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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


Case in point, taking a 10 man IG infantry squad under GW missions is fine, but under ITC missions it was a poor choice, the optimal build is to take a heavy weapon team so that there are only 9 models in the unit and therefore didn't give away VPs to your opponent. Looking at this it would seem to suggest that a heavy weapon, regardless of what it is, is a no-brainer, but its only a no-brainer under ITC missions.

That was specifically fixed in the latest ITC secondaries.

- They removed the ability to score multiple secondaries on models that gave them up easily (like Kingslayer & Headhunter).
- They change 'The Reaper' to be every 20 models killed so taking a bunch of 9 model IS units doesn't do much.
- They added Butcher's Bill to give up 1 point for every two units killed.

You should check into the new rules as the dynamic has changed considerably.

Hence why I said WAS. Those changes (and such simple changes) made units that were not competitive more so. In your own words, changing the mission parameters has changed the dynamics of the game considerably. Which is our point.

Current ITC rules have more in common with previous ITC rules that GW's standard missions, so surely you can understand where we are coming from by saying ITC is considerably different to GW standard, and that just because something performs poor/well under ITC does not mean GW should take it at face value that it needs to be changed.

ItsPug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


Case in point, taking a 10 man IG infantry squad under GW missions is fine, but under ITC missions it was a poor choice, the optimal build is to take a heavy weapon team so that there are only 9 models in the unit and therefore didn't give away VPs to your opponent. Looking at this it would seem to suggest that a heavy weapon, regardless of what it is, is a no-brainer, but its only a no-brainer under ITC missions.

That was specifically fixed in the latest ITC secondaries.

- They removed the ability to score multiple secondaries on models that gave them up easily (like Kingslayer & Headhunter).
- They change 'The Reaper' to be every 20 models killed so taking a bunch of 9 model IS units doesn't do much.
- They added Butcher's Bill to give up 1 point for every two units killed.

You should check into the new rules as the dynamic has changed considerably.

Hence why I said WAS. Those changes (and such simple changes) made units that were not competitive more so. In your own words, changing the mission parameters has changed the dynamics of the game considerably. Which is our point.

Current ITC rules have more in common with previous ITC rules that GW's standard missions, so surely you can understand where we are coming from by saying ITC is considerably different to GW standard, and that just because something performs poor/well under ITC does not mean GW should take it at face value that it needs to be changed.

No.

All the units they took then they still take now. The lists haven't changed much other than game-y issues like 9 man IS going away.

Marin wrote:

I don`t understand why most people are not content with the changes, it`s like they are expecting all their units to be OP and their army to be able to smash every opponent without problem.
If you can`t win games in your local community the problem is most likely you, not your army balance.

No, people were just expecting the things that dominate at literally every single tournament, Imperial soup w loyal 32 for CP farm, ynnari soup, knights, to be nerfed. Instead those things got no changes while units like crisis suits got buffed from being totally unplayable garbage to maybe you'll take them for fun once in awhile. CA2018 seems to be aimed at allowing casual players to use their whole collection without auto losing rather than balancing the game for tournaments. If they intended CA2018 to balance the game at the top end for tournament players, it would have done something about loyal 32, ynnari soup, and knights. I don't expect *my* army to be super OP, I just don't want to see any army or combination be super OP. As long as you have to run some flavor of Imperial or Ynnari soup to perform well at tournaments, there's a fundamental problem with the game.

As I said in another post, it's both hilarious and sad that GW thinks limiting soup by only allowing 1 faction per detachment is effective. They either can't even comprehend the flaws in their own game system after 1.5 years of tournament results and feedback, or don't care enough to risk losing the sale of 32 guardsmen to every imperial player.

 Toofast wrote:
CA2018 seems to be aimed at allowing casual players to use their whole collection without auto losing rather than balancing the game for tournaments.

Which is exactly what they should do. If they can balance for the tournaments too, great, but improvements for the casual play should be the priority.

Casual play is by definition inherently fine, though.

If Crisis Suits were 200 points a model, what difference does it make in the world of fluffy beerhammer. You'd take them anyway because they fit your theme or the models look cool or whatever your motivation.

