgot to type in something important, ALlies dont get stratagems, relics, WL traits.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?
1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.
Karol wrote: The way I see CP, is GW had a "great" idea to take special rules of some armies and put them one one per turn stratagems, while giving others actual extra things to do. From the get go such a system can not be balanced.
I have to pay 2CP to have one unit per turn get special ammo. A DW player has special ammo on all his models. Even with imbalance in generating of CP, that system would have failed anyway. I understand that GW wanted the stratagem to make stuff more interactive or fluid. But in GW style they either made stuff so bad it never gets used, like pay 1CP to deep strike a GK unit, or so good it gets used every time like the BA super pack, shield rotation or vect.
You realise that outside of GK pay 1 to deepstrike is great right? And that you can't use the GK codex as a reference for anything, it's the worst design error in 8th, so using that to evaluate CP in general, is nonsense.
No, Karol does not. She has a very poor grasp of her codex, but claims that her failure at playing them is 100% GWs fault, and any discussion that isn't focused soley on improving GK is a waste of time.
Because even though GK aren't great, with some skill, some tricks and some nonGK allies you can win. Or you could convert your GK to DW, SW, or whatever and try a different army. But it's easier to blame GW and rage, because your sister got an iPad and you bought an army you don't know how to play.
Lol. So "just play different army" is good arqument that GK doesn't suck?
GK sucks. It's one of the armies even index orks felt pity for. Index orks despite being rather crappy army roflstomped GK's fairly easily. And now it's even worse.
It's basically 1 unit codex. ONE unit in the codex that's worth anything so basically it's 3 models from GK and then non-GK for rest of points if you want GK "army" to field that makes sense.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?
1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.
You missed the 1st part, i said patrol, battalion or brigade to start with, then 1 detachment can be specialists (aka outrider, spearhead, etc..)
Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.
Eldarsif wrote: Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.
Or you could, y'know, just make it so their Outrider and Vanguard Detachments get the same schtick as the Leman Russ Spearheads and you get Objective Secured.
Eldarsif wrote: Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.
Windrider Hosts get boned.
ASM Reserve Companies and Dev Reserve companies get boned.
Ravenwing
Deathwing
More extreme Spirit Hosts
SpeedFreaks can have issues
And so forth
I'd rather see a Detatchments-Cost form over the "Here's your 3 detatchements, one must be a basic one" structure. I think not having a Brig/Batt should mean you're extremely CP-handicapped, but shouldn't prevent the above from being playable at all.
Eldarsif wrote: Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.
Or you could, y'know, just make it so their Outrider and Vanguard Detachments get the same schtick as the Leman Russ Spearheads and you get Objective Secured.
Which isn't viable right now due to the EXTREME lack of CPs it would give you. And that's the problem.
If CPs were tied to games size instead, armies using mostly Vanguards/Outriders could work. They'd only be giving up ObSec instead of the majority of potential CPs.
Bharring wrote: Windrider Hosts get boned.
ASM Reserve Companies and Dev Reserve companies get boned.
Ravenwing
Deathwing
More extreme Spirit Hosts
SpeedFreaks can have issues
And so forth
I'd rather see a Detatchments-Cost form over the "Here's your 3 detatchements, one must be a basic one" structure. I think not having a Brig/Batt should mean you're extremely CP-handicapped, but shouldn't prevent the above from being playable at all.
Windrider Hosts can only have:
-27 Bikes, which only add up to about 800 points
-27 Shining Spears, which only add up to about 1000 points
-Three Vyper squads
-3 Farseers on bikes
-3 Warlocks on bikes
-3 Autarcks on bikes
-Plus support (grav tanks, fliers, etc)
How ever will they reach 2k points?
RavenWing has 3 Bike squads, 3 Scout Bikes (do DA get that?), 3 Vets on Bikes, and 3 of their special squads, among other things - plus support.
Deathwing can only have 3 squads of each *type* of Termie available to them - no problem filling up 2k points, even before support.
Spirit Hosts?
-30 Wraithguard
-30 Wraithblades
-3 WraithLords
-3 WraithKnights
-3 Hemlock Wraithfighters
You're not running out of options
Speed Freaks? Same deal
Ro3 limits their list building, but each of those is easily possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: This all sounds like an attempt to bring back the FOC without the bit where you just bring back the FOC.
Eldarsif wrote: Only if Ravenwing, Deathwing, and other armies get special rules that allow their elites, fast, and so on to be fitted into the Troop slot. If I am going to run Ravenwing I don't want to have spam scouts to fill a basic detachment.
Or you could, y'know, just make it so their Outrider and Vanguard Detachments get the same schtick as the Leman Russ Spearheads and you get Objective Secured.
Which isn't viable right now due to the EXTREME lack of CPs it would give you. And that's the problem.
If CPs were tied to games size instead, armies using mostly Vanguards/Outriders could work. They'd only be giving up ObSec instead of the majority of potential CPs.
-
No, the problem is that you people want specialized forces to be getting the same benefits as non-specialized.
But hey there's still hope. You could ask for them to get benefits to their CP pools when taken as a fluffy force, like the Drukhari Patrol benefits.
dkoz wrote: I don't understand this hatred for soup. Yes the rules need some work but for non-competitive games it's no big deal. I'd like to see some of the terrain issues addressed. I understand it's difficult & can be some what subjectively but better definitions & rules for certain types of terrain would be good.
I pretty much feel the same about soup. That's why my suggestions are much more delicate than most of the suggestions in this thread. I'm also in support of many of the Cities of Death terrain rules being added into the core game.
DKoz, you answered your own question in the second sentence. In casual play its fine, in competitive play its not. Feth, in casual/narrative/open play (Whatever you want to call it today), you can just say "Hey I know the stompa is like 30pts over priced so just take it as a 650pt unit instead of the almost 1,000pts it currently is. Or you can say "Yeah I realize my cool tank commanders are OP as hell, I love the model though so i'll only bring 1".
It boils down to this. In any kind of game play that isn't competitive the rules are rough guidelines that are followed at the users discretion. In competitive play, this is where rules are forged and decided upon as players try to find the most bang for their buck and find ways to maximize their chances of success. Simply put, Competitive game play needs rules, narrative/open whatever does not.
I'd say that in competitive play soup is fine as well. Yes putting some fixes in the FAQ will be a good thing but having armies made up of "soup" doesn't seem to be that big of an issue.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?
1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.
You missed the 1st part, i said patrol, battalion or brigade to start with, then 1 detachment can be specialists (aka outrider, spearhead, etc..)
Still don't like it. I may not use allies, but it doesn't mean they should be booted out of the game.
I prefer the detachment system over the FOC in principle, because I think different factions should have fundamentally different army structures. However, I totally get that the FOC "worked" for a lot of people and I'm happy to debate the merits of bringing it back or not. But all these suggestions where we jury-rig the Detachment system into a Frankenstein's FOC instead of just bringing back the FOC sound fundamentally silly to me.
ClockworkZion wrote: At this point of the debate about CP, I'm really feeling like the Sigmar version of the system is better. Generate CP every turn, options tied you have available are tied to army comp.
Nah, CP is fine if you take out 3 detachments and any codex you wish.
1 Detachment for main (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade only), 1 optional detachment (can be specialist detachments now) 1 ally detachment but cant be supreme command detachment.
Less variety sure, but cleaner rules and it feels more like an army now. Less CP in total for more meaning uses of them, and you are forced to at least play with 1 troop, also you can still take multi books, but you have 1 main book. Your main army can still have 2 detachments, this also gives rules like DE special detachments a real use as well.
To put my thoughts as simply and nicely as I can: that system would royally suck.
Why do you think that? B.c you cant play your super friends lists anymore? Or b.c you are forced to field 1 HQ 1 Troop?
1 HQ and 1 Troop. I have two armies: Sisters and Templars. Both of which I tend to go with a Battalion (2 HQ, 3 Troop) minimum because it works the best for how the army plays. Limiting that and I might as well just go play Kill Team.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Moving back on to wishlisting: I want Power Fists for Librarians so they can cast Fist.
You missed the 1st part, i said patrol, battalion or brigade to start with, then 1 detachment can be specialists (aka outrider, spearhead, etc..)
Still don't like it. I may not use allies, but it doesn't mean they should be booted out of the game.
They arnt, they are limited to 1 detachment, still full able to have 1000pt+ allies.
Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
And by consequence leading to imbalances due to bad stratagem design since they were designed it seems with average generated cp?
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
And by consequence leading to imbalances due to bad stratagem design since they were designed it seems with average generated cp?
Start with equal footing, then assess what's too strong. Some factions have good stratagems - or, even stratagems that are probably too strong - but can't really make use of them because they're CP starved.
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.
But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.
But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.
WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.
CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.
I don't think people much care about Guard having more CP in general. It's Guard having more CP and being used as a CP battery as well as operation human shield for seemingly all imperial factions. As much as I don't think mono faction guard are an issue. In this climate it ends up being " Well, better nerf um " or see them everywhere forever. Which punishes the mono dex users, and makes soup more attractive an option even for those once happy to stay mono dex. While 1 more point probably wouldn't change much of the lists as CP farm is still way too good pass up and some lists direly need them.
What would make it less appealing would be each faction can only use the CPs they generate for their own strats but then all the soup players would rage as that would end up nerfing the knights to novelty picks. Honestly CPs are so baked into the system but they can make or break lists and sort of feel like the formations of old, a matter easy to see from the fact the new formations even use your CP. Which again leads to CP farming for expensive armies by taking cheap guard. Without a major change to CP generation and/or use it'll just move from whatever the cheapest farm is. If not guard, might end up being ad mech then, maybe when sisters come out it would be them next depending on how they are pointed or get adjusted after.
I still didn't think cultists needed to be nerfed at all. Especially with them losing traits with the " Mere mortals " thing. Maybe another minor tweak and they would have been over fine. I just don't want over reactions and extra hard nerfing as they are often very slow with ever fixing an over nerf if ever.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.
While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).
If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.
While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.
Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)
Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.
A Fixed CP count based on point size would mean - and it seems people willfully ignore this - that CP cost of stratagems would be scaled as required. Having a variable CP pool just means you can't cost stratagems accordingly without forcing people into implicit pre-made builds.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).
If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.
My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.
In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).
If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.
My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.
In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.
I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.
But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).
If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.
My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.
In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.
I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.
But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).
Except it's not optional to build a list with lots of CP, it's currently linked to your amount of cheapest units.
Its a double reward for bringing a horde list, get lots of cheap wounds and lots of CP Bring an elite list and get less wounds and less CP. For the double downside.
Ice_can wrote: WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.
At some point, Ice_can, you're going to have to show us where on this Cadian the bad Guard players touched you.
Probably a catachan, not cadian, according to the level off butthurt.
It's the blatent hypocrisy of the players that offends, anything that's even close to competitive against Guard is OP in a guard players eyes and all their unit's, traits and strategums are so unusable trash.
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.
But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.
WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.
CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.
We can BS what Command Points are an abstraction for, but it won’t do us any good. You are of the opinion the smaller, more elite forces should have more command points because it would be easier to command. I’m of the opinion that more units and more models warrant more command points as I have a much more ability to react to different problems.
A scenario in which you have ten guys to take on ten problems whereas I have one hundred guys to take on one hundred problems. Either way, this abstraction is worthless and shouldn’t be a part of a balancing discussion, otherwise we should be clambering for hyper-realistic “role to see if your weapon jams” tables and things of similar nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your reasoning only has one point of view. Whereas other people believe armies with much more ways to react should have more CP.
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.
But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.
WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.
CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.
We can BS what Command Points are an abstraction for, but it won’t do us any good. You are of the opinion the smaller, more elite forces should have more command points because it would be easier to command. I’m of the opinion that more units and more models warrant more command points as I have a much more ability to react to different problems.
A scenario in which you have ten guys to take on ten problems whereas I have one hundred guys to take on one hundred problems. Either way, this abstraction is worthless and shouldn’t be a part of a balancing discussion, otherwise we should be clambering for hyper-realistic “role to see if your weapon jams” tables and things of similar nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your reasoning only has one point of view. Whereas other people believe armies with much more ways to react should have more CP.
Except the thing your talking about is already accounted for with the base game mechanics, an army with 6 units troops and say 4 non troops, automatically has a board control advantage where they can be on all 6 objectives, where as a more elite custodes force can't they have to prioritise and use manoeuvres to win.
The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
Why. There's no reason faction Astra Miltiarum should be entitled to more miniatures on the table than faction Imperial Knights either.
But building asymmetrical armies is kinda the reason people play 40K over more restrictive and competitive games that keep it somewhat more reasonable in how widely you can diverge in what you bring to the table.
WOW I was expecting some false equivalency from a Astra Millicheese defender, but I didn't think it would be that rediculous.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
To continue with the current system fairly basically any model under about 10 ppm will need points added for CP generation as an ability and a model above about 250-300 ppm will need points reductions due to the inability to generate CP.
CP as currently designed says oh you brought massive numbers of units you get more CP, even though commanding massive formations is always far more complicated and resource intensive than commanding smaller more cohesive forces.
We can BS what Command Points are an abstraction for, but it won’t do us any good. You are of the opinion the smaller, more elite forces should have more command points because it would be easier to command. I’m of the opinion that more units and more models warrant more command points as I have a much more ability to react to different problems.
A scenario in which you have ten guys to take on ten problems whereas I have one hundred guys to take on one hundred problems. Either way, this abstraction is worthless and shouldn’t be a part of a balancing discussion, otherwise we should be clambering for hyper-realistic “role to see if your weapon jams” tables and things of similar nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your reasoning only has one point of view. Whereas other people believe armies with much more ways to react should have more CP.
Except the thing your talking about is already accounted for with the base game mechanics, an army with 6 units troops and say 4 non troops, automatically has a board control advantage where they can be on all 6 objectives, where as a more elite custodes force can't they have to prioritise and use manoeuvres to win.
The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.
Having more elite models and units is also accounted for in base game mechanics. The more you pay on an elite unit, ie SM and Custodes, the better stats you get on a model (as well as stratagem access).
I’d like to see 40K turn into a game that uses d8s or d10s to solve most of those problems, but that won’t be solved in the FAQ.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).
If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.
My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.
In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.
I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.
But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).
I’d be fine with that option if it felt like a valid choice. If “elite” units were significantly more powerful than troops and hqs and expensive units were significantly more powerful than the same points worth of cheaper units and this was offset by having better access to stratagems if you had more cheap units. Then it would be a valid option do I take more “powerful” units and have less tricks, or more “less powerful” units but have tricks. That would be cool. However that still only works if soup or at least CP sharing is not a thing.
Right now it really is not a choice having more CP is always the better choice.
Essentially, that is the core problem with the design right now. They give you a lot of options, but in that set of options there are clear winners and losers.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Not any less "unfair" than a 1000 point guard list having 50 models and a 1000 points Marines list having 25 models, no. Sure you could set CP/model-count/etc.. at a fixed ratio, but that'd be a different game. I play 40K because I enjoy the variety (even though and arguably because it is not a very "fair" game, not designed to be a "fair" game and simply has different priorities).
If "fairness" was higher priority than variety, I'd play Warhammer Underworlds or even Chess or whatever.
My issue with your argument is that the way CP works now I would say leads to less variety not more. Because CP are desirable tying them to detachments forces people to do things like buy more troop choices and HQ choices rather than playing a more elite style force.
In the end I’d be ok with unbalanced CP in a world without soup as you could balance armies around having more CP but weaker or more expensive powerful stratagems vs less CP but powerful stratagems. That does not work when I can bring 1000 points of guard for 20 CP to power stratagems from another faction.
I am not saying CP work perfectly atm or that there cannot be improvement to the system.
But having the option to build a list with lots of CPs versus building a list with fewer CPs should ultimately remain an option, just as building a horde list vs. an elite list should ultimately remain an option, even if both would arguably be more heavily curtailed in a game that would emphasise balance, fairness and competitive play more heavily than 40K does (which is why you can see things are more similar and less divergent in games like Underworlds or Kill Team, just sticking with GW games, given those have a stronger competitive focus).
I’d be fine with that option if it felt like a valid choice. If “elite” units were significantly more powerful than troops and hqs and expensive units were significantly more powerful than the same points worth of cheaper units and this was offset by having better access to stratagems if you had more cheap units. Then it would be a valid option do I take more “powerful” units and have less tricks, or more “less powerful” units but have tricks. That would be cool. However that still only works if soup or at least CP sharing is not a thing.
Right now it really is not a choice having more CP is always the better choice.
I know people have always wanted SM to be better. So why don’t we tell them that more? People complain how, after giving up a phase, guardsmen are faster than supersonic vehicles. Why don’t we ask for supersonic vehicles to be faster?
Specifically this point references melee hordes, so people complaining / defending IG don't need to fight on this one.
Stacking melee buffs from strats start to become highly powerful and also incredibly difficult to implement counter play against, when they can be used to convert any basic infantry unit into a melee beatstick.
There is no way to target prioritise, because the units themselves are not the things that are good, the strats are, and they are transferable between units. I believe these sort of strats, combined with the easy access that cheap hordes provide,
and the built in redundancy that cheap hordes provide, is often quote bad for the game.
I prefer the detachment system over the FOC in principle, because I think different factions should have fundamentally different army structures. However, I totally get that the FOC "worked" for a lot of people and I'm happy to debate the merits of bringing it back or not. But all these suggestions where we jury-rig the Detachment system into a Frankenstein's FOC instead of just bringing back the FOC sound fundamentally silly to me.
I think I like the detatchment system better generally, but miss a lot of detail from the FOC.
I think the 'Detatchments Cost CP' angle does the best job of carrying the best parts of both the FOC and Detatchments. You get the flexible set up of the latter (Windrider Hosts or 1st Company forces), while retaining a bias towards "well rounded" FOC-like armies. Importantly, while it biases towards the FOC-like armies, it doesn't outright destroy them - similar to how it treats Allies/Soup.
It also still allows custom army-specific Detatchments. Like, DE's raiding party could simply be a Detatchment that costs the same as a Battalion/Brigade, and has 3 Patrol slots.
The "More detatchments = more CP" is, I think, the biggest downside in either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Static CP is the answer. There is no reason faction:Astra Militarum should be entitled to more command points than faction:Harlequins, for example. But that's what we have right now. Some factions just have an unfair advantage in this area.
Conversely, there is good reason a Marine demi-company style list should have more CP than a CWE Windrider Host. Or Knight spearhead.
One of the biggest issues in balance is that a model is costed for what it's stats perform on the tabletop (and often then it's still wrong). They are not costed in regard to the bonus of strategems, and there are many strategems that make certain units distinctly better than their cost. However, there is also a big difference between being able to perform that action once compared to 3+ turns. Being able to maximize your CPs cheaply makes it impossible to balance the points of any given unit in regard to these strategems since you cannot cost something that will have a variable bonus over the course of a game..
