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.

Because people here think the huge point tag on Abigail wasnt enough, and because Chaos isn't allowed to have nice things but all the sudden Guard is, nerf Cultists. Ya know, a 4 point model.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.

this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.

SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.

Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.

 Galas wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.

this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.

SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.

Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.

In fairness, I think most people have been saying that 4pt Infantry aren't a problem in their own army.

It's when every Imperium army can take a cheap IG Battalion (or even 2) - which not only costs them nothing but actually gains them 5CP - that it becomes an issue.

And even in this case, raising them to 5pts still won't make a significant difference. The increase is simply negligible compared to the CPs you gain from the detachment.

If you really want to reduce IG infantry spam, start by limiting CPs to the faction that generated them.

 vipoid wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.

this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.

SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.

Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.

In fairness, I think most people have been saying that 4pt Infantry aren't a problem in their own army.

It's when every Imperium army can take a cheap IG Battalion (or even 2) - which not only costs them nothing but actually gains them 5CP - that it becomes an issue.

And even in this case, raising them to 5pts still won't make a significant difference. The increase is simply negligible compared to the CPs you gain from the detachment.

If you really want to reduce IG infantry spam, start by limiting CPs to the faction that generated them.

Then how on earth was cultists inside pure CSM was a problem in the pre-CA meta?

 vipoid wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.

this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.

SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.

Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.

In fairness, I think most people have been saying that 4pt Infantry aren't a problem in their own army.

It's when every Imperium army can take a cheap IG Battalion (or even 2) - which not only costs them nothing but actually gains them 5CP - that it becomes an issue.

And even in this case, raising them to 5pts still won't make a significant difference. The increase is simply negligible compared to the CPs you gain from the detachment.

If you really want to reduce IG infantry spam, start by limiting CPs to the faction that generated them.

They would still be taken for efficiency? You really didn't solve anything except make it harder for Knights and Custodes to use their Strategems (which the latter didn't need to be hurt more).

 Galas wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.

this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.

SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.

Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.

It does feel like this is what he's trying to say. Hell, not just the Daemon Princes, but literally the 1 or 2 entire other factions that were taken alongside any Cultist list to do well in the meta before CA dropped.

Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.

Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.

Guards were either taken as a loyal 32, or as the cheap troop option of a brigade, usually around 6-8 squads. The highest number of guards i remember seeing in a list which did something good, was 80 (in a brigade). Those guards in there can be annoying due to the combo with priest and yarrick, but they were in no way the focus of that list. To nerf that list, you don't nerf guards, you nerf the staples of that list, like the Artemia which were indeed nerfed. I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.

Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.

I too would have liked to see both going to 5 ppm, but if i had to select only one between cultists and guards to rise to 5ppm, i would have choosen cultists.

Spoletta wrote:
Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.

Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.

Guards were either taken as a loyal 32, or as the cheap troop option of a brigade, usually around 6-8 squads. The highest number of guards i remember seeing in a list which did something good, was 80 (in a brigade). Those guards in there can be annoying due to the combo with priest and yarrick, but they were in no way the focus of that list. To nerf that list, you don't nerf guards, you nerf the staples of that list, like the Artemia which were indeed nerfed. I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.

Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.

I too would have liked to see both going to 5 ppm, but if i had to select only one between cultists and guards to rise to 5ppm, i would have choosen cultists.

So your premis is that choas cultist spam lists going up 120 points stops them being spammed, but the 1000 to 1400 points of Guard wouldnt be effected if they lost 80 points to spend on multiple hellhounds etc?

But stepping away from the hyper competitive stuff, guard are one of the most annoying list for I'll bring a flufdy list and it's 15 LR and a stormhammer, shadowsword. Or 2000 points of full infantry.

Spoletta wrote:
Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.

Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.

I think the issue is that list was competitive back in July - but is now not obviously winning anything or really placing. I don't think its been a thing in the post-Knight codex meta.
I am checking tournament after tournament to make sure I have not missed something - but the idea its been remotely as common as guardsmen+knights is hard to justify. Taking one blob of 40 is a bit more common, but committing to 120-150 isn't at all.