If casual play is the priority then things like CA have no function. The point of living rulesets is to cater to high-level play, where balance actually matters.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Casual play is by definition inherently fine, though.

If Crisis Suits were 200 points a model, what difference does it make in the world of fluffy beerhammer. You'd take them anyway because they fit your theme or the models look cool or whatever your motivation.

If casual play is the priority then things like CA have no function. The point of living rulesets is to cater to high-level play, where balance actually matters.

That's just utter nonsense. People who play casually want to have a fair (or at least some!) chance of winning too. Balance actually matters in the top end way less, because there people are perfectly fine with 90% of the stuff being unusable anyway.

 Crimson wrote:
People who play casually want to have a fair (or at least some!) chance of winning too.

That's already the case in casual play, and has been. There are no unusable units when list min-maxing isn't in play.

The funny thing with balancing for competitive is that it balances casual at the same time. The reverse is not true.

 Crimson wrote:
People who play casually want to have a fair (or at least some!) chance of winning too. Balance actually matters in the top end way less, because there people are perfectly fine with 90% of the stuff being unusable anyway.

How would nerfing loyal 32, castellan, and ynnari soup give casual players less chance at winning? Right now, a casual player still has no chance at winning against one of those lists. They can just use a few more models from their collection without auto losing against other casual lists. Balance matters more in the top end because it's extremely boring to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to travel to an event, get a hotel room, buy a ticket, pay to eat out for 3 days, just to see 60 out of 120 armies using the same 2 lists. It also prevents more people from getting interested in local events because they realize if they don't play 1 of 3 lists, which they might not happen to like, they might as well not even show up. There's better things to do on a Saturday than get curbstomped by custodes jetbikes, loyal 32 mortar teams and a castellan at your FLGS ITC event because you happen to like Necrons or Grey Knights. Ask guys like Nanavati if they prefer 75% of the factions and 90% of the units in the game being unusable if you're trying to win a competitive event. The best players will still win the big events if everything is viable, they'll just have a lot more fun doing it and be able to play what they like instead of being shoehorned into a specific army build because they want to win.

 Toofast wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
People who play casually want to have a fair (or at least some!) chance of winning too. Balance actually matters in the top end way less, because there people are perfectly fine with 90% of the stuff being unusable anyway.

How would nerfing loyal 32, castellan, and ynnari soup give casual players less chance at winning? Right now, a casual player still has no chance at winning against one of those lists. They can just use a few more models from their collection without auto losing against other casual lists. Balance matters more in the top end because it's extremely boring to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to travel to an event, get a hotel room, buy a ticket, pay to eat out for 3 days, just to see 60 out of 120 armies using the same 2 lists. It also prevents more people from getting interested in local events because they realize if they don't play 1 of 3 lists, which they might not happen to like, they might as well not even show up. There's better things to do on a Saturday than get curbstomped by custodes jetbikes, loyal 32 mortar teams and a castellan at your FLGS ITC event because you happen to like Necrons or Grey Knights. Ask guys like Nanavati if they prefer 75% of the factions and 90% of the units in the game being unusable if you're trying to win a competitive event. The best players will still win the big events if everything is viable, they'll just have a lot more fun doing it and be able to play what they like instead of being shoehorned into a specific army build because they want to win.

So I guess we should forget balancing, is that what you are suggesting? Cancel the CA boys, we are going back to codex point costs!

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
People who play casually want to have a fair (or at least some!) chance of winning too.

That's already the case in casual play, and has been. There are no unusable units when list min-maxing isn't in play.

I don't think this is right.

Consider 7th edition. Consider a Necron Decurion versus any of the low tier armies - Dark Eldar, CSM, Orks, non-Flyrant spamming Tyranids.

As the non-Necron player you could have turns where you killed literally 3-5 warriors. They meanwhile deleted a third of your list.

By the end of the edition Necrons were at best a mid table codex - but the crap codexes bordered on being unplayable. The massive difference between the relative tier lists meant it was difficult to have a casual game which wasn't one way traffic. The fact that those armies would be even worse against a "I can table you in two turns" Ynnari list - or a "you hit me on 6s, I have a rerollable 2++" super friends list doesn't change that.