Therefore I feel that to have any chance of balance at all, you either have to cap CPs or better yet, as has been suggested before numerous times, allow CPs only to be used by the faction that generated them. Yes it's more of a headache to manage the pools of markers, but it's not out of the realm of simplicity. Knights should power up Knights, not Guard or marines. Harlequin skyweavers (to use my case) shouldn't be using CPs generated by Craftworlders etc.
Therefore I feel that to have any chance of balance at all, you either have to cap CPs or better yet, as has been suggested before numerous times, allow CPs only to be used by the faction that generated them. Yes it's more of a headache to manage the pools of markers, but it's not out of the realm of simplicity. Knights should power up Knights, not Guard or marines. Harlequin skyweavers (to use my case) shouldn't be using CPs generated by Craftworlders etc.
This is why I support making CP static. If everyone has say 15 CP for a 2000 point game you can price those super powerful elite forces stratagem accordingly. Let's say a design decision for an army is that they should at max get 6 CP at 2000 points. Then they have a stratagem that is 2 CP and the intention was that the army was only supposed to be able to use the stratagem approx. 3 times a game at best. With a static point of 15 CP we can cap that stratagem at 3 uses per game and avoid the entire CP battery thing that is currently being promoted.
People must remember that many armies can make CP batteries work for themselves without resorting to a new codex. 3 troop choices for Craftworlds will rarely break the bank considering how cheap Storm Guardians are. Same goes for Drukhari. The difference lies mostly in Imperial armies like Imperial Knight allying Imperial Guard or Grey Knights allying in Imperial Guard. Which again leads me to iterate that the CP issue is for the most part an Imperial problem more than anything else. There are exceptions, but there is a reason why the Loyal 32 reference a certain faction.
I mean, you can understand that Guard models are incredibly strong competitively while also realizing that Stratagems are not one of the strengths of the faction. You are not required to take the position that if a faction is competitively strong EVERYTHING about that faction must therefore be too strong and need nerfs.
For one thing if you do nerf something that already isn't strong, you wouldn't be nerfing the faction at all. Like, nerf Ynnari CP generation all you like....Ynnari don't really care about stratagems, as long as they have 2CP for lightning reactions on their bike squad and 2CP for Forewarned a Ynnari list is 100% all set. There's a reason they don't take CP battery units and tend to have a ton of aux detachments for -1CP.
Guard stratagems are objectively not that great. They have a 1CP +1sv strat that gets used on 40-50 point infantry squads, a 2Cp strat to reroll to hit with one wyvern which is I believe like a 65 point vehicle...and besides that they are going to be basically buying extra relics and using CP rerolls/morale rolls.
Understanding that their stratagems aren't very good is part of understanding what makes Imperial Soup OP - the problem is the guard units giving their CP over to non-guard factions. If you don't understand that, you'll nerf stupid gak that won't change anything.
There's no guard apologism in that. There's just a difference between blindly hating on a faction and calling for everything they have to be nerfed, to understanding what actually makes them overpowered and calling to nerf that.
Infantry squads. Certain orders. Certain fire support vehicles and weapons. Command point generation for other factions.
CP farms are mostly an Imperium problem because only the IoM have the Loyal32.
Mono SM gets CP more easily than mono CWE (from either the cheapest-possible or the cheap-but-usable perspectives, albeit only slightly). Mono CWE doesn't have CP problems because they're strong even with the CP they get. Mono SM isn't strong, so the problem gets blamed on CP.
After all, its not like DE/Harlies are never told "Just add a Farseer". Or Harlies/CWE are ever told "But you should add Vect".
The primary problem most people see is the Loyal32. It's just too good compared to other options. But there are other concerns:
1. There should be more incentive to fill out detatchments, as opposed to adding more
2. Allies/Soup should have downsides, but not crippling ones
3. Bolt-on detatchments shouldn't be a straight upshot (such as +CP)
4. Troops and well-rounded armies should be incentivised without neutering or rendering illegal lopsided ones
Static CP would:
-Provide incentive to neither filling out detatchments nor adding more
-Reduce the inherent incentive but not provide a disincentive to Allies/Soup
-It *does* remove the bolt-on detatchements giving +CP -It *removes* the strongest current incentives to field well-rounded armies
A "Detatchements Cost CP" scheme would:
1. Incentivise filling out detatchments over adding more
2. Provide a disincentive for Allies/Soup without hamstringing them
3. Bolt-ons now come at a cost instead of providing a bonus
4. Incentivises well-rounded armies over lopsided ones, without destroying lopsided ones
I'm not sure if Static CP would be an improvement, but I think "Detatchments Cost CP" is a much better solution. It solves more problems, does so more gracefully, and doesn't introduce the downsides Static CP does.
Martel732 wrote: Guard strats are a minor point compared to the rest of their tech..
Yes, exactly. But even if you were to say, nerf some of their units randomly, you'd have just as good a chance to be nerfing gak like techpriests, valkyries, officers of the fleet, leman russ vanquishers, tauroxes, chimeras, ogryns, hydras, and all the other gak in the codex that really isn't all that OP unless you're completely blinded by rage.
Meanwhile, you've got infantry squads, company commanders, basilisks, sgt harker, leman russ battle tanks and mortar teams that are and have been too strong since the codex released. Pretty much any time a codex is too meta dominant, it's the top 25% of units (if that large of a fraction) with their optimal wargear loadouts that are actually causing the problem, and if you step outside of those the units are average at best.
but the internet hates actually understanding what the problem is, and loves kneejerking to "THE WHOOOOLE BOOK IS THE OPPLS NERF EVERYTHING IN IT 50% POINTS HIKE SHOULD NTO GET COMMAND PTS KTHX"
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.
While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.
Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)
Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.
Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.
While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.
Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)
Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.
Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....
Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.
on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.
I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes. So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)
Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.
While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.
Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)
Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.
Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....
Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.
on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.
Yeah it's not like they have units like bullgryns (a top tier competitive option) that benefit from it hugely.
I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)
Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?
-
That survey seemed geared to figure which direction advertising should be focusing. Not with core rules adjustments.
I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)
Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?
-
From the way some pod casts etc have been talking they have already seen it, so probably next week isn't going to be a bad guess.
In the Hordes versus elite debate, the game has needed to revamp weapons for some time to allow high rate of fire when dealing with larger units. Flamers should get 1D6 shots per 5 models in the unit as the most egregious example.
Ice_can wrote: The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.
None of the changes in 8th edition saw piles of gold and gems becoming more effective in winning a game.
I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)
Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?
-
That survey seemed geared to figure which direction advertising should be focusing. Not with core rules adjustments.
wasn't suggesting that GW was holding off the FAQ to make changes to it based on the Survey. I was trying to imply that GW doesn't want the Survey affected by knee-jerk reactions to things that are in (or missing from) the FAQ.
So in that regard, I would expect the FAQ NOT to come out until after the Survey closes
Ice_can wrote: The really the fundamental mechanics being slanted to favour hoards is the route of the balance issues.
The AP system changes favourslight armour over heavy, ie hoards, the wounding chart changes favours lower T over Higher T, ie hoards, the detachment system was supposed to allow for more eccentric builds but with a downside, favours elite armies.
CP favouring hoards was stacking the deck too far, in one direction.
None of the changes in 8th edition saw piles of gold and gems becoming more effective in winning a game.
Don't be ridiculous they're not talking about this kind of hoard.
I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)
Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?
-
As ordana noted - last year it was 3 week post Adepticon. That would put us on this coming Monday. They certainly won't override the Survey with a big distraction like the FAQs.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.
While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.
Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)
Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.
Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....
Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.
on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.
Yeah it's not like they have units like bullgryns (a top tier competitive option) that benefit from it hugely.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.
You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.
Have you ever heard of these things called points? Or do you just not play with them as it's not like it matters to you?
Models cost points we play points levels a model is supposed to pay an appropriate points cost for it's avarage performance on the table top.
I did hear of points (or PL as an alternative). Which is why tying CP to points makes one of those two resources redundant. The only reason to have points/PL and CP (or points/PL and model count or whatever) separate is so people can make separate choices in how they build their armies. If two limited resources are set to a fixed exchange rate, one is redundant.
No your incorrect, having a fixed exchange rate creates consistency, so you arn't being doubel rewarded with both cheap units and extra CP due to being able to field multiple detachments.
While someone qith more expensive unita gets punished twice with fewer bodied and also fewer CP.
So you actually think a 1000 point guard list havibg 20CP and a 1000 point Marine list being 8 Cp is a fairer and better solution than saying at 1000 points you get 10CP each?
Assuming you couldn't let Knights use the 20 Guard CP? Yes. Guard Stratagems are utter garbage even compared to the mediocre SM ones.
Playable AM Stratagems:
Take cover
Consolidate squads
Fight to the death
Overlapping fields of fire (which you won't have because Catachan is the better doctrine pick 9 times out of 10)
Defensive Gunners (if you're using this, you're probably losing anyway)
Vengeance for Cadia (Nice if you have a Chaos opponent. Dead weight against everything else)
Nobody brings guard for their incredible Stratagems, so yeah, they should probably get more CP starting out in your scenario than the marine player. It's when you toss in expensive, powerful strats with a ton of CP generation that there's a problem.
Yeah no...I would trade the entire space marine codex stratagems for take cover....
Yeah you would...if you could use it on space marines, where getting cover halves the damage you take from ap- weapons.
on 40pt guard squads that start and cap at 10 models, take cover is a minor annoyance.
Yeah it's not like they have units like bullgryns (a top tier competitive option) that benefit from it hugely.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.
You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.
So, not to make this awkward, but Bullgryns ARE top tier in the competitive circuit. Tony Kopach took 8 Bullgryns as part of his list that got 1st at Hammer in the New Year 2019 and Brandon Grant won LVO 2019 with 9 Bullgryns in his list, just to name two prominent ones. It's used as an almost impossible to kill board control unit; plugging up an avenue to try and strike at the Castellan while hopefully holding an objective. EDIT: And with a priest, as Daedalus81 points out below.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.
You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.
I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.
I expected it on Monday, but it did not come. Now that the Survey is up, I get the feeling the FAQ isn't going to drop until AFTER the Survey closes.
So at the earliest, we are looking at next Tuesday (because it's a Holiday weekend, so Monday is likely a no-go as well)
Does anyone remember how long the last survey was open?
-
As ordana noted - last year it was 3 week post Adepticon. That would put us on this coming Monday. They certainly won't override the Survey with a big distraction like the FAQs.
This following Monday is a bank holiday following Easter Sunday.
Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
I get that there's upthread evidence that Bullgryns aren't unusable competitively, but this just sounds like getting outplayed by a list built handle the type of list you brought.
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
And the problem here in your eyes is the durable unit that your opponent plopped in front of the 2 untargetable characters who each put out more firepower than two razorbacks in a guilliman aura, and not those characters?
What's stopping an opponent from using pretty much any durable unit for that purpose? Or just a chaff screen?
I'll admit, you got me on Bullgryns being a unit people seem to have been taking january-february 2019 in the Castellanhammer funtime of ITC. chalk it up to me being so utterly bored of that set of houserules I stopped giving two gaks about it. I hear from local ork players that combos that rely on low wound, invulnerable save and character keyword protection buff models are going to have a super easy time dealing with the vindicare assassin being added to the meta, I'm sure the Priest+Astropath combo that bullgryns rely on will be real easy to keep alive.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.
You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.
I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.
Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
I get that there's upthread evidence that Bullgryns aren't unusable competitively, but this just sounds like getting outplayed by a list built handle the type of list you brought.
I give him full credit for a creative list and well thought out list. It's still a gimmick. If I had to rate the most egregious things in 40k character targeting is a top 3 offender.
#1 CP system and stratagem imbalance (needs to go to Detachments cost CP with static starting number)
#2 Braindead point costs ( Only the application of common sense and removal of bias will fix this)
#3 Character targeting rules (needs a complete redesign)
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
And the problem here in your eyes is the durable unit that your opponent plopped in front of the 2 untargetable characters who each put out more firepower than two razorbacks in a guilliman aura, and not those characters?
What's stopping an opponent from using pretty much any durable unit for that purpose? Or just a chaff screen?
I'll admit, you got me on Bullgryns being a unit people seem to have been taking january-february 2019 in the Castellanhammer funtime of ITC. chalk it up to me being so utterly bored of that set of houserules I stopped giving two gaks about it. I hear from local ork players that combos that rely on low wound, invulnerable save and character keyword protection buff models are going to have a super easy time dealing with the vindicare assassin being added to the meta, I'm sure the Priest+Astropath combo that bullgryns rely on will be real easy to keep alive.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.
You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.
I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.
Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).
It's more like the firepower of 2 storm talons with heavy bolters and AC in gmans aura + ignore cover. AND I CANT shoot them. At least though GMAN is untargetable - you can still shoot the things he is buffing. Which is actually quite an effective way to beat him. Shooting at bullgryns with 0+ saves is a good way to lose a game.
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
I get that there's upthread evidence that Bullgryns aren't unusable competitively, but this just sounds like getting outplayed by a list built handle the type of list you brought.
I give him full credit for a creative list and well thought out list. It's still a gimmick. If I had to rate the most egregious things in 40k character targeting is a top 3 offender.
#1 CP system and stratagem imbalance (needs to go to Detachments cost CP with static starting number)
#2 Braindead point costs ( Only the application of common sense and removal of bias will fix this)
#3 Character targeting rules (needs a complete redesign)
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
And the problem here in your eyes is the durable unit that your opponent plopped in front of the 2 untargetable characters who each put out more firepower than two razorbacks in a guilliman aura, and not those characters?
What's stopping an opponent from using pretty much any durable unit for that purpose? Or just a chaff screen?
I'll admit, you got me on Bullgryns being a unit people seem to have been taking january-february 2019 in the Castellanhammer funtime of ITC. chalk it up to me being so utterly bored of that set of houserules I stopped giving two gaks about it. I hear from local ork players that combos that rely on low wound, invulnerable save and character keyword protection buff models are going to have a super easy time dealing with the vindicare assassin being added to the meta, I'm sure the Priest+Astropath combo that bullgryns rely on will be real easy to keep alive.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.
You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.
I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.
Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).
It's more like the firepower of 2 storm talons with heavy bolters and AC in gmans aura + ignore cover. AND I CANT shoot them. At least though GMAN is untargetable - you can still shoot the things he is buffing. Which is actually quite an effective way to beat him. Shooting at bullgryns with 0+ saves is a good way to lose a game.
Comparing Bullgryn with storm talons is a terribly disingenuous comparison and you know it. Bullgryn move 6" and you have to be either desperate or stupid to get charged by them. Meanwhile, the Storm Talons can character snipe, have a native -1 outside of hover, and can reach out to 24" after they've moved 20". Comparing the two is as useful as comparing the damage output of a Predator with it's points equivalent in grots.
You have to admit though, the only meta into which this strategy functions is one in which the only kinds of firepower your opponent has is low rof single damage anti tank and low strength ap- firepower. Basically, if they have a standard castellan meta list OR a standard ynnari with harlequin biker anti-castellan meta list.
An ork loota bomb list with a standard da jump blob of boyz chunks out 5 of those bullgryns straight through their 2+ saves. Drukhari venomspam does the same thing. Thousand Sons smitespam does the same thing. Deathwatch with 2+ to wound ammo do the same thing. And now imperial lists have access to the Vindicare who can spend a single CP and have a VERY solid chance to ace one or both of those support characters making the bullgryn combo tough to deal with.
The actual problem with that list has nothing to do with 42pt T5 3W bodies that will almost always get a 2+ save. There are plenty of papers that cover that particular rock, the player just happened to realize he was looking at an utterly homogenous Scissors meta and brought the list accordingly.
Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).
It's the combination of hit decent and hard to kill that makes them "scary". I don't think they're broken - just at least good enough to see top tables more often.
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
I get that there's upthread evidence that Bullgryns aren't unusable competitively, but this just sounds like getting outplayed by a list built handle the type of list you brought.
I give him full credit for a creative list and well thought out list. It's still a gimmick. If I had to rate the most egregious things in 40k character targeting is a top 3 offender.
#1 CP system and stratagem imbalance (needs to go to Detachments cost CP with static starting number)
#2 Braindead point costs ( Only the application of common sense and removal of bias will fix this)
#3 Character targeting rules (needs a complete redesign)
Xenomancers wrote: Got my butt wipped by bullgryns at LVO. List didn't even have a castellan and I did. He combined indestructible bullgryns to abuse the character targeting rules. 2 hero land speeders with basically reroll everything and ignore cover killing all my infantry. I literally have nothing to shoot at while 2 land speeds that are untargetable because hq's are flying them. Yet another busted aspect of this game.
And the problem here in your eyes is the durable unit that your opponent plopped in front of the 2 untargetable characters who each put out more firepower than two razorbacks in a guilliman aura, and not those characters?
What's stopping an opponent from using pretty much any durable unit for that purpose? Or just a chaff screen?
I'll admit, you got me on Bullgryns being a unit people seem to have been taking january-february 2019 in the Castellanhammer funtime of ITC. chalk it up to me being so utterly bored of that set of houserules I stopped giving two gaks about it. I hear from local ork players that combos that rely on low wound, invulnerable save and character keyword protection buff models are going to have a super easy time dealing with the vindicare assassin being added to the meta, I'm sure the Priest+Astropath combo that bullgryns rely on will be real easy to keep alive.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
It takes 500-600 points of bullgryns+support to kill a single rhino equivalent vehicle in melee. They are hideously inefficient at removing enemy models, and while they're great at one thing (not dying) there is nobody on the planet who doesn't understand at this point that it is infinitely easier to remove a fully decked out and buffed bullgryn squad than it is their points equivalent in naked guard bodies.
You know when you might see people taking bullgryn? in your magical world where CP is totally fixed and everyone gets the same amount. Then maybe someone will consider plopping 500 points of bullgryns down in a maxed out squad to defend their artillery. But in a world where command points exist, people seem to get that giving up a gigantic chunk of board cover and 12 or so command points to field a pillow fisted fatty who punches like a pair of autocannons when fully buffed and costs more than an entire squad of guardsmen for a single model is an incredibly dumb fething idea.
I'm not certain that's a good review on the standing of Bullgryns. They're not pants on head broken, but they are featuring quite regularly in top Castellan lists, which forces an opponent to split off anti-tank to bring them down over tackling the Castellan. 9 of them with a priest is 46 S7 attacks, which is nothing to scoff at.
Like I said: A full squad buffed with a priest deals just enough damage to bring down a basic T7 3+ vehicle, for 450+ points (depending on how many buff characters you bring for them).
It's more like the firepower of 2 storm talons with heavy bolters and AC in gmans aura + ignore cover. AND I CANT shoot them. At least though GMAN is untargetable - you can still shoot the things he is buffing. Which is actually quite an effective way to beat him. Shooting at bullgryns with 0+ saves is a good way to lose a game.
Comparing Bullgryn with storm talons is a terribly disingenuous comparison and you know it. Bullgryn move 6" and you have to be either desperate or stupid to get charged by them. Meanwhile, the Storm Talons can character snipe, have a native -1 outside of hover, and can reach out to 24" after they've moved 20". Comparing the two is as useful as comparing the damage output of a Predator with it's points equivalent in grots.