Am I just missing a lot of tournaments where this list dominated over the last 6 months?

The past 6 months has been a meta of Imperial and Eldar soup domination - and if chaos have done okay, its been from death guard resiliency combined with thousand sons princes and mortal wound output. It hasn't been from bringing 100+ cultists.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.

Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.

I think the issue is that list was competitive back in July - but is now not obviously winning anything or really placing. I don't think its been a thing in the post-Knight codex meta.
I am checking tournament after tournament to make sure I have not missed something - but the idea its been remotely as common as guardsmen+knights is hard to justify. Taking one blob of 40 is a bit more common, but committing to 120-150 isn't at all.

Am I just missing a lot of tournaments where this list dominated over the last 6 months?

The past 6 months has been a meta of Imperial and Eldar soup domination - and if chaos have done okay, its been from death guard resiliency combined with thousand sons princes and mortal wound output. It hasn't been from bringing 100+ cultists.

This, if any unit would've needed a change then it would've been certain DP versions.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Then how on earth was cultists inside pure CSM was a problem in the pre-CA meta?

Why are you asking me? I never advocated for Cultists to get a price-hike in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They would still be taken for efficiency?

.

In their own army, sure. But then there are basically no other troop choices in IG (unless you're running Militarum Tempestus).

In Knights or Custodes armies? I doubt it. I think the Loyal 32 will be a lot less appealing when players realise that they're not bringing 5 'wild' CPs with them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You really didn't solve anything except make it harder for Knights and Custodes to use their Strategems

Except that that's the whole point. Knights, Custodes or such should not be able to get extra CPs for themselves via allies. This is one of the main problems with the whole Ally mechanic - in that taking Allies costs you nothing and gains you everything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
(which the latter didn't need to be hurt more).

So look at them again once CP sharing is no longer permitted and see what needs to change.

 vipoid wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Then how on earth was cultists inside pure CSM was a problem in the pre-CA meta?

Why are you asking me? I never advocated for Cultists to get a price-hike in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They would still be taken for efficiency?

.

In their own army, sure. But then there are basically no other troop choices in IG (unless you're running Militarum Tempestus).

In Knights or Custodes armies? I doubt it. I think the Loyal 32 will be a lot less appealing when players realise that they're not bringing 5 'wild' CPs with them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You really didn't solve anything except make it harder for Knights and Custodes to use their Strategems

Except that that's the whole point. Knights, Custodes or such should not be able to get extra CPs for themselves via allies. This is one of the main problems with the whole Ally mechanic - in that taking Allies costs you nothing and gains you everything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
(which the latter didn't need to be hurt more).

So look at them again once CP sharing is no longer permitted and see what needs to change.

You don't believe people would still take the Loyal 32 for objective holding and shooting?

Removed, rule #1 is not optional - BrookM


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.

Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.

Guards were either taken as a loyal 32, or as the cheap troop option of a brigade, usually around 6-8 squads. The highest number of guards i remember seeing in a list which did something good, was 80 (in a brigade). Those guards in there can be annoying due to the combo with priest and yarrick, but they were in no way the focus of that list. To nerf that list, you don't nerf guards, you nerf the staples of that list, like the Artemia which were indeed nerfed. I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.

Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.

I too would have liked to see both going to 5 ppm, but if i had to select only one between cultists and guards to rise to 5ppm, i would have choosen cultists.

So your premis is that choas cultist spam lists going up 120 points stops them being spammed, but the 1000 to 1400 points of Guard wouldnt be effected if they lost 80 points to spend on multiple hellhounds etc?

But stepping away from the hyper competitive stuff, guard are one of the most annoying list for I'll bring a flufdy list and it's 15 LR and a stormhammer, shadowsword. Or 2000 points of full infantry.

I love they completely ignored how several players went above the minimum amount because they're THAT good.

 Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.

I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.

It makes complete sense if you look at the game as a whole which is what CA points balances have done.