Saying "it doesn't matter if crisis suits are 200 points" doesn't make much sense. It does. You likely won't have a fun game if your army is dramatically weaker than your opponents, resulting in you doing no damage and being quickly tabled.

The reverse is also true I hate being the steamroller as much as I hate being rolled.

Games that are close are way more satisfying.

If you know you're just going to be removing models for 2-3 hours why bother playing?

Auto losing a game isn't fun.

Tyel wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
People who play casually want to have a fair (or at least some!) chance of winning too.

That's already the case in casual play, and has been. There are no unusable units when list min-maxing isn't in play.

I don't think this is right.

Consider 7th edition. Consider a Necron Decurion versus any of the low tier armies - Dark Eldar, CSM, Orks, non-Flyrant spamming Tyranids.

As the non-Necron player you could have turns where you killed literally 3-5 warriors. They meanwhile deleted a third of your list.

By the end of the edition Necrons were at best a mid table codex - but the crap codexes bordered on being unplayable. The massive difference between the relative tier lists meant it was difficult to have a casual game which wasn't one way traffic. The fact that those armies would be even worse against a "I can table you in two turns" Ynnari list - or a "you hit me on 6s, I have a rerollable 2++" super friends list doesn't change that.

Saying "it doesn't matter if crisis suits are 200 points" doesn't make much sense. It does. You likely won't have a fun game if your army is dramatically weaker than your opponents, resulting in you doing no damage and being quickly tabled.

This says it all. 7th edition was about the worst edition I have played because of the power imbalance and GW not doing anything to alleviate the problem...they did a lot to aggravate it though.

Facing a Triple riptide wing, wraithknights w/Jetbikes/Spider support or the Decurion and the Space Marine Free transport lists was basically me doing my best to end the game on turn 3 instead of turn 2. The fact that I had literally no chance unless the dice gods were almost completely in my favor and my opponent made massive mistakes was what killed 7th for me.

And now in 8th, I run up against The IG Battery powered Knight lists with Slamguines or Eldar Soup lists, its basically the same thing. But here is the thing, 8th isn't ruined and can be fixed with just a simple tweak that will utterly piss off the WAAC/TFG players and make everyone else happy. GET RID OF ALLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get rid of allies in matched play and suddenly these problems go away. Sure you can make some special snowflake rules for the factions that can't stand alone (knights, Assassins, Inquisition) but get rid of allies and CP sharing between allies and suddenly the meta changes dramatically. I am not by any means saying this will fix every balance issue in the game, far from it, but what it will do is get rid of the biggest offenders and the ones that most other factions can't even duplicate.

As for friendly games, yeah, go ahead and forge that narrative as hard as you want.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The funny thing with balancing for competitive is that it balances casual at the same time. The reverse is not true.

Few man can squish a 20+ pages of rants in to one wise sentance. Here is one. :clap:

That's already the case in casual play, and has been. There are no unusable units when list min-maxing isn't in play.

Maybe if you play eldar and use a strong core, that is used in tournament lists too. Then yes, adding a war walker or a unit of stormguardians probably doesn't matter to quality of game play. But try taking 10 purfires in a GK army and enjoy having a 900pts unit, including buff and transport, that gets killed by something that costs ~150-200pts.

While yes, balancing for competitive results in balancing for casual, I maintain the issue is GW's balancing for competitive is using the wrong information because the missions can change the dynamic so much.

It also seems that GW doesn't quite get the real problem, or is willfully ignoring it. I'm talking, of course, about being able to take a cheap Battalion for CP and using the overall faction keyword (i.e. IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI, TYRANID) to claim Battleforged. The very fact that they thought the issue was mixing in a single detachment, rather than the entire army, shows that they missed the point.

That's what needs to be fixed: For Matched Play (and only Matched Play), you cannot use IMPERIUM, AELDARI, CHAOS or TYRANID as a keyword for purposes of determining Battle-forged. Which would nip soup in the bud immediately in the way it's currently used, but still allow properly themed armies in some cases (e.g. a force of multiple marine chapters, a God-marked Chaos warband, etc.)

IMNSHO, that plus using the Chapter Approved 2018 Eternal War missions will fix a lot of the issues in the game. But it's up to GW to realize that's the issue and address it, and then it's up to people to adopt the CA missions as the standard rather than use homebrew missions.