You're misunderstanding him. He's not comparing the bullgryns to a random flyer. He's noting that the list he lost to was a wall of bullgryns with a Ravenwing Talonmaster in Land Speeder and a Sammael in Sableclaw standing behind them.
That's about 400 points and has 4 autocannons+4 heavy bolters that reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound, with ignore cover. Which is, let's be clear, not a TON of firepower for that points value, but it's extremely good at dealing with the guardsmen horde that standard castellan lists rely on to score points and hold objectives.
Take that list against many - most, even - competitive lists and it'll fall flat. Not enough firepower to deal with venomspam or bring down a Primarch Party. Not enough wounds to deal with smitespam+Warptime daemon princes. super susceptible to crumbling to something like a guilliguns list that'll just drown it in wounds and chew through the 2+ saves. That's how smart counter-meta works.
Wayniac wrote: GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.
. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?
Wayniac wrote: GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.
. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?
Not only did you miss the point in his statement, you also strawmanned his position and took it to the extreme. Well done.
This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.
In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?
You might want to catch up with the year 2019 - in which some seriously big tournaments have been won by lists containing a big unit of Bullgryn. Tournaments like the LVO and even last weekend the Broadside Bash.
Basically its a given at this stage that they are a top tier unit that appears fairly frequently in tournament winning lists. Sorry you could not keep up.
Wayniac wrote: GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.
. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?
Not only did you miss the point in his statement, you also strawmanned his position and took it to the extreme. Well done.
Danny slag wrote: Chaos legion traits brought in line with almost every other army so they apply to all units, not just infantry, bikes, hellbrutes.
Well, except marines. And dark angels. And thousand sons. And grey knights. And sisters. and genestealer cult. And custodes.
At this point, 12 codexes follow the "marine pattern" of infantry, bikers, and walkers getting traits.
2 codexes are Daemons and Drukhari, where most units get traits, but the traits available to units are subdivided within the codex and you only gain those traits if you have a detachment entirely composed of one sub-group.
9 codexes have traits that apply to the whole or almost the whole codex.
Now unless my math is wrong, that's not really a consistent pattern that shows every other army getting something and just marines not...And honestly, if I were to pick a codex with the absolute worst implementation of chapter tactics-equivalent, it has got to be Daemons. Subdivided such that only about 6-10 units can possibly get one single fixed trait, AND on top of that instead of applying to all units like everyone else actually gets, they only apply to units within 6" of a character from the detachment.
And what are these amaze-balls chapter tactics you ask? Well, they're, uh...not...that. You know how everyone thinks the black templars trait is so fething strong that you should be limited to only 1/4 of the codex and it should only be a 6" aura that characters get? Like how everyone is up in arms like "wtfGW why you no nerf that black templar trait yet???"
Well the tzeentch trait actually manages to be worse than that, the nurgle trait is half decent and the slaanesh trait is also one of the decent ones from the CSM dex (renegades trait).
But are they amazing enough that you need to
-limit them to character auras
-limit them to detachments made up of 1/4 of the codex
AND
-give players no options of which traits to choose
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Bullgryns are REALLY, REALLY good, especially in ITC.
Alright, fair enough. I have not kept up with the ITC castellanhammer meta the last couple of months, and Bullgryns have come into vogue as an anvil unit. Great gak, let's double their points value based on a particular set of missions and houserules not written by GW and pat ourselves on the back.
And what are these amaze-balls chapter tactics you ask? Well, they're, uh...not...that. You know how everyone thinks the black templars trait is so fething strong that you should be limited to only 1/4 of the codex and it should only be a 6" aura that characters get? Like how everyone is up in arms like "wtfGW why you no nerf that black templar trait yet???"
As someone who plays both Black Templars and Khorne Daemons, it's infinitely better on Khorne Daemons. It's still silly design though.
Martel732 wrote: Bullgryns are REALLY, REALLY good, especially in ITC.
Alright, fair enough. I have not kept up with the ITC castellanhammer meta the last couple of months, and Bullgryns have come into vogue as an anvil unit. Great gak, let's double their points value based on a particular set of missions and houserules not written by GW and pat ourselves on the back.
Just to chime in, I'm pretty no one was actually talking about nerfing bullgryns, you're the first one to bring it up. Rather, some people were initially suggesting that Guard should get more CP than Marines because their individual units are generally weaker and that stratagems are therefore less effective on Guard. People who disagreed used bullgryns as a counterpoint to that claim.
Bullgryn's are really good in normal play too, not just ITC. A unit that can tank everything in key areas for the entire game is always going to be useful
Anyways, one of the guys on chapter tactics podcast said that the FAQ was "big" but didn't go into anymore detail but it's clear they've seen it already.
"Alright, fair enough. I have not kept up with the ITC castellanhammer meta the last couple of months, and Bullgryns have come into vogue as an anvil unit. Great gak, let's double their points value based on a particular set of missions and houserules not written by GW and pat ourselves on the back."
I consider those houserules the real rules. I don't consider GW as legitimate at writing scenarios yet. I never said double. They are just another area where IG dominate marines in my book.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.
You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.
Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.
You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.
Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?
Some of their feedback comes from big tournaments, but it's when rules are used in ways they didn't intend more than who is winning the most games.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.
You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.
Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?
Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.
You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.
Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?
Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.
In the US, maybe. In the rest of the world? Not so much. I've played maybe 5 ITC games in the last year. And yes I'm a regular tournament player.
Well, that's a problem, then. However, I think it's not quite such a big problem as people think. Opaque 1st floor windows and giving slight benefits to large squads doesn't change the value of most units. Guardsmen and Raven castellans are still broken.
Martel732 wrote: Well, that's a problem, then. However, I think it's not quite such a big problem as people think. Opaque 1st floor windows and giving slight benefits to large squads doesn't change the value of most units. Guardsmen and Raven castellans are still broken.
Honestly haven't had a problem against guard or castellan since we started playing CA19 regularly. They aren't winning tournaments much anymore either, just a gatekeeper list really.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
GW have given them a slap on the back and a cheeky wink. They've taken some elements of the ITC rules and discarded others - a full embrace would have CA2018 and ITC in alignment, not to mention their own tournaments!
Danny slag wrote: Chaos legion traits brought in line with almost every other army so they apply to all units, not just infantry, bikes, hellbrutes.
Well, except marines. And dark angels. And thousand sons. And grey knights. And sisters. and genestealer cult. And custodes.
And orks. And necrons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?
Nor is there consistent set of scenarios for gw with rulebook, ca2017 and ca2018 scenarios.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?
Custom missions for general play are fine - custom missions and house rules when you're meant to be testing how something works against the actual framework of the game so you can provide feedback? Not so much.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.
You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.
Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?
Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.
Lmao, no.
I lot of the tournaments play ITC, sure, but there are a lot more players don't rarely, if ever go to tournaments and dont use ITC rules.
and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.
You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.
Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?
Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.
Lmao, no.
I lot of the tournaments play ITC, sure, but there are a lot more players don't rarely, if ever go to tournaments and dont use ITC rules.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.
If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.
You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.
Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?
Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.
Lmao, no.
I lot of the tournaments play ITC, sure, but there are a lot more players don't rarely, if ever go to tournaments and dont use ITC rules.
*Citation needed
Who, Martel?
Because as it stands he first threw out a general statement.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?
Custom missions for general play are fine - custom missions and house rules when you're meant to be testing how something works against the actual framework of the game so you can provide feedback? Not so much.
Hmmm, What house rules are there.....hmmmm, Oh, you mean the bottom floor? The one made because bao 2017 didnt have the best terrain and they needed a way tu curb shooting and it became standard so tournaments can still have decent games when terrain isnt up to par?
tneva82 wrote: and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.
ITC really isn't very skill testing as you only need to be able to play one scenario and have an easy to learn mechanic for covering your weaknesses baked in (picking secondaries). It's not a good format for testing play skill, it's all about list optimisation skill as far as I can tell. I've played it enough (and done well at it) to know it feels like the matchups are more important than the mission and that it feels like a low skill version of a normal tournament.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?
Custom missions for general play are fine - custom missions and house rules when you're meant to be testing how something works against the actual framework of the game so you can provide feedback? Not so much.
Hmmm, What house rules are there.....hmmmm, Oh, you mean the bottom floor? The one made because bao 2017 didnt have the best terrain and they needed a way tu curb shooting and it became standard so tournaments can still have decent games when terrain isnt up to par?
Hmmm, What house rules are there.....hmmmm, Oh, you mean the bottom floor? The one made because bao 2017 didnt have the best terrain and they needed a way tu curb shooting and it became standard so tournaments can still have decent games when terrain isnt up to par?
Bottom Floor is the least of it (though it exaggerates some armies (e.g. Dark Reapers hiding, which isn't so easy in vanilla 40K) and nerfs others (e.g. Tau).
But more fundamental, the very basic win/lose conditions are changed in 40K compared to the win/lose conditions presented in the rules/chapter approved. Doesn't get more fundamental than tinkering with the things that decide who gets to win or lose a given game and how they get to win or lose a given game.
tneva82 wrote: and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.
Both sets of CA missions are pretty skill testing. The newest eternal war ones even managed to get the dynamic of maelstrom games without the luck factor of drawing perfect/terrible cards.
Meanwhile, most of the ITC top players tell you that picking the right objectives is the most important thing - something that isn't even part of Warhammer 40k.
tneva82 wrote: and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.
Both sets of CA missions are pretty skill testing. The newest eternal war ones even managed to get the dynamic of maelstrom games without the luck factor of drawing perfect/terrible cards.
Meanwhile, most of the ITC top players tell you that picking the right objectives is the most important thing - something that isn't even part of Warhammer 40k.
This sure has gone in circles. All that seems to come from it is some people are so hateful of IG they won't really be happy until they are an auto lose in even a casual game. Granted that isn't everything staying that but a vocal few that seem to have more hate in them towards the game than love at this point. To now going back and forth about ITC use and goodness. If you were a new player you'd be forgiven to read most of this and just think the game is an awful mess and only certain lists should ever show up to any game or lose, painfully so.
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias. You can say the defenders have it, but I don't see many of the guard defenders saying there aren't issues. However should only good units be struck down, how about the worse ones being brought up ? How about all books get that treatment, obviously some books don't have much of an issue but I'd like this to be a fair thing if it has to happen. Not just being a one faction smack down because some people just " HATE GWARD ! ". I say this because basically it was said earlier, well guard have many OP units, and those listed were pretty substantial.
Oh and just to add to the bullgryn talk, I'd feel awful bad indeed to think that an expensive infantry tough unit is tanky, how dare they be tanky, the fiends. How dare they be the best target of take cover, you could say the only good unit for it aside from maybe expensive set up scions. How. Dare. They.
AngryAngel80 wrote: This sure has gone in circles. All that seems to come from it is some people are so hateful of IG they won't really be happy until they are an auto lose in even a casual game. Granted that isn't everything staying that but a vocal few that seem to have more hate in them towards the game than love at this point. To now going back and forth about ITC use and goodness. If you were a new player you'd be forgiven to read most of this and just think the game is an awful mess and only certain lists should ever show up to any game or lose, painfully so.
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias. You can say the defenders have it, but I don't see many of the guard defenders saying there aren't issues. However should only good units be struck down, how about the worse ones being brought up ? How about all books get that treatment, obviously some books don't have much of an issue but I'd like this to be a fair thing if it has to happen. Not just being a one faction smack down because some people just " HATE GWARD ! ". I say this because basically it was said earlier, well guard have many OP units, and those listed were pretty substantial.
Oh and just to add to the bullgryn talk, I'd feel awful bad indeed to think that an expensive infantry tough unit is tanky, how dare they be tanky, the fiends. How dare they be the best target of take cover, you could say the only good unit for it aside from maybe expensive set up scions. How. Dare. They.
I have 2 armies that I have an extensive collection of. Imperial Guard and Necrons. The difference between the 2 armies is enormous in terms of playability. Imperial Guard are certainly too good as it stand compared to other books. It doesn't necessarily mean that it needs nerfs, but considering the amount of power creep already in the game, adding more isn't exactly a good suggestion. If anything, a lot of stuff needs to be reeled back on. This also stands for other units and factions (Ynarri, Eldar, Orks etc). Not all units in an otherwise overpowered book are great or even worth running at all, though (Chimeras come to mind), but to think that the faction doesn't deserve any of the hate it receives would just be ignorant. And this coming from someone who owns a large IG army, and plays it almost exclusively in 8th edition (also my 1st army I started).
The thing I want the most from this April FaQ is for GW to release it already. Halfway through April, 2-3 weeks since Adepticon and not even a "Warhammer Community post" about it since.
p5freak wrote: It can only disappoint, because expectations are huge after almost 3 weeks of waiting.
Considering the insane wishlisting in this thread, after GW said to not expect big changes there was always going to be massive disappointment, regardless of when they release it.
tneva82 wrote: and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.
Both sets of CA missions are pretty skill testing. The newest eternal war ones even managed to get the dynamic of maelstrom games without the luck factor of drawing perfect/terrible cards.
Meanwhile, most of the ITC top players tell you that picking the right objectives is the most important thing - something that isn't even part of Warhammer 40k.
One of the base mechanics of ITC is a system by which a 30-point squad of gretchin is worth one point
and a 600-point castellan is worth....one point.
That's probably the least balanced system for determining who scores what that I have ever heard of.
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias.
I play Black Templars; I don't have good units.
Your move.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias.
I play Black Templars; I don't have good units.
Your move.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units, Marines can be ravenguard with-1 to hit, but they arn't getting Guilliman buffs, or they are Ultramarines and arnt getting-1 to hit. It's just an unfortunate part of GW lauching codex's with out having a fixed set of design rules for the 8th edition codex's.
Just to be clear Guilliman reroll's aura is stupidity incarnate, but GW has just kept doubling down on re-rolls for your rerolls.
p5freak wrote: It can only disappoint, because expectations are huge after almost 3 weeks of waiting.
Considering the insane wishlisting in this thread, after GW said to not expect big changes there was always going to be massive disappointment, regardless of when they release it.
Precisely.
They've been trying to manage expectations, and we should not expect something as major as last Spring's Big FAQ. Maybe ratify the Bolter rule and some adjustments to recent releases (Loota bomb mechanics and perhaps and Mental Onslaught)?
Wayniac wrote: GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.
. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?
Not only did you miss the point in his statement, you also strawmanned his position and took it to the extreme. Well done.
What exactly IS the point of his statement?
That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.
Also on the subject of ITC I really doubt they are playtesting using ITC missions. Why would they playtest the game with house rules? Without devolving this back into the ITC vs. other debate, from what I've heard GW's playtesting is actually incredibly simplistic. They don't let you build your own armies, it's basically here take this 1500 point army we've decided on and test it against this other 1500 point army we've decided on, tell us if anything didn't work.
If they let the playtesters actually build armies, then they'd see where a lot of the problem is. But telling them to use WD style armies with a mishmash of units isn't showing any real issues with the game.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
Apparently on one of the podcasts (I forget the name, but it's the conpetetive one run by Pablo and is tied to the group that has been doing all of GW's playtesting) the FAQ is apparently quite big, bit that could just mean they tried tonanswer more questions this time.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
Or at least one of them. We should probably bring Dark Creed up a bit and Prophets down a bit, to hopefully meet in the middle with Coven of Twelve.
Dark Creed wrote:Distillers of Fear: Models in enemy units must subtract one from their leadership for each unit with this obsession that is within 6" to a max of -3.
Coven of Twelve wrote:Butchers of Flesh: All melee weapons have one better ap. (0 ap becomes -1) Does not apply to relics.
ClockworkZion wrote: Apparently on one of the podcasts (I forget the name, but it's the conpetetive one run by Pablo and is tied to the group that has been doing all of GW's playtesting) the FAQ is apparently quite big, bit that could just mean they tried tonanswer more questions this time.
ClockworkZion wrote: Apparently on one of the podcasts (I forget the name, but it's the conpetetive one run by Pablo and is tied to the group that has been doing all of GW's playtesting) the FAQ is apparently quite big, bit that could just mean they tried tonanswer more questions this time.
Chapter Tactics
Thanks. I took a couple months off to focus on other things to include off of podcasts and seem to have forgotten some things.
tneva82 wrote: and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.
Both sets of CA missions are pretty skill testing. The newest eternal war ones even managed to get the dynamic of maelstrom games without the luck factor of drawing perfect/terrible cards.
Meanwhile, most of the ITC top players tell you that picking the right objectives is the most important thing - something that isn't even part of Warhammer 40k.
One of the base mechanics of ITC is a system by which a 30-point squad of gretchin is worth one point
and a 600-point castellan is worth....one point.
That's probably the least balanced system for determining who scores what that I have ever heard of.
Only f you completely ignore Secondary Victory Conditions. Those are as important to the game as the Primary Victory Conditions.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
The point I was trying to make maybe badly was, what is the downside to taking Prophets of Flesh?
Whats the downside to taking the best subfaction traits for a number of armies, usually the loss of charictors or another equally effective trait, some of the codex's has clear winners and loosers, while marines etc seam to only be effective if you actually stack them all ontop of each other, it's just more evidence that GW didn't actually check the impact of some of these beyond oh this is so cool in the codex it goes.
How a 4++ is the same as -1 Ld ship in anyone's mind I don't know.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
Dark Reapers have an "ignore all negative to hit penalties" bit right?
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
Or at least one of them. We should probably bring Dark Creed up a bit and Prophets down a bit, to hopefully meet in the middle with Coven of Twelve.
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
The problem in 40K isn't really stuff dying too slowly.
Probably all Kabal units should have a 4++ and than add their creed on top.
Probably all (Craftworld) Eldar should have a -1 to hit and than add their craftworld trait on top (with Alaitoc possibly being a flat -2).
Etc...
Or just take down the BS/WS of every datasheet in the game up by a point (e.g. BS Custodes go to 3+, Marines/Eldar to 4+, Guard to 5+, Orks to 6+, etc..)
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
This on it's head is such a ridiculous statement, because there is little reason that a list in ITC can't also work under other formats. And, indeed, if you look at the top 24 who went to Adeption and also to LVO; they used largely the SAME list for both tournaments.
Wayniac wrote: GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.
. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?
Not only did you miss the point in his statement, you also strawmanned his position and took it to the extreme. Well done.
What exactly IS the point of his statement?
That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.
Also on the subject of ITC I really doubt they are playtesting using ITC missions. Why would they playtest the game with house rules? Without devolving this back into the ITC vs. other debate, from what I've heard GW's playtesting is actually incredibly simplistic. They don't let you build your own armies, it's basically here take this 1500 point army we've decided on and test it against this other 1500 point army we've decided on, tell us if anything didn't work.
If they let the playtesters actually build armies, then they'd see where a lot of the problem is. But telling them to use WD style armies with a mishmash of units isn't showing any real issues with the game.
So, EnTyme DID get it right then?
The rest of your posts is conjecture unless you have a source to back it up?
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias.
I play Black Templars; I don't have good units.