The commander drop has put it into the same territory as Helverin Armigers at 172points. Both BS3+ but with LR having T8 3+, vs T7 3+/5++ of the armiger. The LR will have a larger variety of armaments vs the mobility of the Armiger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.

Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.

Tank commanders going to BS4+ would be the dumbest thing from a competitive POV. Would not be even remotely worth taking for orders.

Prior to CA2018 people were asking for LR to go up in points. Also absolutely clueless.

Guard at 4ppm or as they have been for the last 1.5yrs is a non issue for most armies to deal with other than soup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

Yeah. This was the fix, and it got ignored. Buff stacking on cultists is the REAL problem here, not cultists themselves. Take away the option to combo buffs on them, and they stay what they were intended to be: Cheap throwaway troops.

Cap them at 10-20 models and they will be worth 4ppm.

Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.

w1zard wrote:

I've done the math myself, so I have to actually agree with this. But, I was also merely stating that I think points should be an objective measurement of battlefield strength, and that if guardsmen are 4ppm, it makes no sense why cultists are 5 ppm. Therefore the obvious solution becomes raise guardsmen to 5 ppm .

Cultists can easily be 4ppm, but you may not like the consequences of doing so (removing ToT, lower unit cap etc).

If cultists were truly basic units, I suspect CSM players would cry salt even harder.

Cultists going to 5ppm sucked for the players who took 3 squads of 10 as backfield objective holders. That is 30 points extra for no benefit.

For those that took truly big units and had real plan to use them to their full capacity then the extra points wont be too bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.

Your argument should be regular Russ deserves a slight decrease too rather than why commanders got a decrease. Many armies received a discount against the meta armies, I am just explaining why the TC may have received his discount.

There is a 20 point difference between TC and Russ but anyone knows that TC wont survive very long. T8 and 3+ doesn't cut it any more.

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?

Spoletta wrote:Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.

Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.

I guess I'm not as smart as you, because it looked like you were saying Cultist heavy builds were a viable competitive list that were winning events just before CA, but Infantry Squad heavy lists never did.

If this isn't what you are saying, I must be truly stupid, because I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding how this isn't exactly what you said:

"Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything."

 Dysartes wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?

Exactly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smirrors wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.

Your argument should be regular Russ deserves a slight decrease too rather than why commanders got a decrease. Many armies received a discount against the meta armies, I am just explaining why the TC may have received his discount.

There is a 20 point difference between TC and Russ but anyone knows that TC wont survive very long. T8 and 3+ doesn't cut it any more.

I don't see why my "argument should be" that. TCs were good before, they didn't need to be better.

There's no need for TCs or regular Russes to be compared to Armigers anyway, they're totally different armies with access to vastly different things.

Also, am I the only person who thinks a sorceror casting a strength enhancer or an enrage upon a horde of Cultists, and then throwing them facefirst to take a dent out of a big threat before the things they care about losing dig in, is actually entirely thematic, and is exactly what plenty of Legions use them for? I'm not sure where this idea that Cultists are just meant to be small objective holders thematically comes from, that actually seems contrary to the lore.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?

Well Armigers and Russes are the same army, Imperium, whilst cultists are a separate army, Chaos. Balancing Knights and Guard is pretty much an internal balance issue these days.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?

Well Armigers and Russes are the same army, Imperium, whilst cultists are a separate army, Chaos. Balancing Knights and Guard is pretty much an internal balance issue these days.

Renegade KNights do exist.
Just so you know. They don't have the nice stratagems and traits though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't believe people would still take the Loyal 32 for objective holding and shooting?

I'm highly doubtful that they'd be used if they didn't bring 5CPs with them.


However, as I've said many times in the past, I'm more than happy to find out. Hence why I've consistently advocated for CP sharing to be removed.

If it is removed and every Imperium-Soup army continues to use the loyal 32 regardless, then I'll freely admit that my prediction was wrong.

 Stux wrote:
All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.

