Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A bonus to mono codex helps non-Eldar Xenos and Imperial Guard. That isn't what this game needs. And if we're talking monofaction, it should apply to Hive Fleets, Regiments, etc. Bringing multiple different fleets, regiments, et al, is a form of soup, too.

 Marmatag wrote:
A bonus to mono codex helps non-Eldar Xenos and Imperial Guard. That isn't what this game needs. And if we're talking monofaction, it should apply to Hive Fleets, Regiments, etc. Bringing multiple different fleets, regiments, et al, is a form of soup, too.

Necrons, Tau, Orks and Nids need a buff for not having allies. We need something to balance their lack of options (yes I know GSC is an option but most people who play Nids don't play GSC). And you're right, it should be even more specific so it's the same <Subfaction> keyword, or a leveled system where sharing something like Astartes gets you X but having the same <Chapter> gives you X and Y. Call it bias now that I'm starting a GSC army and want to take my Brood Brothers without being bent over a barrel for it I guess.

I disagree about all this crap about calling every form of allies "soup" though. That's just nonsense that is being used to shame people away from allies no matter how fluffy they are. Soup was the mess we had at the very beginning where you could see Celestine, Guard, Guilliman and Custodes inside the same detachment with a Knight. Between Battle Brothers and the Rule of 3 in most games we don't see more than 3 codexes in a list and thanks to the CP farms being turned into CP gardens it's more likely to be just 2 codexes instead. It's not the days of what we originally called soup and frankly I'm just tired of every army being called soup just because it brings something else to the table. If I want to bring a Grey Knights army with an Inquisitor and Assassin detachments is it really the same level of broken as the Castellan list was before the FAQ? Of course not! But because it's got allies it's suddenly called "soup" and is somehow the cancer of the game. It's friggin stupid and needs to die off already.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

I like the direction this would bring the game but why does it have to be so complicated? Do a comparison to my system where you start with a base CP of 15 at 2k and lose CP for non batallions and brigades and for allied detachments. What differences does it produce when you compare your idea with mine?

Your idea has the problem that battalions and brigades are put on the same level and breaks if you try to correct this. You would need the system to be :

- Brigades 0
- Battalion -5
- Spearhead equivalent -7

With a base of 18 CP, but this would make any list with allies completely dead with 10-12 CPs less than a single faction brigade.

Allies are a good thing for the game, they are fun and fluffy, you shouldn't be penalized for playing allies. Sure, you also shouldn't be penalized for going mono like it is now.

Marmatag system is better in this, in particular if it is joined by the CP segregation in detachments (at 50 points per CP).

 Blndmage wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

How would this scale with game size?
Lots of folks play 500, 750, 1,000, etc.

1 CP per full 125 points or something. 16 CP @ 2K pts seems fine.
Remove brigades, if you don't take at least one battalion, you lose 3 CP and everything else gives nothing.
If some faction needs more/less, treat them separately in their own book. Books could have some negatives modifiers to CP for your faction if it allies with X (treat potential allies separately or all the same, depending the faction involved. Looks weird to apply negative modifiers to Inquisition for example).

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

I like the direction this would bring the game but why does it have to be so complicated? Do a comparison to my system where you start with a base CP of 15 at 2k and lose CP for non batallions and brigades and for allied detachments. What differences does it produce when you compare your idea with mine?

Your idea has the problem that battalions and brigades are put on the same level and breaks if you try to correct this. You would need the system to be :

- Brigades 0
- Battalion -5
- Spearhead equivalent -7

With a base of 18 CP, but this would make any list with allies completely dead with 10-12 CPs less than a single faction brigade.

Allies are a good thing for the game, they are fun and fluffy, you shouldn't be penalized for playing allies. Sure, you also shouldn't be penalized for going mono like it is now.

Marmatag system is better in this, in particular if it is joined by the CP segregation in detachments (at 50 points per CP).

Most armies can't even make brigades. Again - I am trying to make the game better. As far as I am concerned the brigade can just be removed or become an APOC only formation or something. Or I am fine with it working just like a battalion. Why should a detachment that only a few armies can realistically feild be better than the detachment that most armies are forced to use?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

I like the direction this would bring the game but why does it have to be so complicated? Do a comparison to my system where you start with a base CP of 15 at 2k and lose CP for non batallions and brigades and for allied detachments. What differences does it produce when you compare your idea with mine?