Your move.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units, Marines can be ravenguard with-1 to hit, but they arn't getting Guilliman buffs, or they are Ultramarines and arnt getting-1 to hit. It's just an unfortunate part of GW lauching codex's with out having a fixed set of design rules for the 8th edition codex's.
Just to be clear Guilliman reroll's aura is stupidity incarnate, but GW has just kept doubling down on re-rolls for your rerolls.
Yeah, it's almost like darts were thrown at a dartboard with zero regard for strength or balance and instead just each section was built around what "Feels" right.
Hey, should we make sure (like with Ultramarines vs Raven Guard/Salamanders) the subfaction bonus with the extra special character doesn't have the strongest army bonus?
Nah, slap in the special character with the head-and-shoulders better trait of "everything gets 1/6 more durable" and leave the alternatives as "hey don't you like Night Lords" and "everything gets a small amount more offense"
Urien Rakarth, the only special character covens have, is in the Raven Guard equivalent for Covens.
Contrast with Guard, where the best traits mechanically are also the best traits for characters/stratagems. overlapping fields of fire, Harker, allllllll the cadian characters are paired up with the mechanically best catachan/cadian traits.
There is no mysterious conspiracy at play here, no semblance of "GW is trying to do one thing, to balance things out". MAYBE once or twice some game designer said "let's give knights/Custodes strong stratagems because they'll have less CPs" but that's definitely not a rule. Guard stratagems were not made bad on purpose because of their big CP pool - that just kind of happened, they were not immune to some of the effects of codex creep despite being on the whole a really strong codex.
This is why I'm in favor of some sort of setting of equality or relative equality in CP access and sorting the rest out later - there's gotta be some consistency. Same with army traits, and which types of models get them. It's stupid that I'm hideously limited in how I can get my Tzeentch daemons their crappy-ass, non-synergistic single trait (Tzeentch is a psychic/shooting focused army primarily and their trait only works in melee) but I can CHOOSE to just have my whole (melee focused) Harlequin army get that trait....and spoiler alert nobody does because it is straight up the worst trait in the whole harlequin book. It's just a terrible fething trait in general.
I criticize blanket, simple fixes a lot as short sighted, because often they are. But the kind of cancerous inconsistency with which GW has developed the rules of 8th have created a much bigger and tougher to fix problem. So I don't really care whether CPs are made uniform via a "you get a bucket of them" solution like some folks here have suggested or if we go to some kind of system like kill team where you get an amount per turn. Either will improve game balance overall.
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).\
I am fairly certain that GW does not play test competitive armies at all. They just talk to a few people and look at a few tournaments results and make slapstick adjustments. They probably had 1 or 2 test games per army with the indexes before that (more than they ever did before) which they made very few changes - convinced they made a perfect edition after those games.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
Just make it reroll 1s. Still a reasonable bump.
Yeah. There is a weird, pointless moratorium on GW doing anything to balance army traits or unit rules except through release of a codex that just kind of...needs to stop. I don't know. There are like a dozen army traits that just need total reworks at this point.
Too Good:
-Catachan
-All -1 to hit traits
-Cadian
-Tau (again with the best trait also being the one that has the characters!)
-Evil Sunz
-Deffskullz
-Coven of...4++..iness. I can't even remember the subfaction names for Drukhari and they're like my main faction lol. They're such a non-decision.
-The harlequin speedy trait that is an auto-include
To bad:
-Almost too many to list, but the total never-usefuls should probably be looked at, like
-Tzeentch
-Black Templars
-Word bearers
-Valhallan
-All the eldar ones that are not -1 to hit
-all the leadership debuff ones in every faction
-blood axes
-Grey knights
-Space puppers
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
No, its not. There is some small penalty for cheap (undercosted) bodies. The horror.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?
Everything is different! Different game!
The CA17/CA18 are the win/lose conditions are the ones written to work with the game rules, point values, etc.. as published.
CA17 would obviously be best played with Codex publications and FAQs up to about Winter 2017, not beyond.
ITC simply has different win/lose conditions. To be "balanced", the ITC would need to have their own point costs for all units and possibly change some rules for units to better fit this set of win/lose conditions.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
They've added some new secondaries lately to help with this. "Gangbusters" means units with multiple models that have 3+ wounds each (like Talos, Skyweavers, Bullgryns) give up 1 victory point for every 6 wounds inflicted. So a full Bullgryn star of 8 of them is worth a full 4 secondary points, same if someone tries to spam Skyweaver bikes. Talos are worth a secondary point for each kill, which makes them a lot less attractive now that they're actually worth points to the opponent. The "Engineers" secondary is pretty good as well, you can sit a unit of troops on an objective out of line of sight of most things, and just score +1 secondary point per turn with it.
So they're trying to add new secondaries to make it harder for armies to completely deny points.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?
Everything is different! Different game!
Because one is produced by GW and the other is fan fiction?
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?
Everything is different! Different game!
Chapter approved missions have random victory conditions. Both armies have the same objectives though. ITC you pic your secondaries. That is a pretty big difference. I happen to like ITC rules - it's just sad that we need them. I'm really not sure that ITC rules affect balance that much though - except for things like mortars and obviously the infantry keyword being so strong.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
They've added some new secondaries lately to help with this. "Gangbusters" means units with multiple models that have 3+ wounds each (like Talos, Skyweavers, Bullgryns) give up 1 victory point for every 6 wounds inflicted. So a full Bullgryn star of 8 of them is worth a full 4 secondary points, same if someone tries to spam Skyweaver bikes. Talos are worth a secondary point for each kill, which makes them a lot less attractive now that they're actually worth points to the opponent. The "Engineers" secondary is pretty good as well, you can sit a unit of troops on an objective out of line of sight of most things, and just score +1 secondary point per turn with it.
So they're trying to add new secondaries to make it harder for armies to completely deny points.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
No, its not. There is some small penalty for cheap (undercosted) bodies. The horror.
I don't really get that as a take away. I don't think any army benefits from ITC rules more that IG.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?
Everything is different! Different game!
Because one is produced by GW and the other is fan fiction?
GW is the biggest source of fan fiction. Look at the goobs they hire.
Wayniac wrote: That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.
And what exactly did they lie about? They still have two weeks to release the FAQ in April. "Released in April" doesn't mean "first day in April". It means "sometime in the month of April."
Wayniac wrote: That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.
And what exactly did they lie about? They still have two weeks to release the FAQ in April. "Released in April" doesn't mean "first day in April". It means "sometime in the month of April."
My expectation going foward is to expect the FAQ on the last day of the month. Anything earlier is a bonus.
Wayniac wrote: That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.
And what exactly did they lie about? They still have two weeks to release the FAQ in April. "Released in April" doesn't mean "first day in April". It means "sometime in the month of April."
im pretty sure that what they meant. GW wont release it when may comes around, they WILL release it in april, to avoir anyone calling them liars. Hes not saying that GW already did lie .
Well, if I recall correctly, they have not met a single "release date" for any of these periodic books. They always get delayed. GW really should follow the industry standard and just never give dates. Blizzard learned this lesson from WoW updates.
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
Just make it reroll 1s. Still a reasonable bump.
Yeah. There is a weird, pointless moratorium on GW doing anything to balance army traits or unit rules except through release of a codex that just kind of...needs to stop. I don't know. There are like a dozen army traits that just need total reworks at this point.
Too Good:
-Catachan
-All -1 to hit traits
-Cadian
-Tau (again with the best trait also being the one that has the characters!)
-Evil Sunz
-Deffskullz
-Coven of...4++..iness. I can't even remember the subfaction names for Drukhari and they're like my main faction lol. They're such a non-decision.
-The harlequin speedy trait that is an auto-include
To bad:
-Almost too many to list, but the total never-usefuls should probably be looked at, like
-Tzeentch
-Black Templars
-Word bearers
-Valhallan
-All the eldar ones that are not -1 to hit
-all the leadership debuff ones in every faction
-blood axes
-Grey knights
-Space puppers
I really wouldn't call Cadian that good. And Orks deserve better traits as even with DDD they still have a bigger hill to climb. Traits also need to be in context of everything else they get.
GK trait is really good IF they had more full smites. +1 to cast and deny army wide is nothing to scoff at.
I think the issue is the vagueness. People read/see/hear "April" and set their expectations to April. When April comes, it is understandable to think "any day now" and have that anticipation build to the point of impatience.
GW can avoid this by being a bit more clear and say "Late April" That instantly sets the expectation at the "proper" time
Valhallan is certainly not a useless trait. Guard can lose a lot of infantry to morale. If you're taking some Guard Infantry to hold objectives with some Knights, Valhallan is a totally legit choice. If you're taking Tank Commanders, then you want Cadian or Catachan, but Valhallan is a good choice for just infantry battalions.
Galef wrote: I think the issue is the vagueness. People read/see/hear "April" and set their expectations to April. When April comes, it is understandable to think "any day now" and have that anticipation build to the point of impatience.
GW can avoid this by being a bit more clear and say "Late April" That instantly sets the expectation at the "proper" time
-
Sure. They did have a "FAQ Preview article" (now a month old again already) saying it was basically finished.
Would be nice to at least get an acknowledgement, perhaps in this format, telling us what's going on, another rough update on the time line (e.g. "late april" or even "may" ... if that's it, just communicate).
Instead there's radio silence, questions on Facebook, etc.. just get all deleted. Seems weird.
Also not ideal, IMO, that they drag to the Chaos post-Codex FAQ along with it. Stuff like 65pts. Oblits should IMO be addressed quicker, whether or not such Codex typos fall roughly in the time frame of the bi-annual FAQ or not.
There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.
Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC Fearless
That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
Well, as you've already alluded to, there are many possible ways to nerf it.
But then, surely it doesn't even need to be a buff to invulnerable saves? I imagine +1T or such would keep it as the most durable subfaction, without making the units stupidly tough.
Galef wrote: I think the issue is the vagueness. People read/see/hear "April" and set their expectations to April. When April comes, it is understandable to think "any day now" and have that anticipation build to the point of impatience.
GW can avoid this by being a bit more clear and say "Late April" That instantly sets the expectation at the "proper" time
-
Do I want it NOW? You're damn right I do, but I don't think pandering to entitlement or impatience is necessary or wise.
They told us why they were delaying it. They told us the timeframe to expect it. If they miss April then people can complain, but it's pretty easy for us to look back and see they took 3 weeks post Adepticon last year to release and I don't see why this year would be any different.
Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.
It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.
It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.
Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.
It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.
It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.
Right, but it does require standing still and getting some decent rolls, which makes it less attractive in my eyes.
Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.
It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.
It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.
Right, but it does require standing still and getting some decent rolls, which makes it less attractive in my eyes.
Yeah, but how often do I really want to be moving my Heavy Weapon Squads?
It also doesn't help that the Relic of Lost Cadia bolstered them up so much early on(and was commonly used illegally on a Primaris Psyker in a Spearhead to boot), leading to the whole "Cadia's OP" view.
Speaking as a Cadian player, I consider the Cadian trait to be exactly what every <Regiment> equivalent trait should aspire to.
It has a fluffy element(the reroll 1s to hit when stationary) and a mechanic altering element(if you put the reroll 1s to hit Order on your infantry units, they get to reroll all to Hits instead) that synergizes with the faction specific Warlord Trait(On a 4+, issue the same Order to a second unit of the same type). Coupled with the Laurels of Command(On a 4+, issue a second Order to the same unit), you're potentially hitting 4 units at a time with two Orders each.
It can be very strong if done properly, and the Tank Commander being able to issue an Order and tag two LRBTs at a time with it is nothing to sneeze at.
Right, but it does require standing still and getting some decent rolls, which makes it less attractive in my eyes.
I feel like it's also apt to be looking at the comparison between Cadia and Black Templars/khorne daemons
Why is black templars the worst trait ever while Khorne Daemons is average/maybe even good?
Marine melee units are bad. Like, terrible horrible awful no-good bad. ESPECIALLY the deep striking marine melee units. Khorne melee units are decent, and the ones you can grant deep strike through a stratagem are pretty f-ing sexy glass cannons, capable of ripping through even the most indefensibly broken screen hordes. want to carve up a 60 guardsman screen without breaking a sweat? letterbomb is your CP-sink. So the reroll charge trait is pretty solid, because it can be applied to that one unit that likes to deep strike, where charge rerolls are super valuable.
Cadian trait is straight up a worse version of the Ork bad moonz trait and the Dark Angels trait. But guard units love to stand stationary and shoot.So they get a lot of mileage out of that. And it synergizes nicely with their orders, as Kanluwen pointed out.
I can agree about the issue with Melee Marines in the current meta. To get -decent- melee out of my Templars I'm running them as Veteran Intercessors just to get the 3 attacks each, and even then I'm backing them with Helbrecht for the re-rolls and the ability to buff Power Fists to S10.
The only reason cadian is taken is because of the reroll to hit order. The trait is freaking bad. Kinda like ultramarines - bad trait - reroll wounds is worth the loss of a good trait.
Cadian also has good character support and also the overall best stratagem in the codex. Possibly the best relic.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
Well, as you've already alluded to, there are many possible ways to nerf it.
But then, surely it doesn't even need to be a buff to invulnerable saves? I imagine +1T or such would keep it as the most durable subfaction, without making the units stupidly tough.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
Well, as you've already alluded to, there are many possible ways to nerf it.
But then, surely it doesn't even need to be a buff to invulnerable saves? I imagine +1T or such would keep it as the most durable subfaction, without making the units stupidly tough.
T8 is meaningless if its only backed up by a 3+... Case in point wraithlord. Back in the day when old AP was in place and you couldint hurt a T8 with a low str weapon that made sense.
Its not just the wraithlord. So many weapons have at least -1 ap its problem...
Just to throw it out there...Titanic units should be BS4/5 unles they are shooting at other titanic units imo.
I think there seem to be three disparate influences in how GW approaches subfactions: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.
And they seem to be in charge of separate codexes.
Spike codexes treat subfactions as a purely mechanical bonus you get for limiting yourself to just detachments of that codex, or of subgroups within that bonus. These traits are often (but not always) simple, but they're always just flatly better than not having the trait.
Spike seems to have been in charge of the mono-subfaction marine codexes, Custodes, Drukhari and Daemons.
Timmy is the fluffbeard subfaction creator. He gets a list of the different subfactions and their fluff, and assigns them subfaction traits that attempt to align with that fluff with no regard for the balance implications. Any units that are not "the guys" of the subfactions don't get traits, because they're not the guys and not as a balancing factor. Timmy designed Sisters, Marines, CSM, Eldar, GSC, Necrons, and Admech.
Johnny is the subfaction creator who treats the army as a baseline and attempts to use the subfaction traits to encourage players to make weird, creative builds out of their armies. Decisions to deny subfaction traits to particular units are fluff based, but also used as a balance factor - Johnny denies subfaction traits to Gretchin units and militarum tempestus/advisor units to differentiate them and to try and make sure they don't outshine what he sees as the "main choices". Johnny designed Orks, Guard, Harlequins, the new Renegade CSMs, and Tyranids.
Obviously I'm not saying 100% for certain these are three different guys who never work together, but I think you can easily see distinctions between the simple, blunt bonuses that are most of the subfactions in the Drukhari codex or the "congrats, you're playing Custodes" bonus, and the creative encouraging to go for different builds and playstyles in the Guard/Tau books.
What I am saying is we need to find Johnny, and get him to hire an entire creative team, as he may be the only glimmer of hope we have.
This is going to sound odd, but one of the things I'd most want to see in an FAQ is for Rangers to lose <Craftworld>, for the Timmy reasons the_scotsman just pointed out.
the_scotsman wrote: I think there seem to be three disparate influences in how GW approaches subfactions: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.
And they seem to be in charge of separate codexes.
Spike codexes treat subfactions as a purely mechanical bonus you get for limiting yourself to just detachments of that codex, or of subgroups within that bonus. These traits are often (but not always) simple, but they're always just flatly better than not having the trait.
Spike seems to have been in charge of the mono-subfaction marine codexes, Custodes, Drukhari and Daemons.
Timmy is the fluffbeard subfaction creator. He gets a list of the different subfactions and their fluff, and assigns them subfaction traits that attempt to align with that fluff with no regard for the balance implications. Any units that are not "the guys" of the subfactions don't get traits, because they're not the guys and not as a balancing factor. Timmy designed Sisters, Marines, CSM, Eldar, GSC, Necrons, and Admech.
Johnny is the subfaction creator who treats the army as a baseline and attempts to use the subfaction traits to encourage players to make weird, creative builds out of their armies. Decisions to deny subfaction traits to particular units are fluff based, but also used as a balance factor - Johnny denies subfaction traits to Gretchin units and militarum tempestus/advisor units to differentiate them and to try and make sure they don't outshine what he sees as the "main choices". Johnny designed Orks, Guard, Harlequins, the new Renegade CSMs, and Tyranids.
Obviously I'm not saying 100% for certain these are three different guys who never work together, but I think you can easily see distinctions between the simple, blunt bonuses that are most of the subfactions in the Drukhari codex or the "congrats, you're playing Custodes" bonus, and the creative encouraging to go for different builds and playstyles in the Guard/Tau books.
What I am saying is we need to find Johnny, and get him to hire an entire creative team, as he may be the only glimmer of hope we have.
The Drukharii bonuses are strong, but I don't think you could argue they ignore the flavour. They are almost all really well suited to the background of their factions. Poison Tongue and Flayed skull in particular are great flavour wise, but there aren't any that fail to encourage playing the builds the subfaction favours in the fluff.
the_scotsman wrote: I think there seem to be three disparate influences in how GW approaches subfactions: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.
And they seem to be in charge of separate codexes.
Spike codexes treat subfactions as a purely mechanical bonus you get for limiting yourself to just detachments of that codex, or of subgroups within that bonus. These traits are often (but not always) simple, but they're always just flatly better than not having the trait.
Spike seems to have been in charge of the mono-subfaction marine codexes, Custodes, Drukhari and Daemons.
Timmy is the fluffbeard subfaction creator. He gets a list of the different subfactions and their fluff, and assigns them subfaction traits that attempt to align with that fluff with no regard for the balance implications. Any units that are not "the guys" of the subfactions don't get traits, because they're not the guys and not as a balancing factor. Timmy designed Sisters, Marines, CSM, Eldar, GSC, Necrons, and Admech.
Johnny is the subfaction creator who treats the army as a baseline and attempts to use the subfaction traits to encourage players to make weird, creative builds out of their armies. Decisions to deny subfaction traits to particular units are fluff based, but also used as a balance factor - Johnny denies subfaction traits to Gretchin units and militarum tempestus/advisor units to differentiate them and to try and make sure they don't outshine what he sees as the "main choices". Johnny designed Orks, Guard, Harlequins, the new Renegade CSMs, and Tyranids.
Obviously I'm not saying 100% for certain these are three different guys who never work together, but I think you can easily see distinctions between the simple, blunt bonuses that are most of the subfactions in the Drukhari codex or the "congrats, you're playing Custodes" bonus, and the creative encouraging to go for different builds and playstyles in the Guard/Tau books.