Sadly currently you would want to fill up on 3 commanders (plus Pask if Cadian) before going for regular Russ's :(

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't believe people would still take the Loyal 32 for objective holding and shooting?

I'm highly doubtful that they'd be used if they didn't bring 5CPs with them.


However, as I've said many times in the past, I'm more than happy to find out. Hence why I've consistently advocated for CP sharing to be removed.

If it is removed and every Imperium-Soup army continues to use the loyal 32 regardless, then I'll freely admit that my prediction was wrong.

They actually would be used if you think about it for like 2 seconds instead of one.
1. Both Custodes and Knights can't hold home objectives efficiently.
2. Nobody helps as much
It's a pretty simple process.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?

Well Armigers and Russes are the same army, Imperium, whilst cultists are a separate army, Chaos. Balancing Knights and Guard is pretty much an internal balance issue these days.

Renegade KNights do exist.
Just so you know. They don't have the nice stratagems and traits though.

So are you saying Renegade Knights + Cultists should be weaker than an equivalent army of Guard + IK? Because they were weaker before and are much weaker now. But that is besides the point.

Because allies are so common, you really do have to consider Armigers to tank equivalents in other armies. Forgefiends are compared to Armigers all the time. Renegade Knights are compared to the Lord of Skulls or Leviathan Dreads. Years ago, you had a valid point. Different Codex's had different internal balances and something that may be balanced in one codex may need a different price value in another. This is no longer true. Leman Russ Battle Tanks and Armigers can be fielded side by side with very little difficulty. If one is obviously superior to the other that is a problem. Internal Balance in an codex will only have meaning if players do not have access to allies and must play solo faction. As long as allies are implemented as they are with no costs, External balance between units is the only thing that matters. Internal balance must be applied to the entire overarching keyword. 'Aeldari' 'Imperium' 'Chaos'. Thinking about Imperium as a collection of different codex's is a habit and rememberance for what the hobby used to be. From a balancing perspective you must think of a single 'Imperium Codex' which is made from the armybook for each subfaction. If you say that cannot be internally balanced, the problem can only be solved by removing or nerfing allies to give the armies more individual identity.

How easily though? They still need to be grouped into detachments of a single faction. Where you use stuff like the Spearhead or whatever you're giving up a ton of Command Points.

Renegade Knights aren't a fully supported army though, they're a free index that was given out to give people some extra options.

And cultists aren't meant to be what Heretic Astartes are about, where as Infantry are one of the main focuses of Astra Militarum.

So yes, I would expect Imperial Knights and Infantry to be stronger than Renegade Knights and Cultists. The second list isn't playing to the strengths of the faction at all, so it would be weaker.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.

Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.

The iron warriors and AL would disagree with you. Of course also it would help if the heretic ASTARTES part of the army would not suck so hard.
Heck i fathom that cultists could literally be 6ppm and would still be taken before CSM of any kind since they just can't generate enough CP for a csm army to function.

Heretic astartes do not suck, they were just outclassed by cultists.

 sfshilo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.

Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.

The iron warriors and AL would disagree with you. Of course also it would help if the heretic ASTARTES part of the army would not suck so hard.
Heck i fathom that cultists could literally be 6ppm and would still be taken before CSM of any kind since they just can't generate enough CP for a csm army to function.

Heretic astartes do not suck, they were just outclassed by cultists.

Nah dude, basic Chaos Marines are terrible.

 Stux wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?

Exactly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smirrors wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.

All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.

Your argument should be regular Russ deserves a slight decrease too rather than why commanders got a decrease. Many armies received a discount against the meta armies, I am just explaining why the TC may have received his discount.

There is a 20 point difference between TC and Russ but anyone knows that TC wont survive very long. T8 and 3+ doesn't cut it any more.

I don't see why my "argument should be" that. TCs were good before, they didn't need to be better.

There's no need for TCs or regular Russes to be compared to Armigers anyway, they're totally different armies with access to vastly different things.

Lol you were confused why TC received a buff in reduced points. I gave you the reason. You just dont like said reason.