Your idea has the problem that battalions and brigades are put on the same level and breaks if you try to correct this. You would need the system to be :

- Brigades 0
- Battalion -5
- Spearhead equivalent -7

With a base of 18 CP, but this would make any list with allies completely dead with 10-12 CPs less than a single faction brigade.

Allies are a good thing for the game, they are fun and fluffy, you shouldn't be penalized for playing allies. Sure, you also shouldn't be penalized for going mono like it is now.

Marmatag system is better in this, in particular if it is joined by the CP segregation in detachments (at 50 points per CP).

Most armies can't even make brigades. Again - I am trying to make the game better. As far as I am concerned the brigade can just be removed or become an APOC only formation or something. Or I am fine with it working just like a battalion. Why should a detachment that only a few armies can realistically feild be better than the detachment that most armies are forced to use?

MSU Brigades can be made with Primaris who are more expensive than regular Marines. About the only ones who might not get access to Brigades are going to be Custodes, Grey Knights, (because they're even more expensive), Sisters of Silence, Inquisition, and Assassins (who are all unable to run a full FOC). Oh and the new RT and Gellerpox factions who don't have enough generic options to run a larger FOC. Oh, and Knights. But that's more because they only have 2 FOCs to choose from to run with.

Most armies though can run Brigades. You just can't run a brigade and load up on toys. You need to balance the bodies and their upgrades more finely than most people are willing to attempt to run them and that leaves them off the table for a lot of armies.

I'm not talking about the ability to take trash units and make a really bad brigade...I am talking about realism. The only armies that can take brigades without hurting themselves are IG and Tau.

They also will have over 1000 points to spend on toys. Where other armies are basically already out of points. AKA useless.

I say just ignore the brigade or treat it just like a battalion in my system.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not talking about the ability to take trash units and make a really bad brigade...I am talking about realism. The only armies that can take brigades without hurting themselves are IG and Tau.

They also will have over 1000 points to spend on toys. Where other armies are basically already out of points. AKA useless.

I say just ignore the brigade or treat it just like a battalion in my system.

Primaris monofaction like Brigades as well. Frankly, Marines in general love MSU due to being too squishy right now to justify the risk of moral hurting a bigger unit so taking multiple small units is better for the faction leading to Brigades being very viable for us.

Yes, Guard have more points to spend on toys. They've always had more points to spend on toys, but the fact remains that just because they're able to do it the best it doesn't mean others can't do it well.

dhallnet wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

How would this scale with game size?
Lots of folks play 500, 750, 1,000, etc.

1 CP per full 125 points or something. 16 CP @ 2K pts seems fine.
Remove brigades, if you don't take at least one battalion, you lose 3 CP and everything else gives nothing.
If some faction needs more/less, treat them separately in their own book. Books could have some negatives modifiers to CP for your faction if it allies with X (treat potential allies separately or all the same, depending the faction involved. Looks weird to apply negative modifiers to Inquisition for example).

As someone whose been collecting for ages, and can only barely make a Battallion, why focous on them? The CP is their advantage. I've never taken a Batallion in a game, the vast majority of my lists are Outriders, Spearheads, or a mix of the two. This edition has finally allowed me to lay mynarmy the way I always ment it to, without begging for permission.

There's no need to focus so hard on Patrols, Batalions, and Brigades, at the expense of the 9 other detachments.

 Blndmage wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

How would this scale with game size?
Lots of folks play 500, 750, 1,000, etc.

1 CP per full 125 points or something. 16 CP @ 2K pts seems fine.
Remove brigades, if you don't take at least one battalion, you lose 3 CP and everything else gives nothing.
If some faction needs more/less, treat them separately in their own book. Books could have some negatives modifiers to CP for your faction if it allies with X (treat potential allies separately or all the same, depending the faction involved. Looks weird to apply negative modifiers to Inquisition for example).

As someone whose been collecting for ages, and can only barely make a Battallion, why focous on them? The CP is their advantage. I've never taken a Batallion in a game, the vast majority of my lists are Outriders, Spearheads, or a mix of the two. This edition has finally allowed me to lay mynarmy the way I always ment it to, without begging for permission.

There's no need to focus so hard on Patrols, Batalions, and Brigades, at the expense of the 9 other detachments.