What I am saying is we need to find Johnny, and get him to hire an entire creative team, as he may be the only glimmer of hope we have.
The Drukharii bonuses are strong, but I don't think you could argue they ignore the flavour. They are almost all really well suited to the background of their factions. Poison Tongue and Flayed skull in particular are great flavour wise, but there aren't any that fail to encourage playing the builds the subfaction favours in the fluff.
I guess? I can see that for the kabal traits, at least some of them are fairly involved, but the wych cult and coven traits are....pretty simplistic.
+1S
+1A
advance and charge.
The real substance to them is the fact that you have to severely limit your army options to get them, and besides that, they're just...real strong.
And also, like I said: I don't think these are necessarily literally just three dudes, qho go into rooms, never talk to each other, and come out with codexes. But you can see three different design styles.
One who comes up with different army styles, then assigns bonuses to encourage those styles, then assigns subfactions to those bonuses (inventing a few or resurrecting weird dead ones as needed)
One who comes up with strong bonuses to encourage limitations in your army structure
And one that starts with different subfactions and assigns bonuses to those subfactions, liberally making use of previous ideas that others have created because he knows they're likely to be uncontroversial.
It could be a dozen-man team, it could be two guys. It could be the work of one guy whose philosophy changed midway through and then the process got scrambled by when they wanted to release what. it could be one guy who designs one way on a time crunch and one way when he's got the luxury to think it all through.
There certainly seem to be trends with exceptions within codexes. The militarum tempestus bonus trait follows the Spike pattern in a largely Johnny-style codex. Some Timmy codexes (probably accidentally) encourage creative Johnny-style unique builds and change up optimal wargear and unit choices, like Salamanders in Space Marines.
Bharring wrote: This is going to sound odd, but one of the things I'd most want to see in an FAQ is for Rangers to lose <Craftworld>, for the Timmy reasons the_scotsman just pointed out.
And the funny part is that it really is more of a "Timmy" thing for Guard as well.
Scions, Ratlings, Ogryn of all flavors, Primaris Psykers, Wyrdvanes, Commissars of all flavors, the Ministorum and Mechanicus stuff? All of them don't get <Regiment> traits. That's why it was a Big Deal when GSC simply added the "Brood Brothers" keyword to anything that didn't already have <Regiment> to get it replaced.
On the other hand, Drukhari really fall under what he's calling "Johnny" because they literally did everything they could to encourage you to make some weird builds utilizing the whole Patrol Detachment benefits.
Bharring wrote: This is going to sound odd, but one of the things I'd most want to see in an FAQ is for Rangers to lose <Craftworld>, for the Timmy reasons the_scotsman just pointed out.
And the funny part is that it really is more of a "Timmy" thing for Guard as well.
Scions, Ratlings, Ogryn of all flavors, Primaris Psykers, Wyrdvanes, Commissars of all flavors, the Ministorum and Mechanicus stuff? All of them don't get <Regiment> traits. That's why it was a Big Deal when GSC simply added the "Brood Brothers" keyword to anything that didn't already have <Regiment> to get it replaced.
On the other hand, Drukhari really fall under what he's calling "Johnny" because they literally did everything they could to encourage you to make some weird builds utilizing the whole Patrol Detachment benefits.
yeah, I'd bet a shiny nickel the reason Ogryns didn't get regimental traits is simply because it's a way to get them to avoid having access to Orders - you know, so you don't have to balance your Fight Twice order both around 10 S3 AP- attacks and 47 S7 Ap-1 D2 attacks.
But that's the thing - you can point to most of those exclusions for gameplay reasons, and they DONT necessarily make perfect sense from a fluff perspective. It looks to me like whoever was designing the Astra militarum codex had to include all these wacky units that would break the systems he wanted to add in, and he was also worried about stuff like Militarum Tempestus becoming the default troop choice over guardsmen. <regiment> is used as a balancing tool first, and fluff justified later.
Same situation with Orks. How do you differentiate Killa Kanz and Deff Dreads, two units where historically the latter has always been overshadowed by the former? Well, one of them is an ork, the other is a gretchin, let's make the Ork get a clan bonus.
GSC codex vs Guard codex is a pretty perfect example of starting from fluff vs starting from gameplay. What actually happened when the carefully constructed "Who is <regiment>" got simply replaced with Brood brothers? You got Triple Action In One Turn crusader squads, and Fix Bayonets/Move Move Move bullgryns with the squad crammed into a Taurox prime because it has no rules for transporting Ogryn models.
I just assumed Spike, Timmy, and Johnny were conceptual extremes, and the implementation of each book fell somewhere on the triangle; so a book might be closest to one, but have aspects of the other two, too.
Xenomancers wrote: There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.
Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC Fearless
That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.
You're being disingenuous here.
1. You get reroll 1's with rapid fire weapons. There isn't a rapid fire weapon in the DE arsenal that isn't Splinter, which generally means S3-4, AP0, D1. Your average MSU infantry squad kills .6 more guardsmen a turn, woo.
2. Vehicles with fly either refers to...a T6 10 Wound tank with no RF weapons, or one of two T5 transports. We're not talking Wave Serpent levels of durability here. Once their ride has popped, what's inside is on their own. And I can say from experience, four Kabs (Cause one dies disembarking) all alone with no buffs and no trait aren't going to do much. It should also be mentioned that Dark Eldar have the two slowest skimmers out of all of the Eldar.
3. Flayed Skull has no support, period. There's a difference between a Catachan infantry squad that can get S4, +2 Attacks and the ability to perform double actions and a Kabalite squad that only gets buffs while they're isolated from even the possibility of support. Since the Archon has no mobility, it's not like he's going to be able to powerwalk the 17" minimum to give them buffs for at least a turn.
Yeah, Flayed Skull probably gets too much, but it's a trait that's limited to a small selection of units (Units/Transports with Fly), in an already small part of the Codex (Kabal).
Second. You've conveniently forgotten to mention that Power From Pain does not, in fact, give a 6++, reroll to Advance/Charge, +1 hit in combat, Leadership immunity, and -1Ld for enemy units first turn. It gives one of those buffs per turn as the game goes on! If we're talking Flayed Skull here, its pretty dang useless, actually.
FnP: You're in a transport, you're not taking damage. And if the transport pops, you get it, sure, but your traits are gone. That's not 4 traits at once, that's trading one for the other when gak hits the fan.
Re-roll charges: Kabalites aren't good melee combatants. Transports are what they rely on for mobility, and if they're charging you, you've probably already lost anyway.
+1 to hit: See above.
Morale Immunity: Wow, you mean that I pass morale tests automatically on Turn 4?? It's a nice buff, but its a turn too late as most of your force is probably already dead, or have taken their big morale test for the game.
Ld debuff: Meh.
DE are good, but you're not doing yourself any favors by leaving out key information like that.
Argive wrote: T8 is meaningless if its only backed up by a 3+... Case in point wraithlord. Back in the day when old AP was in place and you couldint hurt a T8 with a low str weapon that made sense.
Its not just the wraithlord. So many weapons have at least -1 ap its problem...
Just to throw it out there...Titanic units should be BS4/5 unles they are shooting at other titanic units imo.
T8 is big. St 7 wounds you on 5's and str 8 on 4's - that is going to be the majority of the the firepower in your opponents army. str 9-10 are more rare and are typically single shot weapons which are their own worst enemies really. Really +1 T trait would be fantastic in basically every army. It just goes to show you how bias people become in this game (not saying you are) - I'd take a +1T trait on my space marines in a flipping instant - but it's hard to get off that 4++ save crack.
Bharring wrote: Is that why Land Raiders have been so amazing all edition?
Or are things more nuanced than that?
Knights continue the most broken thing in the game by a significant margin. T8 is a big part of that. Making Knights T7 would be a first small step towards balance.
Bharring wrote: Is that why Land Raiders have been so amazing all edition?
Or are things more nuanced than that?
Knights continue the most broken thing in the game by a significant margin. T8 is a big part of that. Making Knights T7 would be a first small step towards balance.
No it wouldn't. There are plenty of str 9 and 10 high dmg weapons that are completely invalidated by the presence of a 3++. Fix that and Knights become a lot more tolerable. Also, dropping a Knight to T7 lets you do silly gak like wounding them on a 4+ with Deathwatch bolters.
Bharring wrote: Is that why Land Raiders have been so amazing all edition?
Or are things more nuanced than that?
Knights continue the most broken thing in the game by a significant margin. T8 is a big part of that. Making Knights T7 would be a first small step towards balance.
No it wouldn't. There are plenty of str 9 and 10 high dmg weapons that are completely invalidated by the presence of a 3++. Fix that and Knights become a lot more tolerable. Also, dropping a Knight to T7 lets you do silly gak like wounding them on a 4+ with Deathwatch bolters.
It also makes everything from a dreadnought to a knight T7, which, gameplay wise, is pretty derpy.
Xenomancers wrote: There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.
Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC Fearless
That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.
You're being disingenuous here.
1. You get reroll 1's with rapid fire weapons. There isn't a rapid fire weapon in the DE arsenal that isn't Splinter, which generally means S3-4, AP0, D1. Your average MSU infantry squad kills .6 more guardsmen a turn, woo.
2. Vehicles with fly either refers to...a T6 10 Wound tank with no RF weapons, or one of two T5 transports. We're not talking Wave Serpent levels of durability here. Once their ride has popped, what's inside is on their own. And I can say from experience, four Kabs (Cause one dies disembarking) all alone with no buffs and no trait aren't going to do much. It should also be mentioned that Dark Eldar have the two slowest skimmers out of all of the Eldar.
3. Flayed Skull has no support, period. There's a difference between a Catachan infantry squad that can get S4, +2 Attacks and the ability to perform double actions and a Kabalite squad that only gets buffs while they're isolated from even the possibility of support. Since the Archon has no mobility, it's not like he's going to be able to powerwalk the 17" minimum to give them buffs for at least a turn.
Yeah, Flayed Skull probably gets too much, but it's a trait that's limited to a small selection of units (Units/Transports with Fly), in an already small part of the Codex (Kabal).
Second. You've conveniently forgotten to mention that Power From Pain does not, in fact, give a 6++, reroll to Advance/Charge, +1 hit in combat, Leadership immunity, and -1Ld for enemy units first turn. It gives one of those buffs per turn as the game goes on! If we're talking Flayed Skull here, its pretty dang useless, actually.
FnP: You're in a transport, you're not taking damage. And if the transport pops, you get it, sure, but your traits are gone. That's not 4 traits at once, that's trading one for the other when gak hits the fan.
Re-roll charges: Kabalites aren't good melee combatants. Transports are what they rely on for mobility, and if they're charging you, you've probably already lost anyway.
+1 to hit: See above.
Morale Immunity: Wow, you mean that I pass morale tests automatically on Turn 4?? It's a nice buff, but its a turn too late as most of your force is probably already dead, or have taken their big morale test for the game.
Ld debuff: Meh.
DE are good, but you're not doing yourself any favors by leaving out key information like that.
The point here wasn't to wine about DE. The point is to expose the hypocrisy of balance. How are armies with only 1 bonus from their army trait (some version of it probably present in that huge list of bonuses) supposed to compete? They can't - it's readily apparent they can't.
Xenomancers wrote: There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.
Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC Fearless
That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.
You're being disingenuous here.
1. You get reroll 1's with rapid fire weapons. There isn't a rapid fire weapon in the DE arsenal that isn't Splinter, which generally means S3-4, AP0, D1. Your average MSU infantry squad kills .6 more guardsmen a turn, woo.
2. Vehicles with fly either refers to...a T6 10 Wound tank with no RF weapons, or one of two T5 transports. We're not talking Wave Serpent levels of durability here. Once their ride has popped, what's inside is on their own. And I can say from experience, four Kabs (Cause one dies disembarking) all alone with no buffs and no trait aren't going to do much. It should also be mentioned that Dark Eldar have the two slowest skimmers out of all of the Eldar.
3. Flayed Skull has no support, period. There's a difference between a Catachan infantry squad that can get S4, +2 Attacks and the ability to perform double actions and a Kabalite squad that only gets buffs while they're isolated from even the possibility of support. Since the Archon has no mobility, it's not like he's going to be able to powerwalk the 17" minimum to give them buffs for at least a turn.
Yeah, Flayed Skull probably gets too much, but it's a trait that's limited to a small selection of units (Units/Transports with Fly), in an already small part of the Codex (Kabal).
Second. You've conveniently forgotten to mention that Power From Pain does not, in fact, give a 6++, reroll to Advance/Charge, +1 hit in combat, Leadership immunity, and -1Ld for enemy units first turn. It gives one of those buffs per turn as the game goes on! If we're talking Flayed Skull here, its pretty dang useless, actually.
FnP: You're in a transport, you're not taking damage. And if the transport pops, you get it, sure, but your traits are gone. That's not 4 traits at once, that's trading one for the other when gak hits the fan.
Re-roll charges: Kabalites aren't good melee combatants. Transports are what they rely on for mobility, and if they're charging you, you've probably already lost anyway.
+1 to hit: See above.
Morale Immunity: Wow, you mean that I pass morale tests automatically on Turn 4?? It's a nice buff, but its a turn too late as most of your force is probably already dead, or have taken their big morale test for the game.
Ld debuff: Meh.
DE are good, but you're not doing yourself any favors by leaving out key information like that.
The point here wasn't to wine about DE. The point is to expose the hypocrisy of balance.
Which would you rather have:
4ppm GEQ -Army trait: -2 to be hit in all phases
8ppm GEQ -Army trait: reroll hits of 1 in CC -Army trait: +1 Ld -Army trait: Reroll charges
-Army trait: 6+ FnP
I'd much rather the first.
"Number of traits" might be a suggestive metric, but it's certainly not proof of imbalance.
How are armies with only 1 bonus from their army trait (some version of it probably present in that huge list of bonuses) supposed to compete? They can't - it's readily apparent they can't.
That's why I'm hoping they buff CWE in the FAQ, because obviously armies that only get 1 bonus from their traits are bad. Except for Iyanden and Saim-Hainn, because those traits are dominating.
yeah, I'd bet a shiny nickel the reason Ogryns didn't get regimental traits is simply because it's a way to get them to avoid having access to Orders - you know, so you don't have to balance your Fight Twice order both around 10 S3 AP- attacks and 47 S7 Ap-1 D2 attacks.
But that's the thing - you can point to most of those exclusions for gameplay reasons, and they DONT necessarily make perfect sense from a fluff perspective. It looks to me like whoever was designing the Astra militarum codex had to include all these wacky units that would break the systems he wanted to add in, and he was also worried about stuff like Militarum Tempestus becoming the default troop choice over guardsmen. <regiment> is used as a balancing tool first, and fluff justified later.
Fluffwise, the Ogryn and the like have always been auxiliary units. They're de facto part of the Regiment but not actually trained as part of it.
It's funny that you say this with regards to Scions though, given that last edition? The Guard book had the ability to field more Scions per slot than the actual Scions book did...and yet still it wasn't a problem.
Mostly it comes down to "Cruddace gonna Cruddace". He has some weird vision of Guard based upon the Redcoats era of warfare, where everyone is responsible for their own chain of command and interfighting is 100% all the time.
Same situation with Orks. How do you differentiate Killa Kanz and Deff Dreads, two units where historically the latter has always been overshadowed by the former? Well, one of them is an ork, the other is a gretchin, let's make the Ork get a clan bonus.
GSC codex vs Guard codex is a pretty perfect example of starting from fluff vs starting from gameplay. What actually happened when the carefully constructed "Who is <regiment>" got simply replaced with Brood brothers? You got Triple Action In One Turn crusader squads, and Fix Bayonets/Move Move Move bullgryns with the squad crammed into a Taurox prime because it has no rules for transporting Ogryn models.
Right, but most of the issue came not from the "Who is Regiment?"--it came from the "If the unit does not have the <Regiment> tag, simply add Brood Brothers to it".
Rather than let there be units that the GSC don't get access to, they wanted to make sure that you could get access to everything for whatever reason.
Bharring wrote: Is that why Land Raiders have been so amazing all edition?
Or are things more nuanced than that?
Hummm - LR are a lot better now but still pretty crappy after their point drop. They went down like 40 points when they needed to go down 100 points. Units overcosted by 100 points typically suck. See Wraithknight. See lots of stuff. I know my command tanks enjoy being T8. My stalkers too. Plus they don't even have invulnerable saves. A talos does. It would be an excellent trait for a talos.
Mostly it comes down to "Cruddace gonna Cruddace". He has some weird vision of Guard based upon the Redcoats era of warfare, where everyone is responsible for their own chain of command and interfighting is 100% all the time.
That's hardly unique to the Redcoats.
Look at the bruhaha over the F35 replacing the Warthog.
Even in the ancient past - Alexander fought with the cavalry on the right flank - one of his inlaws actually commanded the cavalry on the left flank - and each had different jobs. (Don't know offhand who commanded the phalanx itself.)
Xenomancers wrote: There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.
Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC Fearless
That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.
You're being disingenuous here.
1. You get reroll 1's with rapid fire weapons. There isn't a rapid fire weapon in the DE arsenal that isn't Splinter, which generally means S3-4, AP0, D1. Your average MSU infantry squad kills .6 more guardsmen a turn, woo.
2. Vehicles with fly either refers to...a T6 10 Wound tank with no RF weapons, or one of two T5 transports. We're not talking Wave Serpent levels of durability here. Once their ride has popped, what's inside is on their own. And I can say from experience, four Kabs (Cause one dies disembarking) all alone with no buffs and no trait aren't going to do much. It should also be mentioned that Dark Eldar have the two slowest skimmers out of all of the Eldar.
3. Flayed Skull has no support, period. There's a difference between a Catachan infantry squad that can get S4, +2 Attacks and the ability to perform double actions and a Kabalite squad that only gets buffs while they're isolated from even the possibility of support. Since the Archon has no mobility, it's not like he's going to be able to powerwalk the 17" minimum to give them buffs for at least a turn.
Yeah, Flayed Skull probably gets too much, but it's a trait that's limited to a small selection of units (Units/Transports with Fly), in an already small part of the Codex (Kabal).
Second. You've conveniently forgotten to mention that Power From Pain does not, in fact, give a 6++, reroll to Advance/Charge, +1 hit in combat, Leadership immunity, and -1Ld for enemy units first turn. It gives one of those buffs per turn as the game goes on! If we're talking Flayed Skull here, its pretty dang useless, actually.
FnP: You're in a transport, you're not taking damage. And if the transport pops, you get it, sure, but your traits are gone. That's not 4 traits at once, that's trading one for the other when gak hits the fan.
Re-roll charges: Kabalites aren't good melee combatants. Transports are what they rely on for mobility, and if they're charging you, you've probably already lost anyway.
+1 to hit: See above.
Morale Immunity: Wow, you mean that I pass morale tests automatically on Turn 4?? It's a nice buff, but its a turn too late as most of your force is probably already dead, or have taken their big morale test for the game.
Ld debuff: Meh.