Oh, another thread that basically becomes a "kill soup" argument.

Honestly, GW should do it if only to see people realize that soup isn't the problem and the next Boogeyman scapegoat takes over.

Lemondish wrote:
Oh, another thread that basically becomes a "kill soup" argument.

Honestly, GW should do it if only to see people realize that soup isn't the problem and the next Boogeyman scapegoat takes over.

That is literally what I said....but why not get rid of soup if its the biggest offender right now? I like working towards a balanced game and right now the biggest opponent to that is Soup.

No it isn't. It is miscosted units. If there are not OP units, soup is not a problem. No one thinks Sisters + Templars soup is a problem. There is a tiny minority of soup builds which cause issues, most of the soup builds are perfectly unproblematic. If your soup is too spicy, it is not inherently problem with all soups, it is the chili you keep putting in it.

 Crimson wrote:
No it isn't. It is miscosted units. If there are not OP units, soup is not a problem. No one thinks Sisters + Templars soup is a problem. There is a tiny minority of soup builds which cause issues, most of the soup builds are perfectly unproblematic. If your soup is too spicy, it is not inherently problem with all soups, it is the chili you keep putting in it.

I strongly dislike 'one size fits all' fixes.

Reminds me of old whfb house rules and tournaments. Double steam tanks, double hydras and double hell cannons were all very powerful.

Instead of banning (doubling up on) those specific trouble makers everyone would just make a generic "no double rares". Sure it fixed the problem, but it also created new problems, such as 1) making units such as Giants, which required target saturation to ensure one could reach enemy lines, were never taken or 2) preventing completely inoffensive but thematic units such as chaos spawn from being used.

 Crimson wrote:
No it isn't. It is miscosted units. If there are not OP units, soup is not a problem. No one thinks Sisters + Templars soup is a problem. There is a tiny minority of soup builds which cause issues, most of the soup builds are perfectly unproblematic. If your soup is too spicy, it is not inherently problem with all soups, it is the chili you keep putting in it.

TBH if that were the case then GW nerfs very questionably.

nareik wrote:


I strongly dislike 'one size fits all' fixes.

Reminds me of old whfb house rules and tournaments. Double steam tanks, double hydras and double rares were all very powerful.

Instead of banning (doubling up on) those specific trouble makers everyone would just make a generic "no double rares". Sure it fixed the problem, but it also created new problems, such as 1) making units such as Giants, which required target saturation to ensure one could reach enemy lines, were never taken or 2) preventing completely inoffensive but thematic units such as chaos spawn from being used.

Yeah. 100% agreed. I hate blanket fixes which end up hurting a lot of completely innocent builds. For that reason I'm not a fan of the Rule of Three either.

Ghorgul wrote:
So I guess we should forget balancing, is that what you are suggesting? Cancel the CA boys, we are going back to codex point costs!

You deserve a gold medal for the mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion from what I said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

8th isn't ruined and can be fixed with just a simple tweak that will utterly piss off the WAAC/TFG players and make everyone else happy. GET RID OF ALLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get rid of allies in matched play and suddenly these problems go away. Sure you can make some special snowflake rules for the factions that can't stand alone (knights, Assassins, Inquisition) but get rid of allies and CP sharing between allies and suddenly the meta changes dramatically.

Competitive players wouldn't mind this at all. It's the beer and pretzels, forge the narrative (tm) fluffhammer players that would cry the loudest if allies were removed, despite the fact that they just houserule everything they don't like and play open play anyway. Also, it will never be done because then an eldar player doesn't have a reason to buy DE units, imperium players are forced to choose between buying IK or the loyal 32 instead of being forced to buy both just to be competitive with the ynnari soup of the month. As a competitive player who mostly plays tournaments, I would love to see allies removed or CP restricted to the detachment that it came from. However, GW will never do anything that might reduce sales in the slightest, despite how many problems it would fix within the game. That's why unusable models got their points reduced, but almost nothing in the entire game got a point increase in this CA. Reducing points on things makes more people buy them. Increasing points of things may cause people to stop buying them. This seems to be their new method of "balancing" the game, just reduce points on models that nobody takes instead of taking a nerf bat to the stuff that will still dominate the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

It also seems that GW doesn't quite get the real problem, or is willfully ignoring it. I'm talking, of course, about being able to take a cheap Battalion for CP and using the overall faction keyword (i.e. IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI, TYRANID) to claim Battleforged. The very fact that they thought the issue was mixing in a single detachment, rather than the entire army, shows that they missed the point.