To speak generally, and not point fingers at specific people, I think I can tell you why people are focused on them because despite what they'll say about being casual players. They, like most of us, want to win games and will focus on the tools that give them the best chance of winning while complaining about the things that they don't have. Often these complaints are aimed at basically kneecapping the factional advantage a group has instead of looking at new ways to play their own stuff (or what to add to that stuff) to give them an advantage over that other advantage.

Not to be rude, but frankly a lot of us suck at this game when it comes to competitive play and instead of taking the time and energy to get better the first response is to demand the good stuff be taken away from everyone else, even when that is sometimes they only good thing they have propping the rest of the army up.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Necrons, Tau, Orks and Nids need a buff for not having allies. We need something to balance their lack of options (yes I know GSC is an option but most people who play Nids don't play GSC).

Not a very cogent argument here. For one, you state that they deserve a buff because they don't have the options, but also suggest that Nids deserves a buff too because even though they have those options, they aren't popularly chosen. Seems...inconsistent, and avoids the true issue at hand. Why aren't those options considered?

Furthermore, many of those armies can bring the things natively that some Imperial factions have to turn to allies for. Custodes and Knights don't have the board control to be viable solo, so they turn to allies to solve that. Assassins and Inquisition aren't actual full factions, either. Whereas Orks, Tau, and Nids (and GSC) all have an internal options because they are fully fleshed out armies. Don't conflate the undercosted and high efficiency of AM Battalions as an allies issue - it's a CP generation, Infantry Squad, and codex balance issue.

Honestly, the argument that mono-Xenos factions need a bonus because they can't pick up allies seems like a wishlist item to me. I am unconvinced the solution needs to be this expansive and only serves to potentially cause another balance issue down the line when mono-Imperial factions bring up they are suffering from an 'allied' tax despite not bringing any. If there's to be any benefits handed out for going mono-faction, it needs to be for EVERYBODY, where possible/applicable.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And you're right, it should be even more specific so it's the same <Subfaction> keyword, or a leveled system where sharing something like Astartes gets you X but having the same <Chapter> gives you X and Y. Call it bias now that I'm starting a GSC army and want to take my Brood Brothers without being bent over a barrel for it I guess.

I don't see the value in making the game more about managing what specific free buffs and traits you can fit into a list under a variety of scenarios. Solve CP batteries and you'll start seeing more varied lists naturally as players can begin turning to other options and playstyles over just filling cheap bodies into a list for CP purposes. Allies should remain, because in some cases they're necessary, and in others the option makes for a variety of potential playstyles that make everything far more interesting. The meta balances itself out, as we've seen with every book release.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree about all this crap about calling every form of allies "soup" though. That's just nonsense that is being used to shame people away from allies no matter how fluffy they are. Soup was the mess we had at the very beginning where you could see Celestine, Guard, Guilliman and Custodes inside the same detachment with a Knight. Between Battle Brothers and the Rule of 3 in most games we don't see more than 3 codexes in a list and thanks to the CP farms being turned into CP gardens it's more likely to be just 2 codexes instead.

What do all those changes have in common? Largely criticized by the community for not going far enough despite all evidence so far suggesting that the subtle changes they make have much larger impacts than they are given credit for. I am convinced that the solution here is going to be treated similarly, as is tradition. It will be subtle, yet far reaching, just as they have been for the past several balance changes.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's not the days of what we originally called soup and frankly I'm just tired of every army being called soup just because it brings something else to the table. If I want to bring a Grey Knights army with an Inquisitor and Assassin detachments is it really the same level of broken as the Castellan list was before the FAQ? Of course not! But because it's got allies it's suddenly called "soup" and is somehow the cancer of the game. It's friggin stupid and needs to die off already.

Preach, brother.

Soup detachments were an issue and are no longer a thing. CP batteries are still an issue because they limit choice and options by being competitively mandatory. I've said it before, but I'll say it again - CP generation from detachments should be limited to those detachment's factions. Use the Battle Brothers ruling to not punish multiple detachments of the same faction, and award the Battleforged CP to the Warlord's detachment. At worst, you're managing three pools.