DE are good, but you're not doing yourself any favors by leaving out key information like that.
The point here wasn't to wine about DE. The point is to expose the hypocrisy of balance.
Which would you rather have:
4ppm GEQ -Army trait: -2 to be hit in all phases
8ppm GEQ -Army trait: reroll hits of 1 in CC -Army trait: +1 Ld -Army trait: Reroll charges
-Army trait: 6+ FnP
I'd much rather the first.
"Number of traits" might be a suggestive metric, but it's certainly not proof of imbalance.
How are armies with only 1 bonus from their army trait (some version of it probably present in that huge list of bonuses) supposed to compete? They can't - it's readily apparent they can't.
That's why I'm hoping they buff CWE in the FAQ, because obviously armies that only get 1 bonus from their traits are bad. Except for Iyanden and Saim-Hainn, because those traits are dominating.
These are made up abilities. There is no trait that is -2 to be hit in all phases. There are lots of traits that are 6+ FNP and reroll charges though - DE get those as side perks to their army trait which also includes a few more army traits from other codex...Do you dispute this? Plus I am not disagreeing with you that -1 to hit trait is OP. It is. No one has complained about it as much as me on this board. I called it out since the beginning. Said it would ruin the game. It pretty much did. Plus I am not picking at CWE. CWE that isn't aloitoc is or ynnari is pretty garbage right now.
I'd like to Iyandeen get 6+ FNP and retain their leadership ability. Give Ulthwe +1 to cast powers and ignore smite penalty.
Mostly it comes down to "Cruddace gonna Cruddace". He has some weird vision of Guard based upon the Redcoats era of warfare, where everyone is responsible for their own chain of command and interfighting is 100% all the time.
That's hardly unique to the Redcoats.
Look at the bruhaha over the F35 replacing the Warthog.
Even in the ancient past - Alexander fought with the cavalry on the right flank - one of his inlaws actually commanded the cavalry on the left flank - and each had different jobs. (Don't know offhand who commanded the phalanx itself.)
By "Redcoats era of warfare", I'm referring to the idea of Sergeants/Commanders only shouting and waving swords/pistols for the most part.
By "Redcoats era of warfare", I'm referring to the idea of Sergeants/Commanders only shouting and waving swords/pistols for the most part.
If shouting and waving swords made solders run faster than most supersonic planes, covering more distance than than effective combat range of a sci-fi assault rifle in the period of time a genetically engineered super-soldier can do a double-tap, modern officers would do it too
By "Redcoats era of warfare", I'm referring to the idea of Sergeants/Commanders only shouting and waving swords/pistols for the most part.
If shouting and waving swords made solders run faster than most supersonic planes, covering more distance than than effective combat range of a sci-fi assault rifle in the period of time a genetically engineered super-soldier can do a double-tap, modern officers would do it too
Yeah....I love how the assault threat range is higher than most range weapons shoot right now.
Xenomancers wrote: There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.
Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC Fearless
That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.
You're being disingenuous here.
1. You get reroll 1's with rapid fire weapons. There isn't a rapid fire weapon in the DE arsenal that isn't Splinter, which generally means S3-4, AP0, D1. Your average MSU infantry squad kills .6 more guardsmen a turn, woo.
2. Vehicles with fly either refers to...a T6 10 Wound tank with no RF weapons, or one of two T5 transports. We're not talking Wave Serpent levels of durability here. Once their ride has popped, what's inside is on their own. And I can say from experience, four Kabs (Cause one dies disembarking) all alone with no buffs and no trait aren't going to do much. It should also be mentioned that Dark Eldar have the two slowest skimmers out of all of the Eldar.
3. Flayed Skull has no support, period. There's a difference between a Catachan infantry squad that can get S4, +2 Attacks and the ability to perform double actions and a Kabalite squad that only gets buffs while they're isolated from even the possibility of support. Since the Archon has no mobility, it's not like he's going to be able to powerwalk the 17" minimum to give them buffs for at least a turn.
Yeah, Flayed Skull probably gets too much, but it's a trait that's limited to a small selection of units (Units/Transports with Fly), in an already small part of the Codex (Kabal).
Second. You've conveniently forgotten to mention that Power From Pain does not, in fact, give a 6++, reroll to Advance/Charge, +1 hit in combat, Leadership immunity, and -1Ld for enemy units first turn. It gives one of those buffs per turn as the game goes on! If we're talking Flayed Skull here, its pretty dang useless, actually.
FnP: You're in a transport, you're not taking damage. And if the transport pops, you get it, sure, but your traits are gone. That's not 4 traits at once, that's trading one for the other when gak hits the fan.
Re-roll charges: Kabalites aren't good melee combatants. Transports are what they rely on for mobility, and if they're charging you, you've probably already lost anyway.
+1 to hit: See above.
Morale Immunity: Wow, you mean that I pass morale tests automatically on Turn 4?? It's a nice buff, but its a turn too late as most of your force is probably already dead, or have taken their big morale test for the game.
Ld debuff: Meh.
DE are good, but you're not doing yourself any favors by leaving out key information like that.
The point here wasn't to wine about DE. The point is to expose the hypocrisy of balance.
Which would you rather have:
4ppm GEQ -Army trait: -2 to be hit in all phases
8ppm GEQ -Army trait: reroll hits of 1 in CC -Army trait: +1 Ld -Army trait: Reroll charges
-Army trait: 6+ FnP
I'd much rather the first.
"Number of traits" might be a suggestive metric, but it's certainly not proof of imbalance.
How are armies with only 1 bonus from their army trait (some version of it probably present in that huge list of bonuses) supposed to compete? They can't - it's readily apparent they can't.
That's why I'm hoping they buff CWE in the FAQ, because obviously armies that only get 1 bonus from their traits are bad. Except for Iyanden and Saim-Hainn, because those traits are dominating.
These are made up abilities. There is no trait that is -2 to be hit in all phases.
All abilities in this game are made up. But yes, that one isn't one that exists. However, replace it with Raven Guard's trait, and I'd still take the first option easily.
There are lots of traits that are 6+ FNP and reroll charges though - DE get those as side perks
Marine Sallies get:
-Reroll 1s to hit
-Reroll 1s to wound
-Reroll failed Ld tests
-+1Ld
But if I write it out that way, most people feel the need to point out "But only situationally!" or "With large caveats!"
It's technically true that Sallies get 4 Traits, too - but like the DE example, neither is practically true.
DE get those as side perks *later in the game*. And as was pointed out, they can't gain both the reroll-1s and 6+FnP at the same time, for instance.
[...] to their army trait which also includes a few more army traits from other codex...Do you dispute this?
Hell yes. What other army has "Can reroll charges, but only really late in the game" as their Faction and Subfaction trait? None.
Plus I am not disagreeing with you that -1 to hit trait is OP. It is. No one has complained about it as much as me on this board. I called it out since the beginning. Said it would ruin the game. It pretty much did. Plus I am not picking at CWE. CWE that isn't aloitoc is or ynnari is pretty garbage right now.
We're going to have to disagree on that. Uthwe, and possibly Biel-Tan are at the very least decent. They're only "garbage" if the majority of the game is "garbage". And, relevant to the post: Alaitoc only gives *one* trait, whereas the worst two - Iyanden and Saim-Hann - give two.
Xenomancers wrote: There a lot more examples of traits that are too good compared to others.
Lets just get into the real bizarre though. DE flayed skull.
If you are in a transport or have fly keyword....
you get - ignore cover - reroll 1's (even if you moved) and +3 movement (any one of those is good enough to be it's own trait) So basically 3 army traits.
Plus you also have power from pain. Which grants -
6+ FNP Reroll charges
hit on 2's in CC Fearless
That is basically 4 more army traits...And you wonder why DE do so well. Certainly they must pay more points for all these abilities right? Nope - undercosted almost across the board.
You're being disingenuous here.
1. You get reroll 1's with rapid fire weapons. There isn't a rapid fire weapon in the DE arsenal that isn't Splinter, which generally means S3-4, AP0, D1. Your average MSU infantry squad kills .6 more guardsmen a turn, woo.
2. Vehicles with fly either refers to...a T6 10 Wound tank with no RF weapons, or one of two T5 transports. We're not talking Wave Serpent levels of durability here. Once their ride has popped, what's inside is on their own. And I can say from experience, four Kabs (Cause one dies disembarking) all alone with no buffs and no trait aren't going to do much. It should also be mentioned that Dark Eldar have the two slowest skimmers out of all of the Eldar.
3. Flayed Skull has no support, period. There's a difference between a Catachan infantry squad that can get S4, +2 Attacks and the ability to perform double actions and a Kabalite squad that only gets buffs while they're isolated from even the possibility of support. Since the Archon has no mobility, it's not like he's going to be able to powerwalk the 17" minimum to give them buffs for at least a turn.
Yeah, Flayed Skull probably gets too much, but it's a trait that's limited to a small selection of units (Units/Transports with Fly), in an already small part of the Codex (Kabal).
Second. You've conveniently forgotten to mention that Power From Pain does not, in fact, give a 6++, reroll to Advance/Charge, +1 hit in combat, Leadership immunity, and -1Ld for enemy units first turn. It gives one of those buffs per turn as the game goes on! If we're talking Flayed Skull here, its pretty dang useless, actually.
FnP: You're in a transport, you're not taking damage. And if the transport pops, you get it, sure, but your traits are gone. That's not 4 traits at once, that's trading one for the other when gak hits the fan.
Re-roll charges: Kabalites aren't good melee combatants. Transports are what they rely on for mobility, and if they're charging you, you've probably already lost anyway.
+1 to hit: See above.
Morale Immunity: Wow, you mean that I pass morale tests automatically on Turn 4?? It's a nice buff, but its a turn too late as most of your force is probably already dead, or have taken their big morale test for the game.
Ld debuff: Meh.
DE are good, but you're not doing yourself any favors by leaving out key information like that.
The point here wasn't to wine about DE. The point is to expose the hypocrisy of balance.
Which would you rather have:
4ppm GEQ -Army trait: -2 to be hit in all phases
8ppm GEQ -Army trait: reroll hits of 1 in CC -Army trait: +1 Ld -Army trait: Reroll charges
-Army trait: 6+ FnP
I'd much rather the first.
"Number of traits" might be a suggestive metric, but it's certainly not proof of imbalance.
How are armies with only 1 bonus from their army trait (some version of it probably present in that huge list of bonuses) supposed to compete? They can't - it's readily apparent they can't.
That's why I'm hoping they buff CWE in the FAQ, because obviously armies that only get 1 bonus from their traits are bad. Except for Iyanden and Saim-Hainn, because those traits are dominating.
These are made up abilities. There is no trait that is -2 to be hit in all phases. There are lots of traits that are 6+ FNP and reroll charges though - DE get those as side perks to their army trait which also includes a few more army traits from other codex...Do you dispute this? Plus I am not disagreeing with you that -1 to hit trait is OP. It is. No one has complained about it as much as me on this board. I called it out since the beginning. Said it would ruin the game. It pretty much did. Plus I am not picking at CWE. CWE that isn't aloitoc is or ynnari is pretty garbage right now.
I'd like to Iyandeen get 6+ FNP and retain their leadership ability. Give Ulthwe +1 to cast powers and ignore smite penalty.
By your logic, how is a Deffskullz ork army not the single most broken thing in the entire universe?
6++
Reroll 1 dice to hit, and wound, and to deal damage, every unit, twice per turn.
Reroll 1 or both dice to charge.
Obsec on all infantry.
Mob rule for morale.
FIVE things that in another army could be conceived as as an army trait! FIVE! And you get your pick of 95% of the units in the codex to get that, compared to Flayed Skull kabalites, which have...let's see.... a grand total of seven, I think, different units that can possibly get their trait?
Hmmm...strange, though, they don't seem like they're the most OP army in the game. They seem like we've seen one single list using that trait. And, weird, but the flayed skull trait also seems like a pretty rare thing to see in competitive lists, it's not unheard of but it's certainly not the go-to for eldar soup.
It's almost like judging how OP something is by the NUMBER of different special rules that apply to their army is...kind of a silly thing to base an assumption of balance on.
Drukhari get two of those special rules on turn 4 and turn 5. What competitive game of 40k has actually gone to that turn in 8th edition? Also, morale immunity on an MSU faction, and reroll charges - we were just talking about how kickass reroll charges is on space marines.
pretty much every army gets some kind of special rule that applies at the army level or most of the army level that's printed at the beginning of the book. Trying to figure out who's OP using that metric is like trying to determine who's op using your own local meta rather than basing that opinion on actual data oh wait...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh my god I just realized harlequins from the soaring spite have
advance and fire assault weapons with no penalty
advance and charge
fall back and charge
fall back and shoot
army-wide Fly (or Fly equivalent)
models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Models embarked on models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Oh my gooooooooood look at all those rules Harlequins must be winning all the tournaments, nobody can compete!
RogueApiary wrote: Also, dropping a Knight to T7 lets you do silly gak like wounding them on a 4+ with Deathwatch bolters.
But Chaos or Tau wounding on 4s is totally fine tho, right?
Tau weapons are S5. One of the key benefits of S5 is wounding T8 on a 5+ starting, so yes? Also, the Tau basic guns aren't AP-1/-2 like the DW ones are. Chaos bolters still wound on 5's even with VotLW, so not sure where you were going with that unless you mean Havocs,
Also, I play DW so I'm actually arguing against something that would buff the hell out of my most played army.
Point is, making Knights vulnerable to small arms to 'fix' them is stupid from a game design point of view and a lore one. The 3++ currently completely shuts out all high str, high AP, high dmg guns in the game, and lowering the Knight's toughness does nothing to address that because they'll still all wound on 3's. Meanwhile, basic infantry guns already have tons of viable targets (just about any screening unit in the game), so it's not like they need to add Knights to their target list. It's far better to allow the AT weapons to actually do their job against Knights than give the anti infantry weapons more targets to shoot at. Lorewise, I don't think it's necessary to explain why lowering the toughness of a Knight makes no sense.
By your logic, how is a Deffskullz ork army not the single most broken thing in the entire universe?
6++
Reroll 1 dice to hit, and wound, and to deal damage, every unit, twice per turn.
Reroll 1 or both dice to charge.
Obsec on all infantry.
Mob rule for morale.
FIVE things that in another army could be conceived as as an army trait! FIVE! And you get your pick of 95% of the units in the codex to get that, compared to Flayed Skull kabalites, which have...let's see.... a grand total of seven, I think, different units that can possibly get their trait?
Hmmm...strange, though, they don't seem like they're the most OP army in the game. They seem like we've seen one single list using that trait. And, weird, but the flayed skull trait also seems like a pretty rare thing to see in competitive lists, it's not unheard of but it's certainly not the go-to for eldar soup.
It's almost like judging how OP something is by the NUMBER of different special rules that apply to their army is...kind of a silly thing to base an assumption of balance on.
Drukhari get two of those special rules on turn 4 and turn 5. What competitive game of 40k has actually gone to that turn in 8th edition? Also, morale immunity on an MSU faction, and reroll charges - we were just talking about how kickass reroll charges is on space marines.
pretty much every army gets some kind of special rule that applies at the army level or most of the army level that's printed at the beginning of the book. Trying to figure out who's OP using that metric is like trying to determine who's op using your own local meta rather than basing that opinion on actual data oh wait...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh my god I just realized harlequins from the soaring spite have
advance and fire assault weapons with no penalty
advance and charge
fall back and charge
fall back and shoot
army-wide Fly (or Fly equivalent)
models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Models embarked on models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Oh my gooooooooood look at all those rules Harlequins must be winning all the tournaments, nobody can compete!
I'm not quite following the arguments for this, but I feel like something needs pointing out.
Deffskullz trait is really, really good. Any army would kill to have it. Marines would be broken good with it.
The reason it isn't broken with Orks is because 5s to hit happens half as often and melee is harder to do than ranged.
Harlequins aren't flipping around with pistols, because knights are more threatening right now and carrying haywire is way easier to get in range and make an impact with doom than those pistols will be (not to mention the fly nerf).
Martel732 wrote: IKs are the worst offender, but the game has way too many invulns. AP past -2 is basically crap, and expensive at that.
how does this jive with Every Gun is a Plasma Gun, Multiple Wounds Don't Matter, Power Armor Is Made of Paper?
You don't need plasma guns to embarrass marines. A simple -1 with a bucket of dice will do. That's how it jives. You need plasma guns to overkill marines, which isn't necessary, and arguably a poor choice given threats like Alaitoc flyers.
Power armor is paper because of the cost to put it on the field. Dealing with sisters is way more soulcrushing than marines, generally speaking.
As for multiple wounds, most lists get around them pretty easily. Lootas, dissy cannons, the utter nonsense that goes on plague bearers. Even marines are pretty damn good at killing 2w marines.
Tau weapons are S5. One of the key benefits of S5 is wounding T8 on a 5+ starting, so yes? Also, the Tau basic guns aren't AP-1/-2 like the DW ones are. Chaos bolters still wound on 5's even with VotLW, so not sure where you were going with that unless you mean Havocs,
Not against a T7 target.
If you're gonna crap on Deathwatch getting a +1 to wound against a theoretical T7 superheavy, evaluate the similar things other armies get in the same context, not what they presently do against T8.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RogueApiary wrote: [Lorewise, I don't think it's necessary to explain why lowering the toughness of a Knight makes no sense.
By your logic, how is a Deffskullz ork army not the single most broken thing in the entire universe?
6++
Reroll 1 dice to hit, and wound, and to deal damage, every unit, twice per turn.
Reroll 1 or both dice to charge.
Obsec on all infantry.
Mob rule for morale.
FIVE things that in another army could be conceived as as an army trait! FIVE! And you get your pick of 95% of the units in the codex to get that, compared to Flayed Skull kabalites, which have...let's see.... a grand total of seven, I think, different units that can possibly get their trait?
Hmmm...strange, though, they don't seem like they're the most OP army in the game. They seem like we've seen one single list using that trait. And, weird, but the flayed skull trait also seems like a pretty rare thing to see in competitive lists, it's not unheard of but it's certainly not the go-to for eldar soup.
It's almost like judging how OP something is by the NUMBER of different special rules that apply to their army is...kind of a silly thing to base an assumption of balance on.
Drukhari get two of those special rules on turn 4 and turn 5. What competitive game of 40k has actually gone to that turn in 8th edition? Also, morale immunity on an MSU faction, and reroll charges - we were just talking about how kickass reroll charges is on space marines.
pretty much every army gets some kind of special rule that applies at the army level or most of the army level that's printed at the beginning of the book. Trying to figure out who's OP using that metric is like trying to determine who's op using your own local meta rather than basing that opinion on actual data oh wait...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh my god I just realized harlequins from the soaring spite have
advance and fire assault weapons with no penalty
advance and charge
fall back and charge
fall back and shoot
army-wide Fly (or Fly equivalent)
models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Models embarked on models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Oh my gooooooooood look at all those rules Harlequins must be winning all the tournaments, nobody can compete!
I'm not quite following the arguments for this, but I feel like something needs pointing out.