I would like to comment on these continuous suggestions to normalize CP generation for every force. These are overly dramatic moves. GW's intent with CP and stratagem balance seems clear right from the outset - factions that can generate lots of CP tend to inherently have less impactful stratagems that they can use more often on units that are inherently not super impactful individually. Likewise, elite armies generate less CP, but their stratagems are more impactful and apply to more powerful individual units. This gives several different levers to tweak balance, which is good. The issue is ENTIRELY caused by cross-contamination, where balance can't be sufficiently achieved because the cheap generators are funding the impact strats for elite armies. Solve that and I strong believe you don't need to normalize CP generation.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not talking about the ability to take trash units and make a really bad brigade...I am talking about realism. The only armies that can take brigades without hurting themselves are IG and Tau.

They also will have over 1000 points to spend on toys. Where other armies are basically already out of points. AKA useless.

I say just ignore the brigade or treat it just like a battalion in my system.

Primaris monofaction like Brigades as well. Frankly, Marines in general love MSU due to being too squishy right now to justify the risk of moral hurting a bigger unit so taking multiple small units is better for the faction leading to Brigades being very viable for us.

Yes, Guard have more points to spend on toys. They've always had more points to spend on toys, but the fact remains that just because they're able to do it the best it doesn't mean others can't do it well.

You aren't giving nearly enough credit to how easily gaurd and tau make brigades (BY TAKING UNITS THEY WERE TAKING ANYWAYS)
Vs a primaris brigade that has to take some combination of 9 squads of hellblasters, reivers or agressors or ancients, and inceptors. These units are basically all not great (except the ancient) and they all have something in common. They are expensive.

Lemondish wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Necrons, Tau, Orks and Nids need a buff for not having allies. We need something to balance their lack of options (yes I know GSC is an option but most people who play Nids don't play GSC).

Not a very cogent argument here. For one, you state that they deserve a buff because they don't have the options, but also suggest that Nids deserves a buff too because even though they have those options, they aren't popularly chosen. Seems...inconsistent, and avoids the true issue at hand. Why aren't those options considered?

Furthermore, many of those armies can bring the things natively that some Imperial factions have to turn to allies for. Custodes and Knights don't have the board control to be viable solo, so they turn to allies to solve that. Assassins and Inquisition aren't actual full factions, either. Whereas Orks, Tau, and Nids (and GSC) all have an internal options because they are fully fleshed out armies. Don't conflate the undercosted and high efficiency of AM Battalions as an allies issue - it's a CP generation, Infantry Squad, and codex balance issue.

Honestly, the argument that mono-Xenos factions need a bonus because they can't pick up allies seems like a wishlist item to me. I am unconvinced the solution needs to be this expansive and only serves to potentially cause another balance issue down the line when mono-Imperial factions bring up they are suffering from an 'allied' tax despite not bringing any. If there's to be any benefits handed out for going mono-faction, it needs to be for EVERYBODY, where possible/applicable.

Nids were included because unlike Eldar the ways they interact with their allies is a lot more restrictive. So while they're the odd duck out, they're definitely more fitting to be on the list than off of it.

And yes, while Custodes lack Board Control that, say, Orks do, they bring durable models with solid shooting and good melee, some of which move pretty fast (jetbikes namely). And while Custodes can ally stuff in to make up for that, and even gain CP by taking allies, Orks can not. It's not even a case of checks and balances when one codex can just ally in everything they need to fix it. Then again I can argue a dozen reasons why Guard should be able to ally to just about everyone (Mindshackle Scarabs, Traitor Guard, Ork Mercenaries, Gue'vesa, Eldar working their weird ways, GSC, enslaved by the Dark Eldar and deployed to fight for their amusement, ect) which could solve the problem too, but I'd rather we promote a game with more nuance than giving everyone Guard.

Lemondish wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And you're right, it should be even more specific so it's the same <Subfaction> keyword, or a leveled system where sharing something like Astartes gets you X but having the same <Chapter> gives you X and Y. Call it bias now that I'm starting a GSC army and want to take my Brood Brothers without being bent over a barrel for it I guess.

I don't see the value in making the game more about managing what specific free buffs and traits you can fit into a list under a variety of scenarios. Solve CP batteries and you'll start seeing more varied lists naturally as players can begin turning to other options and playstyles over just filling cheap bodies into a list for CP purposes. Allies should remain, because in some cases they're necessary, and in others the option makes for a variety of potential playstyles that make everything far more interesting. The meta balances itself out, as we've seen with every book release.