Deffskullz trait is really, really good. Any army would kill to have it. Marines would be broken good with it.
The reason it isn't broken with Orks is because 5s to hit happens half as often and melee is harder to do than ranged.
Harlequins aren't flipping around with pistols, because knights are more threatening right now and carrying haywire is way easier to get in range and make an impact with doom than those pistols will be (not to mention the fly nerf).
I'm gonna press X to doubt on that one ghost rider.
Marines almost have the Deffskullz trait, at least the most impactful part of it, in the Salamanders trait. They lack the 6++, the reroll to damage, and the army wide obsec...but that wouldn't make marines OP.
The logic of this was, it's freakin' dumb to judge which armies are OP based on the "number of special rules they get" especially when you ignore the details of Power From Pain - the fact that the buffs only turn on from a certain turn. results 4 and 5 on the table are both not really impactful at all...and rarely actually happen in game because you have to get to turn 4. Even if we take as a given that Drukhari get reroll failed charges and 6++ FNP, and then turn 3 get +1WS, they're competing with:
Marines: Army wide reroll failed morale, basic guns work out to full range if you didn't move or are certain unit types, squads can split into two when you deploy them.
Tau: Everyone within 6" gets to overwatch when a charge is declared against you, rolls of 6 for morale (the worst result) auto-pass, a ubiquitous unit type can take wounds for your models on a 2+, and a stacking set of special rules many of which are army subfaction rules (markerlights)
Orks: Reroll 1 or both charge dice, starting from turn 1. Optionally treat your unit size as your LD value, or the unit size of any unit within 6" of you.
Admech: 6 different army-wide buffs you get to choose every turn
Necrons: Res protocols and quantum shielding
Honestly the three armies with the worst army-wide special rules are Guard, CWE and Imperial Knights...so what does this say about how good "army wide special rules" is at determining how OP a faction is?
Martel732 wrote: IKs are the worst offender, but the game has way too many invulns. AP past -2 is basically crap, and expensive at that.
how does this jive with Every Gun is a Plasma Gun, Multiple Wounds Don't Matter, Power Armor Is Made of Paper?
You don't need plasma guns to embarrass marines. A simple -1 with a bucket of dice will do. That's how it jives. You need plasma guns to overkill marines, which isn't necessary, and arguably a poor choice given threats like Alaitoc flyers.
Power armor is paper because of the cost to put it on the field. Dealing with sisters is way more soulcrushing than marines, generally speaking.
And to add onto this, the REAL reason Plasma is so prevalent is the Damage 2 and 2 shots in RF range, not the AP-3 (although that helps). Unlike so many weapons that are DESIGNED to kill big targets, Plasma is an all-around reliable choice over, say, a Meltagun that has only 1 shot, AP-4 that is wasted on models with 5++ or 4++, and a woefully unreliable d6 Damage. All for several points MORE than a Plasma gun for....reasons
By your logic, how is a Deffskullz ork army not the single most broken thing in the entire universe?
6++
Reroll 1 dice to hit, and wound, and to deal damage, every unit, twice per turn.
Reroll 1 or both dice to charge.
Obsec on all infantry.
Mob rule for morale.
FIVE things that in another army could be conceived as as an army trait! FIVE! And you get your pick of 95% of the units in the codex to get that, compared to Flayed Skull kabalites, which have...let's see.... a grand total of seven, I think, different units that can possibly get their trait?
Hmmm...strange, though, they don't seem like they're the most OP army in the game. They seem like we've seen one single list using that trait. And, weird, but the flayed skull trait also seems like a pretty rare thing to see in competitive lists, it's not unheard of but it's certainly not the go-to for eldar soup.
It's almost like judging how OP something is by the NUMBER of different special rules that apply to their army is...kind of a silly thing to base an assumption of balance on.
Drukhari get two of those special rules on turn 4 and turn 5. What competitive game of 40k has actually gone to that turn in 8th edition? Also, morale immunity on an MSU faction, and reroll charges - we were just talking about how kickass reroll charges is on space marines.
pretty much every army gets some kind of special rule that applies at the army level or most of the army level that's printed at the beginning of the book. Trying to figure out who's OP using that metric is like trying to determine who's op using your own local meta rather than basing that opinion on actual data oh wait...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh my god I just realized harlequins from the soaring spite have
advance and fire assault weapons with no penalty
advance and charge
fall back and charge
fall back and shoot
army-wide Fly (or Fly equivalent)
models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Models embarked on models that Fly treat their pistols as assault weapons
Oh my gooooooooood look at all those rules Harlequins must be winning all the tournaments, nobody can compete!
I'm not quite following the arguments for this, but I feel like something needs pointing out.
Deffskullz trait is really, really good. Any army would kill to have it. Marines would be broken good with it.
The reason it isn't broken with Orks is because 5s to hit happens half as often and melee is harder to do than ranged.
Harlequins aren't flipping around with pistols, because knights are more threatening right now and carrying haywire is way easier to get in range and make an impact with doom than those pistols will be (not to mention the fly nerf).
And to add Harlequins are also 20pts for a FP and no melee weapon each model with a 6" range 1 wound T3, no -1 to hit. Skyweavers are 45pts for 3 wounds -1 to hit, 4+/4++ (so caver works) 24" and can move 22". Troupes are just trash and a Starweaver doesnt make them better, just more costly for what a bike does but better.
Troupes are trash, for shooting CWE does it better, for melee DE does it better, for both take Bikes (Skyweavers and Shining Spears) there isnt a good reason to take troupes at all. EDIT: Wyches are everything Troupes are but better, double the wounds for 33% more damage at the same cost, yeah they dont have 4++, but a 6+/6++/6+++ but they have double the wounds and still a 4++ in melee, can ignore moral (only 1 flees), over all for 100pts 10 girls with better melee options (more damage) and a FnP is better than 5 Troupes with less damage and a 4++ that can move slightly faster but not fast enough to get enough into melee turn 1, you always are in mele turn 2 where run and charge isnt needed on foot models.
Tau weapons are S5. One of the key benefits of S5 is wounding T8 on a 5+ starting, so yes? Also, the Tau basic guns aren't AP-1/-2 like the DW ones are. Chaos bolters still wound on 5's even with VotLW, so not sure where you were going with that unless you mean Havocs,
Not against a T7 target.
If you're gonna crap on Deathwatch getting a +1 to wound against a theoretical T7 superheavy, evaluate the similar things other armies get in the same context, not what they presently do against T8.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RogueApiary wrote: [Lorewise, I don't think it's necessary to explain why lowering the toughness of a Knight makes no sense.
Fluff is a gak balancing tool.
I didn't say it was a good one? I said opening up Knights to small arms counter makes no sense from either gameplay OR fluff, and is therefore completely indefensible. Maybe finish mastering reading comprehension before dabbling in game design?
Hard agree that troupes are trash at melee if you give them the swirds, but comparing 10 naked wych es to 5 troupes with fusions is a little bit goofy. That's like saying assault marines are way better than vanvets because vanvets are super inefficient in melee when you give them all inferno pistols and chainswords.
Like....yeah bro you're paying for the fusion pistols...
They always have a 6++ the wych suit is 6+/6++ then Dodge in melee for a 4++
But if you want shooting S8, just take Firedragons, they do it for better and same points, with a 12" rang e over 6" they can DS and shoot instead of spending points on a starweaver, they still can Run and shoot like normal or go Ynnari and shoot twice, they also re-roll hits of 1.
Amishprn86 wrote: They always have a 6++ the wych suit is 6+/6++ then Dodge in melee for a 4++
But if you want shooting S8, just take Firedragons, they do it for better and same points, with a 12" rang e over 6" they can DS and shoot instead of spending points on a starweaver, they still can Run and shoot like normal or go Ynnari and shoot twice, they also re-roll hits of 1.
Or just take Skyweavers for anti-tank
Damn! I've played wych es with just their armor save all god damn edition!
Seems like taking a melee oriented unit, gearing them to shoot tanks, snd expecting them to kill infantry like a unit that only kills infantry or shoot tanks like a unit that only shoots tanks is a stupid idea.
Like, I hope my fusion troupe doesn't clear chaff like wyches do. I also hope it doesn't kill tanks like fire dragons do. Its a jack of all trades which means in soup hammer 40k yes you just take two specialist units from 2 different codexes instead.
I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.
They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.
Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
RogueApiary wrote: ...I didn't say it was a good one? I said opening up Knights to small arms counter makes no sense from either gameplay OR fluff, and is therefore completely indefensible. Maybe finish mastering reading comprehension before dabbling in game design?
This is a huge chunk of why Knights as a Codex are really screwey. If you allow T8 armies and then say "Oh, sorry, all the guns we require you to take as a tax for taking any larger weapons don't actually do anything in this matchup" then you have to make anti-tank weapons even more cost-effective than they are now to allow a "normal" all-comers list with a varied distribution of weapons to engage a varied distribution of targets to have a chance of playing against the Knights army, which makes non-Knight-tier armour further down the table into tissue-paper uselessness (the major reason the Repulsor is bad is that all-comers armies have to be prepared to engage a Knight, and an army that can engage a Knight can casually one-round a Repulsor with no difficulty), so instead they allow small arms to engage a Knight in a meaningful way.
If superheavies were restricted to Apocalypse games and/or allowed in normal games only as a 0-1 auxiliary in a 2,000pt army you could tone down the anti-armour weapons, things with intermediate toughness could exist, and you'd see a wider variety of army builds/models, but the fact that GW thinks 2,000pts of Knights should be a fair matchup against 2,000pts of anything else borks a lot of the basic math of the game.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
They've added some new secondaries lately to help with this. "Gangbusters" means units with multiple models that have 3+ wounds each (like Talos, Skyweavers, Bullgryns) give up 1 victory point for every 6 wounds inflicted. So a full Bullgryn star of 8 of them is worth a full 4 secondary points, same if someone tries to spam Skyweaver bikes. Talos are worth a secondary point for each kill, which makes them a lot less attractive now that they're actually worth points to the opponent. The "Engineers" secondary is pretty good as well, you can sit a unit of troops on an objective out of line of sight of most things, and just score +1 secondary point per turn with it.
So they're trying to add new secondaries to make it harder for armies to completely deny points.
Wait, so my 117 point unit of 9 Scarab Swarms is worth as much as a full Bullgyn unit that costs HOW much?
Burnage wrote: I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.
They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.
But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points
RogueApiary wrote: ...I didn't say it was a good one? I said opening up Knights to small arms counter makes no sense from either gameplay OR fluff, and is therefore completely indefensible. Maybe finish mastering reading comprehension before dabbling in game design?
This is a huge chunk of why Knights as a Codex are really screwey. If you allow T8 armies and then say "Oh, sorry, all the guns we require you to take as a tax for taking any larger weapons don't actually do anything in this matchup" then you have to make anti-tank weapons even more cost-effective than they are now to allow a "normal" all-comers list with a varied distribution of weapons to engage a varied distribution of targets to have a chance of playing against the Knights army, which makes non-Knight-tier armour further down the table into tissue-paper uselessness (the major reason the Repulsor is bad is that all-comers armies have to be prepared to engage a Knight, and an army that can engage a Knight can casually one-round a Repulsor with no difficulty), so instead they allow small arms to engage a Knight in a meaningful way.
If superheavies were restricted to Apocalypse games and/or allowed in normal games only as a 0-1 auxiliary in a 2,000pt army you could tone down the anti-armour weapons, things with intermediate toughness could exist, and you'd see a wider variety of army builds/models, but the fact that GW thinks 2,000pts of Knights should be a fair matchup against 2,000pts of anything else borks a lot of the basic math of the game.
Or just cap the invuln save, which is the thing holding back high str/high AP/high dmg from cost effectively doing their job. If you remember early 8th, Knights weren't dominant. It was when they got Ion Bulwark from the codex combined with RIS things where they started to dominate.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
They've added some new secondaries lately to help with this. "Gangbusters" means units with multiple models that have 3+ wounds each (like Talos, Skyweavers, Bullgryns) give up 1 victory point for every 6 wounds inflicted. So a full Bullgryn star of 8 of them is worth a full 4 secondary points, same if someone tries to spam Skyweaver bikes. Talos are worth a secondary point for each kill, which makes them a lot less attractive now that they're actually worth points to the opponent. The "Engineers" secondary is pretty good as well, you can sit a unit of troops on an objective out of line of sight of most things, and just score +1 secondary point per turn with it.
So they're trying to add new secondaries to make it harder for armies to completely deny points.
Wait, so my 117 point unit of 9 Scarab Swarms is worth as much as a full Bullgyn unit that costs HOW much?
No, the rule specifically excludes units with the SWARM keyword.
I rarely post, because most of the time all you dudes who get more table time than me can normally answer more accurately than I can, and typically more quickly.
But I will say, when I opened this topic (as I check Dakka about once a month if I'm lucky these days) I was kind of expecting to see some thoughts on how to make the game better.
I guess I was hopelessly optimistic. I did read through 39 pages of vitriol and anger.
I really like this game. I've played at least one game (and one was all it took for 6th and 7th edition for me) of every edition since I started playing at the middle of 2nd edition just before dark millennium came out I think in '95. (yeah, I'm 40, I'm old) Sure, there are things I would like to see improved on, since I'm typically a mono-codex Iyanden, Grey Knight, and Blood Angels player, but I think it's getting to be in a better spot, and I think if there were a few things I would like to see change, I would like to see:
Stratagems and relics can only come from the faction your warlord is chosen from.
The amount of points allowed for allies or alternate detachments is no more than 33% of the total game points (I know, my mono-codex bias is showing just a bit here)
If I'm trying to be objective here, I think the Wave Serpent should go up in points just a bit, Ynnari needs some help getting toned down, they are pretty silly as is. -1 to hit stacking needs to be looked at too. As an Eldar player with 3 Hemlocks, it can be pretty backbreaking (and I'm not even playing the best flyers, I'm just playing what I like) and Eldari stratagems need to be looked at I think. some are just, in my opinion, just a bit too cheap.
I actually think that Tactical squads need to be about 10 or 11 points per model, with reductions in their transports and wargear, the same can be said for Intercessors, they need to come down too, and I think, even at their new cost, the repulsor might be just a tad too expensive, or it should be given a 5++ or something to stop it from just auto-dying to lascannons. Also, please, please let the Reavers take a decent melee weapon on their sergeant.
Grey Knights need to change a bit differently I feel. I feel like to make them stronger, just go through the Codex, and wherever the world *Daemon is found, replace it with *Enemy, and then correct for anything silly (like you couldn't have squads just running around auto causing 3 MW, so smite would have to change)
I would like to see missions where only troops selections can score objectives.
Just some observations from a "filthy casual". ps. going to my first ITC event (just showing up to play games honestly, I don't care about the tournament placing and such) any hints anyone wants to throw my way in a PM? (I don't want to take the subject too far OT)
Seabass wrote: I rarely post, because most of the time all you dudes who get more table time than me can normally answer more accurately than I can, and typically more quickly.
But I will say, when I opened this topic (as I check Dakka about once a month if I'm lucky these days) I was kind of expecting to see some thoughts on how to make the game better.
I guess I was hopelessly optimistic. I did read through 39 pages of vitriol and anger.
I really like this game. I've played at least one game (and one was all it took for 6th and 7th edition for me) of every edition since I started playing at the middle of 2nd edition just before dark millennium came out I think in '95. (yeah, I'm 40, I'm old) Sure, there are things I would like to see improved on, since I'm typically a mono-codex Iyanden, Grey Knight, and Blood Angels player, but I think it's getting to be in a better spot, and I think if there were a few things I would like to see change, I would like to see:
Stratagems and relics can only come from the faction your warlord is chosen from.
The amount of points allowed for allies or alternate detachments is no more than 33% of the total game points (I know, my mono-codex bias is showing just a bit here)
If I'm trying to be objective here, I think the Wave Serpent should go up in points just a bit, Ynnari needs some help getting toned down, they are pretty silly as is. -1 to hit stacking needs to be looked at too. As an Eldar player with 3 Hemlocks, it can be pretty backbreaking (and I'm not even playing the best flyers, I'm just playing what I like) and Eldari stratagems need to be looked at I think. some are just, in my opinion, just a bit too cheap.
I actually think that Tactical squads need to be about 10 or 11 points per model, with reductions in their transports and wargear, the same can be said for Intercessors, they need to come down too, and I think, even at their new cost, the repulsor might be just a tad too expensive, or it should be given a 5++ or something to stop it from just auto-dying to lascannons. Also, please, please let the Reavers take a decent melee weapon on their sergeant.
Grey Knights need to change a bit differently I feel. I feel like to make them stronger, just go through the Codex, and wherever the world *Daemon is found, replace it with *Enemy, and then correct for anything silly (like you couldn't have squads just running around auto causing 3 MW, so smite would have to change)
I would like to see missions where only troops selections can score objectives.
Just some observations from a "filthy casual". ps. going to my first ITC event (just showing up to play games honestly, I don't care about the tournament placing and such) any hints anyone wants to throw my way in a PM? (I don't want to take the subject too far OT)
Don't let the forum tone get to you. As far as I can tell many top tournament players also do not post regularly here. They're too busy rolling dice.
As for ITC - look at some common lists and determine how you would pick secondaries against those lists. It will save you a ton of time to be familiar with the thought process.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks don't have a lot of weapons on infantry that benefit from Deffskullz. To make the most efficient use they need to take dreads, 'nauts, nobs, and other vehicles. It is far "safer" to take a swarm of gretchin and not have to move your anti-tank or worry about direct counters.
It has nothing to do with Orks being bad or the trait not being good. It is simply tournament players choosing the best tool with the greatest room for mishap.
Grey Knights need to change a bit differently I feel. I feel like to make them stronger, just go through the Codex, and wherever the world *Daemon is found, replace it with *Enemy, and then correct for anything silly (like you couldn't have squads just running around auto causing 3 MW, so smite would have to change)
I would like to see missions where only troops selections can score objectives.
the thing about Grey Knight though is that they don't really have many anti demon special rules. They have the smite and the re-roll in melee. And I doubt people would be ok with GK re-rolling all dice vs everyone, as they don't want us to have normal smite either.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
They've added some new secondaries lately to help with this. "Gangbusters" means units with multiple models that have 3+ wounds each (like Talos, Skyweavers, Bullgryns) give up 1 victory point for every 6 wounds inflicted. So a full Bullgryn star of 8 of them is worth a full 4 secondary points, same if someone tries to spam Skyweaver bikes. Talos are worth a secondary point for each kill, which makes them a lot less attractive now that they're actually worth points to the opponent. The "Engineers" secondary is pretty good as well, you can sit a unit of troops on an objective out of line of sight of most things, and just score +1 secondary point per turn with it.
So they're trying to add new secondaries to make it harder for armies to completely deny points.
Wait, so my 117 point unit of 9 Scarab Swarms is worth as much as a full Bullgyn unit that costs HOW much?
Swarms are explicitly excluded from that secondary.
Burnage wrote: I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.
They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.