CP Batteries lost a lot of charge meaning they're more CP capacitors now rather than something that just keeps running like a rechargable lithium battery. But excluding that, the AoS system of managing buffs based on how "pure" an army is (faction speaking of course) has been touted as a good method of game balance and I'd like to see it in 40k for the sake of making allies less about a 100% boost to your army and more about trading off benefits from being monofaction or not.

Lemondish wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree about all this crap about calling every form of allies "soup" though. That's just nonsense that is being used to shame people away from allies no matter how fluffy they are. Soup was the mess we had at the very beginning where you could see Celestine, Guard, Guilliman and Custodes inside the same detachment with a Knight. Between Battle Brothers and the Rule of 3 in most games we don't see more than 3 codexes in a list and thanks to the CP farms being turned into CP gardens it's more likely to be just 2 codexes instead.

What do all those changes have in common? Largely criticized by the community for not going far enough despite all evidence so far suggesting that the subtle changes they make have much larger impacts than they are given credit for. I am convinced that the solution here is going to be treated similarly, as is tradition. It will be subtle, yet far reaching, just as they have been for the past several balance changes.

The "community" wants a steaming dumpster fire were only "their" faction is good. Listening to the "community" instead of raw data is a mistake that GW thankfully hasn't fallen for. GW also isn't just going in heavy with FAQ changes and then hitting those same things again with CA later. We know CA had to be in the works for printing before the FAQ was done so things in it were likely set up to combat some things people still want to see adjusted. That said, it is a discussion for how well it does it's job when it gets here. The FAQ did a good job without mashing every army into the ground like some people seem to want, and frankly the steps back to how units that can fly charge or how reserves work is healthier for the game even if we lost some "cinematic experiences" with it.

And reduced access to CP is way better than what we had before (I was relistening to the BoLS Podcast from when the FAQ just dropped last night and do we really need to pretend that the ability to spend over 30 CP and still have stuff left over is the same as spending 30 CP and not having any options left? Because one of those will go further for rerolls and other things than the other without any issues). We still need to see how it all shakes out going forward since BFT was too close to the FAQ to be affected by it completely, but I see a positive change.

Lemondish wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's not the days of what we originally called soup and frankly I'm just tired of every army being called soup just because it brings something else to the table. If I want to bring a Grey Knights army with an Inquisitor and Assassin detachments is it really the same level of broken as the Castellan list was before the FAQ? Of course not! But because it's got allies it's suddenly called "soup" and is somehow the cancer of the game. It's friggin stupid and needs to die off already.

Preach, brother.

Soup detachments were an issue and are no longer a thing. CP batteries are still an issue because they limit choice and options by being competitively mandatory. I've said it before, but I'll say it again - CP generation from detachments should be limited to those detachment's factions. Use the Battle Brothers ruling to not punish multiple detachments of the same faction, and award the Battleforged CP to the Warlord's detachment. At worst, you're managing three pools.

I feel the solution could be more elegant than that, and with luck CA will have some stuff to help with that, but honestly at the end of the day more balance isn't a bad thing. I just don't want the game to reach a point were people are punished for taking allies to build their cool army idea instead of promoting a fun experience for everyone regardless of what they want to bring.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Why not balance them without a point increase? Change some weaponry so they get bonuses on clearing out GEQ troops should do it.

If only there was a system for that, something that would make horde models die easier without having an impact on more elite models.
I suggest a Rend value. If your armor save is equal or worse then a weapons Rend value you don't get to make the armor save.
So we can make a flamer Rend 5 and it will kill guardsman but a space marine can walk through it laughing.

Isn't that basically the old armour system?
Having both seems like it covers lots of bases, but would be a big rebuild.

Why not just increase Flamer weapons to do a D6 shots per 5 models in the target unit. Adding 1-2 flamers would thin out a large amount of GEQ.

I'm sure there are other options as well.

As someone whose been collecting for ages, and can only barely make a Battallion, why focous on them? The CP is their advantage. I've never taken a Batallion in a game, the vast majority of my lists are Outriders, Spearheads, or a mix of the two. This edition has finally allowed me to lay mynarmy the way I always ment it to, without begging for permission.

There's no need to focus so hard on Patrols, Batalions, and Brigades, at the expense of the 9 other detachments.