As someone who’s got both armies, I think wyches are objectively better at pretty much everything. The reason you give players Fusion pistols is because it gives them a role, i.e. anti-tank, especially in a Soaring Spite army (which is how I painted my army). Wyches can’t fill that role because you can get at most 1 blast pistol in the squad. If you give melee weapons to troupers as well as Fusion you are making 25ish point T3 4+ guys. At that level of investment, they just can’t compete efficiently against 8 point wyches. Even if you drop the Fusion, which I generally do when playing my quins, a squad of players with special weapons just can’t match the damage output of a 10 girl wych squad w/3 specials. Shardnet makes it even more lopsided since it keeps them in combat if they don’t kill their target, which is something quins just can’t do at all.
Look, I love Harlequins, and have 30+ players all painted up with freehand checks, but they are just not very good this edition. They were actually really good in 7th, too, so it’s kind of a shame.
Burnage wrote: I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.
They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.
But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points
This got me curious, so I ran the numbers. It's not as straightforward to answer as you might expect because Harlequins and Wychs have so many different bloody configurations, but I ran with approximately 100 points of each assuming a) no upgraded pistols on either squad, and b) no +1 to hit from Power from Pain. And assuming I haven't messed any math up somewhere, of course.
Against GEQ:
Spoiler:
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 15.70
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 15.70
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 15.36
Wyches + 2 A 14.67
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 12.33
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 1 S 11.85
Wyches + 2 S 11.85
Wyches + 1 A 11.78
Frozen Stars (Caress) 11.11
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 11.11
Wyches + three Hydra 9.31
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 9.26
Harlequins (Caress) 8.89
Harlequins (Embrace) 8.89
Frozen Stars (Blade) 8.89
Wyches 8.89
Harlequins (Kiss) 7.41
Harlequins (Blade) 7.11
Against MEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 7.41
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 6.94
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 6.67
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 6.37
Harlequins (Caress) 5.93
Wyches + 2 S 5.93
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 5.89
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 5.81
Harlequins (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 5.03
Wyches + 2 A 4.89
Wyches + 1 A + three Hydra 4.67
Wyches + 1 S 4.44
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.17
Wyches + 1 A 3.93
Wyches + three Hydra 3.52
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.33
Frozen Stars (Blade) 2.96
Wyches 2.96
Harlequins (Blade) 2.37
Against TEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 5.56
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 5.56
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.64
Wyches + 2 S + three SI 4.52
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three SI 4.50
Harlequins (Caress) 4.44
Harlequins (Embrace) 4.44
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 3.83
Wyches + 2A + three SI 3.74
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.71
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 3.63
Wyches + 1S + three SI 3.39
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 3.37
Wyches + 1A + three SI 3.00
Wyches + 2 S 2.96
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 2.94
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 2.89
Wyches + 2 A 2.44
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 2.33
Wyches + three SI 2.26
Wyches + 1 S 2.22
Wyches + three Hydra 2.04
Wyches + 1 A 1.96
Frozen Stars (Blade) 1.48
Wyches 1.48
Harlequins (Blade) 1.19
So basic Harlequins definitely kind of suck in all scenarios, and against GEQ Wychs are the clearly dominant option... but Players with Caresses or Embraces don't seem that bad relatively against MEQ or TEQ? With that said, I'm still hoping that they get buffed from the FAQ with at least a revert to the flip belt change.
Edit: Updated TEQ to fix an error and add in 3 Shardnet & Impalers as options.
Burnage wrote: I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.
They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.
But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points
This got me curious, so I ran the numbers. It's not as straightforward to answer as you might expect because Harlequins and Wychs have so many different bloody configurations, but I ran with approximately 100 points of each assuming a) no upgraded pistols on either squad, and b) no +1 to hit from Power from Pain. And assuming I haven't messed any math up somewhere, of course.
Against GEQ:
[spoiler]
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 15.70
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 15.70
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 15.36
Wyches + 2 A 14.67
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 12.33
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 1 S 11.85
Wyches + 2 S 11.85
Wyches + 1 A 11.78
Frozen Stars (Caress) 11.11
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 11.11
Wyches + three Hydra 9.31
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 9.26
Harlequins (Caress) 8.89
Harlequins (Embrace) 8.89
Frozen Stars (Blade) 8.89
Wyches 8.89
Harlequins (Kiss) 7.41
Harlequins (Blade) 7.11
Against MEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 7.41
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 6.94
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 6.67
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 6.37
Harlequins (Caress) 5.93
Wyches + 2 S 5.93
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 5.89
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 5.81
Harlequins (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 5.03
Wyches + 2 A 4.89
Wyches + 1 A + three Hydra 4.67
Wyches + 1 S 4.44
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.17
Wyches + 1 A 3.93
Wyches + three Hydra 3.52
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.33
Frozen Stars (Blade) 2.96
Wyches 2.96
Harlequins (Blade) 2.37
Against TEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 5.56
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 4.83
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.64
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 4.52
Harlequins (Caress) 4.44
Harlequins (Embrace) 4.44
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 4.30
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.71
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 3.64
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 3.44
Wyches + 2 S 2.96
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 2.94
Wyches + three Hydra 2.59
Wyches + 2 A 2.44
Wyches + 1 S 2.22
Wyches + 1 A 1.96
Frozen Stars (Blade) 1.48
Wyches 1.48
Harlequins (Blade) 1.19
So basic Harlequins definitely kind of suck in all scenarios, and against GEQ Wychs are the clearly dominant option... but Players with Caresses or Embraces don't seem that bad relatively against MEQ or TEQ? With that said, I'm still hoping that they get buffed from the FAQ with at least a revert to the flip belt change.
Thanks for running the math - that is obviously not a small task when considering all the different variations in potential loadouts for those squads! One other thing to keep in mind is that the Shardnet + Impaler loadout (which I consider to be pretty much mandatory to take at least one of in each squad) deals a flat 2 damage. That should actually help quite a bit when dealing with Primaris and TEQ type targets, which also typically have 2 wounds. Not sure exactly how easy it is to model that, but it's another small advantage to keep in mind when considering wyches over Harlequins.
When I have been running quins lately, it is typically either as an outrider with Shadowseer plus three units of haywire skyweavers alongside my DE or CWE, or a Patrol with a single unit of fusion quins in a Starweaver and a single large unit of skyweavers. I can kind of justify a single skyweaver full of players, especially as I tend to play more casually and thus can afford to waste about 100 points on a unit I like. Some opponents who are unfamiliar with the army still fall for the old Twilight Pathways double-move trick to get the Starweaver up field and blow up a vehicle on the first turn, too, so it can be a nice distraction carnifex that lets my fragile Kabal vehicles hang back unharmed, and Raiders full of Wyches move up unchalleged for a turn, while my opponent freaks out trying to blow up the Harlequins who just showed up in their lines on the first turn.
I agree that Harlequins need the old flip belt rules back, too. The "no fly in the assault phase" rule was intended to nerf things like smash captains and flying hive tyrants that had a relatively small footprint and have huge potential damage output. Harlequins were pretty much an unintended casualty of that rules change, and it hurt them a lot more than it hurt those other models, and they didn't deserve it because they weren't exactly dominating to begin with.
Burnage wrote: I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.
They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.
But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points
This got me curious, so I ran the numbers. It's not as straightforward to answer as you might expect because Harlequins and Wychs have so many different bloody configurations, but I ran with approximately 100 points of each assuming a) no upgraded pistols on either squad, and b) no +1 to hit from Power from Pain. And assuming I haven't messed any math up somewhere, of course.
Against GEQ:
[spoiler]
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 15.70
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 15.70
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 15.36
Wyches + 2 A 14.67
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 12.33
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 1 S 11.85
Wyches + 2 S 11.85
Wyches + 1 A 11.78
Frozen Stars (Caress) 11.11
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 11.11
Wyches + three Hydra 9.31
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 9.26
Harlequins (Caress) 8.89
Harlequins (Embrace) 8.89
Frozen Stars (Blade) 8.89
Wyches 8.89
Harlequins (Kiss) 7.41
Harlequins (Blade) 7.11
Against MEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 7.41
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 6.94
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 6.67
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 6.37
Harlequins (Caress) 5.93
Wyches + 2 S 5.93
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 5.89
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 5.81
Harlequins (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 5.03
Wyches + 2 A 4.89
Wyches + 1 A + three Hydra 4.67
Wyches + 1 S 4.44
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.17
Wyches + 1 A 3.93
Wyches + three Hydra 3.52
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.33
Frozen Stars (Blade) 2.96
Wyches 2.96
Harlequins (Blade) 2.37
Against TEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 5.56
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 4.83
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.64
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 4.52
Harlequins (Caress) 4.44
Harlequins (Embrace) 4.44
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 4.30
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.71
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 3.64
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 3.44
Wyches + 2 S 2.96
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 2.94
Wyches + three Hydra 2.59
Wyches + 2 A 2.44
Wyches + 1 S 2.22
Wyches + 1 A 1.96
Frozen Stars (Blade) 1.48
Wyches 1.48
Harlequins (Blade) 1.19
So basic Harlequins definitely kind of suck in all scenarios, and against GEQ Wychs are the clearly dominant option... but Players with Caresses or Embraces don't seem that bad relatively against MEQ or TEQ? With that said, I'm still hoping that they get buffed from the FAQ with at least a revert to the flip belt change.
Thanks for running the math - that is obviously not a small task when considering all the different variations in potential loadouts for those squads! One other thing to keep in mind is that the Shardnet + Impaler loadout (which I consider to be pretty much mandatory to take at least one of in each squad) deals a flat 2 damage. That should actually help quite a bit when dealing with Primaris and TEQ type targets, which also typically have 2 wounds. Not sure exactly how easy it is to model that, but it's another small advantage to keep in mind when considering wyches over Harlequins.
When I have been running quins lately, it is typically either as an outrider with Shadowseer plus three units of haywire skyweavers alongside my DE or CWE, or a Patrol with a single unit of fusion quins in a Starweaver and a single large unit of skyweavers. I can kind of justify a single skyweaver full of players, especially as I tend to play more casually and thus can afford to waste about 100 points on a unit I like. Some opponents who are unfamiliar with the army still fall for the old Twilight Pathways double-move trick to get the Starweaver up field and blow up a vehicle on the first turn, too, so it can be a nice distraction carnifex that lets my fragile Kabal vehicles hang back unharmed, and Raiders full of Wyches move up unchalleged for a turn, while my opponent freaks out trying to blow up the Harlequins who just showed up in their lines on the first turn.
I agree that Harlequins need the old flip belt rules back, too. The "no fly in the assault phase" rule was intended to nerf things like smash captains and flying hive tyrants that had a relatively small footprint and have huge potential damage output. Harlequins were pretty much an unintended casualty of that rules change, and it hurt them a lot more than it hurt those other models, and they didn't deserve it because they weren't exactly dominating to begin with.
i feel like you also need to factor in somehow the fact that Harlequins have access to better buffs as well. Put wyches near their basic HQ and they're rerolling 1 to hit. Put harlequins near their basic HQ that costs the same amount and they're getting a full reroll to wound (and reroll 1 to hit if you used a stratagem on the troupe master at the beginning of the game)
They also have psykers that provide some much needed durability buffs as well as turn 1 charge capability, they advance and charge out of the box (if you set the wyches to Red Grief to make the mobility equal the wyches perform far worse in the comparison) and they have fall back and shoot+fight.
No Escape is a super great ability but its impact does scale down with the skill of the person playing the melee army, because you do have access to kidnapping an enemy model to prevent a fall back.
Grey Knights need to change a bit differently I feel. I feel like to make them stronger, just go through the Codex, and wherever the world *Daemon is found, replace it with *Enemy, and then correct for anything silly (like you couldn't have squads just running around auto causing 3 MW, so smite would have to change)
I would like to see missions where only troops selections can score objectives.
the thing about Grey Knight though is that they don't really have many anti demon special rules. They have the smite and the re-roll in melee. And I doubt people would be ok with GK re-rolling all dice vs everyone, as they don't want us to have normal smite either.
Honestly Grey Knights should all just get the Ordo Malleus keyword and the Quarry rule. They would at least then be actually good against Chaos and Daemons which is what they should be good against. Being able to add in Inquisitors and relatively affordable mooks to some of their detachments while remaining pure Ordo Malleus would mitigate some of their more general problems. It would be a start.
By far the easiest way to make GKs playable in a competitive sense is to give every unit Psybolt Ammo for free instead of it being a once per turn 1 unit only Stratagem.
Deathwatch are good because their special ammo is standard. GKs could easily follow suit and not be broken.
Side note: One this I always found odd about GKs, even in prior editions when they were "good": Their primary targets are Daemons....which rarely have armour....So why in the Emphah's name do they think it's a good idea to have Power Weapons? Ya know, the weapons that are designed to punch armour.
This is one of the primary reasons GKs will NEVER be the ideal counter to Daemons as they should be.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not that they were Power Weapons, it's that they were Force Weapons, and could one-shot Greater Daemons.
But my point stands. One-shotting GDs is great and all, but Dreadknights were designed to 1v1 GDs. The regular Strike Squad, Terminators, etc are meant to deal with the Daemon Horde. Sure D3 Damage makes it easier to take down the Beasts and Cavalry, but 'Letters, 'Nettes, PB, and Horrors? Nemesis weapons are overkill against them. And NOT the good kind of overkill, in which the weapons are effective against them, but the bad kind of overkill in which all the extra bonus AP and Damage are a complete and utter waste against them. As in, a Strike with Force Sword kills just as many 1W Daemons as a regular Space Marine with a chainsword.
This just seems an odd choice of standard weapon (both in-game and fluff-wise) to equip your anti-Daemon super-secret Boy band. Stormbolters make sense, though, so I guess they got that right
Grey Knights will always be bad until GW get around to 'Primarising' them. Like with the Necrons, they slowly make them unpopular with bad rules so when peoples entire collections get invalidated there isn't as much bad feeling.
I'd like to see the rule of 3 removed. It was added at a time before Castellans, Assassins, and the new missions.
Three Castellans is ok, nine Talos is ok. But you mustn't take four Death Company Dreadnoughts because that would be broken. Typical ham fisted response to a few bad eggs that ruined it for the rest of us and hurt more armies than it healed.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not that they were Power Weapons, it's that they were Force Weapons, and could one-shot Greater Daemons.
But my point stands. One-shotting GDs is great and all, but Dreadknights were designed to 1v1 GDs. The regular Strike Squad, Terminators, etc are meant to deal with the Daemon Horde. Sure D3 Damage makes it easier to take down the Beasts and Cavalry, but 'Letters, 'Nettes, PB, and Horrors? Nemesis weapons are overkill against them. And NOT the good kind of overkill, in which the weapons are effective against them, but the bad kind of overkill in which all the extra bonus AP and Damage are a complete and utter waste against them.
As in, a Strike with Force Sword kills just as many 1W Daemons as a regular Space Marine with a chainsword.
This just seems an odd choice of standard weapon (both in-game and fluff-wise) to equip your anti-Daemon super-secret Boy band.
Stormbolters make sense, though, so I guess they got that right
-
Back when I played them in 4th, Psycannons and Incinerators both ignored Invulnerable saves. They were a limited army back then without many options, but they used to be extremely powerful against Daemons. The power armor squads could cut through hordes like butter, and the Grandmasters could easily solo the Greater Daemons. I don't know why they ever removed that rule, it made GK pretty awesome.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not that they were Power Weapons, it's that they were Force Weapons, and could one-shot Greater Daemons.
But my point stands. One-shotting GDs is great and all, but Dreadknights were designed to 1v1 GDs. The regular Strike Squad, Terminators, etc are meant to deal with the Daemon Horde. Sure D3 Damage makes it easier to take down the Beasts and Cavalry, but 'Letters, 'Nettes, PB, and Horrors? Nemesis weapons are overkill against them. And NOT the good kind of overkill, in which the weapons are effective against them, but the bad kind of overkill in which all the extra bonus AP and Damage are a complete and utter waste against them.
As in, a Strike with Force Sword kills just as many 1W Daemons as a regular Space Marine with a chainsword.
This just seems an odd choice of standard weapon (both in-game and fluff-wise) to equip your anti-Daemon super-secret Boy band.
Stormbolters make sense, though, so I guess they got that right
-
Back when I played them in 4th, Psycannons and Incinerators both ignored Invulnerable saves. They were a limited army back then without many options, but they used to be extremely powerful against Daemons. The power armor squads could cut through hordes like butter, and the Grandmasters could easily solo the Greater Daemons. I don't know why they ever removed that rule, it made GK pretty awesome.
They used to be superautocannons. Now they are worse....makes no sense. The weapon should be rapidfire 2 Str 7 ap -1 flat 2.
Galef wrote: By far the easiest way to make GKs playable in a competitive sense is to give every unit Psybolt Ammo for free instead of it being a once per turn 1 unit only Stratagem.
Deathwatch are good because their special ammo is standard. GKs could easily follow suit and not be broken.
Side note: One this I always found odd about GKs, even in prior editions when they were "good": Their primary targets are Daemons....which rarely have armour....So why in the Emphah's name do they think it's a good idea to have Power Weapons? Ya know, the weapons that are designed to punch armour.
This is one of the primary reasons GKs will NEVER be the ideal counter to Daemons as they should be.
-
Deathwatch are good because veterans can take cheap stormshields.
Gk's are more expensive marines that die as easily as cheap marines.
That is their fundamental problem and has always been their problem since their introduction in the Daemonhunter codex. (not counting earlier Index Astares rules because no one I know actually played them).
The 'good' GK lists through the editions either didn't use GK's at all (abusing cheap henchman and Psybolt ammo) or were Draigo-stars.
All this talk about sub-faction bonuses makes me lament the Necron sub-factions.
Mephrit should be the most "generically good" code (extra -1AP at half range) except muh 5++ is plastered everywhere.
Imotekh the Memelord is key for doubling up on My Will Be Done so you're not burning 1CP a turn in a codex where a not-trash Battalion costs >650pts. Unfortunately, Imotekh is in the Sautekh Dynasty and the Air Wing detachment don't have a HQ slot, so typically you're stuck giving your Tesla Immortals the ability to turn their Assault guns into Assault guns and not the -1AP they desperately want. Yusssssssss.
Nihilakh exists at this point only to make the super-swingy DDAs less swingy. D6 shots -> D6 damage is a trash stat-line unless you pour CP and HQs into it. Guess what Necrons struggle with?
The worst part - it's common practice to break codes in a Necron Outrider because the deep strike strat you want for your Destroyers is gated behind Nephrekh but how many times do I have to tell you stop making my Tesla Immortals run you freakin' nerds a single -1 to hit and I might as well run my Immortals off the dang table. Novokh is a melee code for a faction that moves 5'' and doesn't like running, but Wraiths and "Ghetto Celestine" D-Lords like the stratagems so whatever.
So one wish for the FAQ: The AP of Gauss weaponry applies for the Invuln saves of Vehicles. The AP of GK weaponry applies for the Invuln saves of Demons.
I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