To expand on this, in the vast majority of cases the troop tax only exists if your available troop choices are .

Overcosted/shoddy troop choices? A choice between CP starvation or setting points on fire.
Good troop choices to pick from? You get bonus CP for hewing to an arbitrary view of what an army should look like, and your troops are still good.

The common reason I see certain battalions in particular, is because their cheapness and not-awfulness allows people to play the army they actually want to play without eating too much into their point allocation.
For example, Billy wants to play a fluffy Deathwing/Ravenwing army. Nothing wrong with that. Now, he could faff around trying to make tacticals work for their point costs (LOL), take a bunch of Scouts and HQs to babysit the scouts (Should they know about the Fallen yet?), and in either case only getting to play so many points of the army he wants to play. Alternatively, he could just write off 200 points to a sacrificial IG battalion and spend the 1800pts on the models he actually wants to field. The worst part? If that battalion was literally chaff to meet CP requirements then as a Necron player I could live with that, but the IG battalion isn't just a hole filler - it's also rather good! What's the fix? Dumpster IG because the detachment system is skewed in their favor? Or reallocate CP-by-detachment so that people don't have to soup in IG to make their armies work?

tl;dr - IG (and DE and AM to lesser extents) are being thrown under the bus, because the game is punishing you for playing your army in a composition that doesn't look like your average IG/Tau player's army. Either we're OK with armies not following the old FOC system or we are, but halfheartedly allowing variance and then punishing it doesn't please anyone.

Reemule wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Why not balance them without a point increase? Change some weaponry so they get bonuses on clearing out GEQ troops should do it.

If only there was a system for that, something that would make horde models die easier without having an impact on more elite models.
I suggest a Rend value. If your armor save is equal or worse then a weapons Rend value you don't get to make the armor save.
So we can make a flamer Rend 5 and it will kill guardsman but a space marine can walk through it laughing.

Isn't that basically the old armour system?
Having both seems like it covers lots of bases, but would be a big rebuild.

Why not just increase Flamer weapons to do a D6 shots per 5 models in the target unit. Adding 1-2 flamers would thin out a large amount of GEQ.

I'm sure there are other options as well.

There are a lot of options, and honestly I don't mind that the game has a kind of "strength in numbers" thing going on (since a horde of guys should be able to drag down a Marine or a Custodes by weight of fire) but there does need to be something to balance it back out. I feel like if the MEQ and CEQ models were tougher in regards to how they shrug off wounds we'd have less problems than what we currently have between the balance of numbers versus tougher models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
(Should they know about the Fallen yet?)

No. No they should not.

BOLS podcast are a bunch of GW fanbois. It's very rare they express any kind of negative opinion about anything. That is fine - in that industry you are basically forced to be positive. However- I think the conclusions they are coming to are pretty much the exact opposite of what we are going to see.

They said that these changes are good because it makes other options more appealing. Wrong. Gaurd have become even more essential because CP regen has been nerfed and stratagem cost has gone up. IG is even more essential now.

Before where my knights could rely on guilliman or an ultra marines batallion to give me some help from CP. Now I freaking have to take a guard batallion cause the regen is nerfed - so I need to get more base CP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not talking about the ability to take trash units and make a really bad brigade...I am talking about realism. The only armies that can take brigades without hurting themselves are IG and Tau.

They also will have over 1000 points to spend on toys. Where other armies are basically already out of points. AKA useless.

I say just ignore the brigade or treat it just like a battalion in my system.

Primaris monofaction like Brigades as well. Frankly, Marines in general love MSU due to being too squishy right now to justify the risk of moral hurting a bigger unit so taking multiple small units is better for the faction leading to Brigades being very viable for us.

Yes, Guard have more points to spend on toys. They've always had more points to spend on toys, but the fact remains that just because they're able to do it the best it doesn't mean others can't do it well.

You aren't giving nearly enough credit to how easily gaurd and tau make brigades (BY TAKING UNITS THEY WERE TAKING ANYWAYS)
Vs a primaris brigade that has to take some combination of 9 squads of hellblasters, reivers or agressors or ancients, and inceptors. These units are basically all not great (except the ancient) and they all have something in common. They are expensive.

Your expensive point is spot on, but most people think that Hellblasters, and Aggressors are kinda worth it, even great.

Agressors are the best out of all of them. Hellblasters and inceptors are just too expensive for what they do - AKA - killing themselves. Reivers are just intercessors -1. Plus a primaris brigade is already bringing 30 intercessors (which is the base of most of my Ultra marine armies)

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

You always say this in every thread and can never present any kind of evidence that mono guard is broken

Can we stop denying obvious stuff man. It's been debated to death. Infantry and CC are OP. There is no question they are not OP.

You always say "obvious stuff" while also never being able to provide any proof. The fact that we don't see 200 IG infantry lists dominating is proof in and of its self that they aren't OP. The loyal 32 just shows the importance of cheep CP for other factions.... not the dominance of IG

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

You always say this in every thread and can never present any kind of evidence that mono guard is broken

Can we stop denying obvious stuff man. It's been debated to death. Infantry and CC are OP. There is no question they are not OP.

You always say "obvious stuff" while also never being able to provide any proof. The fact that we don't see 200 IG infantry lists dominating is proof in and of its self that they aren't OP. The loyal 32 just shows the importance of cheep CP for other factions.... not the dominance of IG

This. It mostly shows that either how CP is calculated needs to be adjusted, or there needs to be a buff for armies who can't or don't run allies to buff their CP.

 Blndmage wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

1 CP per full 125 points or something. 16 CP @ 2K pts seems fine.
Remove brigades, if you don't take at least one battalion, you lose 3 CP and everything else gives nothing.
If some faction needs more/less, treat them separately in their own book. Books could have some negatives modifiers to CP for your faction if it allies with X (treat potential allies separately or all the same, depending the faction involved. Looks weird to apply negative modifiers to Inquisition for example).

As someone whose been collecting for ages, and can only barely make a Battallion, why focous on them? The CP is their advantage. I've never taken a Batallion in a game, the vast majority of my lists are Outriders, Spearheads, or a mix of the two. This edition has finally allowed me to lay mynarmy the way I always ment it to, without begging for permission.

There's no need to focus so hard on Patrols, Batalions, and Brigades, at the expense of the 9 other detachments.

Because it's, as usual, GW's attempt at pushing us towards "fluffy" armies including some HQ and Troops. A battalion is 2 HQ & 3 troops, everybody is able to make one, unless they are focusing on a very specific part of their codex, which is why I don't think the "punishment" for not taking what GW would like us to take shouldn't be too arsh (loosing 3cp and starting at 13 instead of 6 if you take 3 outrider/vanguard/spearhead while your opponent is at 16 instead of probably 13 ? Seems fine to me, the gap is way smaller). And I answer as someone who like(d) to play deathwing or ravenwing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

To speak generally, and not point fingers at specific people, I think I can tell you why people are focused on them because despite what they'll say about being casual players. They, like most of us, want to win games and will focus on the tools that give them the best chance of winning while complaining about the things that they don't have. Often these complaints are aimed at basically kneecapping the factional advantage a group has instead of looking at new ways to play their own stuff (or what to add to that stuff) to give them an advantage over that other advantage.

Not to be rude, but frankly a lot of us suck at this game when it comes to competitive play and instead of taking the time and energy to get better the first response is to demand the good stuff be taken away from everyone else, even when that is sometimes they only good thing they have propping the rest of the army up.

It had nothing at all to do with my level of play or whatever. I'm just recognising why battalions and brigades gives more CP and it's because GW can't make good troops most of the time, so to make them appealing they give them other advantages (there it's you get objsec and more cp). It's been like that forever, nothing new.
My example was even putting outriders/vanguards and all in a better place since I dislike too the heavy focus on battalions/brigades.

Well there are two clear advantages (not specific to guard)

Game requirements are that points are held. Those points can be put in places that leaves the point holder unable to participate in the battle well.

If your point holder can be cheaper in game terms than your opponent, you have an advantage.

Second is that due to the way weapon scale, durability on the table at times is less about your toughness/save/wounds, but more about building past your opponents ability to generate shots.

If you can field models beyond your opponents ability to effectively attack and remove from the field, you have an advantage.

Collectively, those advantages really favor some forces at this time.

Reemule wrote:
Well there are two clear advantages (not specific to guard)

Game requirements are that points are held. Those points can be put in places that leaves the point holder unable to participate in the battle well.

If your point holder can be cheaper in game terms than your opponent, you have an advantage.

Second is that due to the way weapon scale, durability on the table at times is less about your toughness/save/wounds, but more about building past your opponents ability to generate shots.

If you can field models beyond your opponents ability to effectively attack and remove from the field, you have an advantage.

Collectively, those advantages really favor some forces at this time.

This guy gets it.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

You always say this in every thread and can never present any kind of evidence that mono guard is broken

Can we stop denying obvious stuff man. It's been debated to death. Infantry and CC are OP. There is no question they are not OP.

You always say "obvious stuff" while also never being able to provide any proof. The fact that we don't see 200 IG infantry lists dominating is proof in and of its self that they aren't OP. The loyal 32 just shows the importance of cheep CP for other factions.... not the dominance of IG

What proof do you want?

Mathmatical superiority? Tournament dominance? It's all right there man...

IMO they are mostly held back by the threat in being of Alatioc Eldar. Top players just take lists with better over all odds.

Mono-IG are always obnoxious to play against, and never fun. Even when I win. It's like a frustrating video game level.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

You always say this in every thread and can never present any kind of evidence that mono guard is broken

Can we stop denying obvious stuff man. It's been debated to death. Infantry and CC are OP. There is no question they are not OP.

You always say "obvious stuff" while also never being able to provide any proof. The fact that we don't see 200 IG infantry lists dominating is proof in and of its self that they aren't OP. The loyal 32 just shows the importance of cheep CP for other factions.... not the dominance of IG

What proof do you want?

Mathmatical superiority? Tournament dominance? It's all right there man...

Tournament dominance of Guard? Not really a thing. Tournament dominance of a CP battery supporting a couple of units that hit your opponent like a thunderhammer to the face? DEFINITELY a thing.

Don't conflate the former for the latter, because if the former was the latter we'd mono-Guard steamrolling the tournament scene.

Maybe it'd be less of an issue if the old platoon system came back making you buy 3 units for every troop slot (Platoon Command Squad and two Infantry Squads, not counting the extras)? I don't know, I'm not a nuclear rocket surgeon. I do know that there is an issue involving CP in general and while the reduction on how much you can regenerate has done a lot to fix things, the way it's initially generated favors specific ways of play over others and that needs addressing.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I prefer detachments requiring a minimum amount of points to get any CP out of them, in response to battery.

Minimum 100 points per command point to get the benefit. So a brigade awards its CP if you spend 1200. A battalion awards its CP if you spend 500.

That doesn't change the fact that a 500 point Battalion of guard is still auto take for most armies. They need a point increase. Mono or soup isn't even an argument. They need an increase regardless.

You always say this in every thread and can never present any kind of evidence that mono guard is broken

Can we stop denying obvious stuff man. It's been debated to death. Infantry and CC are OP. There is no question they are not OP.

You always say "obvious stuff" while also never being able to provide any proof. The fact that we don't see 200 IG infantry lists dominating is proof in and of its self that they aren't OP. The loyal 32 just shows the importance of cheep CP for other factions.... not the dominance of IG

What proof do you want?

Mathmatical superiority? Tournament dominance? It's all right there man...

except it's not...... by tournament dominance your are talking about the loyal 32 that surely doesn't show IG dominance it shows the dominance of soup. Actually, mono guard often finished behind mono factions like tau that we never hear complaints about.

Well you first have to understand the main reason the "CP battery" is so good is because it is under-costed. As a result it creates an unfair amount of command points. The solution is simple - 5 point guardsmen - 40 point CC.

Asmodios wrote:

except it's not...... by tournament dominance your are talking about the loyal 32 that surely doesn't show IG dominance it shows the dominance of soup. Actually, mono guard often finished behind mono factions like tau that we never hear complaints about.

No. To show dominance of the soup, you should see plenty of Imperial soups without Guard, but you really don't. Sure, Guard + certain specific exceptional allied units is better than mono-Guard, but mono-Guard is better than any guardless Imperial soups (and even many soups with Guard.) There is no way around the fact that Infantry squads and company commanders are just too good for their points, soup or no soup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well you first have to understand the main reason the "CP battery" is so good is because it is under-costed. As a result it creates an unfair amount of command points. The solution is simple - 5 point guardsmen - 40 point CC.