They very much get it, they just don't want to risk losing the sales that they gain from everyone being required to buy units from 2 or 3 different factions now. Even in 7th you would buy from at most 2 factions. The ally system and formations caused issues, so they "fixed" it by allowing you to buy even more models you didn't own before in exchange for just as much of a power benefit as you had from running formations in 7th. Well played, GW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
No it isn't. It is miscosted units. If there are not OP units, soup is not a problem. No one thinks Sisters + Templars soup is a problem. There is a tiny minority of soup builds which cause issues, most of the soup builds are perfectly unproblematic. If your soup is too spicy, it is not inherently problem with all soups, it is the chili you keep putting in it.

If you balance the points of every unit based on their power in a soup list, they become unplayable in a mono list. If you balance their points around a mono list, they become OP in soup. This is why soup is the problem, and you keep completely missing this point in post after post. Are the loyal 32 undercosted in a fluffy guard list? Are custodes jetbikes broken in a mono custodes list? If soup didn't exist, it would be far easier to accurately put a point cost on units.

Watched the video...competitive imperial soup player literally says hed pay up to 735 for the model but thinks the model should be 665...LOL. Dude...

 Toofast wrote:

If you balance the points of every unit based on their power in a soup list, they become unplayable in a mono list. If you balance their points around a mono list, they become OP in soup.

Not true. Though you probably need to flatten the differnt armies ability to generate CP somewhat. Return battalion and brigade to their original levels, and bump the battleforged CP. Or otherwise units must start to to pay points for their ability to generate CP.

Are the loyal 32 undercosted in a fluffy guard list?

Yes they absolutely are!

Getting rid of soup will simply imbalance the game further - it's a silly, exaggerated response to a truly minor problem.

CP generation and the relative worthlessness of troops aside from that purpose is the real issue.

Make troops the only unit able to claim objectives and adopt the acceptable casualties rule for every mission and you'll start to see people run away from the loyal 32.

Lemondish wrote:
Getting rid of soup will simply imbalance the game further - it's a silly, exaggerated response to a truly minor problem.

CP generation and the relative worthlessness of troops aside from that purpose is the real issue.

Make troops the only unit able to claim objectives and adopt the acceptable casualties rule for every mission and you'll start to see people run away from the loyal 32.

This i can get behind. 5th had that rule, and it made troops much more valuable; of course, this further buffs horde armies (that dont need the buff)

SemperMortis wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
People who play casually want to have a fair (or at least some!) chance of winning too.

That's already the case in casual play, and has been. There are no unusable units when list min-maxing isn't in play.

I don't think this is right.

Consider 7th edition. Consider a Necron Decurion versus any of the low tier armies - Dark Eldar, CSM, Orks, non-Flyrant spamming Tyranids.

As the non-Necron player you could have turns where you killed literally 3-5 warriors. They meanwhile deleted a third of your list.

By the end of the edition Necrons were at best a mid table codex - but the crap codexes bordered on being unplayable. The massive difference between the relative tier lists meant it was difficult to have a casual game which wasn't one way traffic. The fact that those armies would be even worse against a "I can table you in two turns" Ynnari list - or a "you hit me on 6s, I have a rerollable 2++" super friends list doesn't change that.

Saying "it doesn't matter if crisis suits are 200 points" doesn't make much sense. It does. You likely won't have a fun game if your army is dramatically weaker than your opponents, resulting in you doing no damage and being quickly tabled.

This says it all. 7th edition was about the worst edition I have played because of the power imbalance and GW not doing anything to alleviate the problem...they did a lot to aggravate it though.

Facing a Triple riptide wing, wraithknights w/Jetbikes/Spider support or the Decurion and the Space Marine Free transport lists was basically me doing my best to end the game on turn 3 instead of turn 2. The fact that I had literally no chance unless the dice gods were almost completely in my favor and my opponent made massive mistakes was what killed 7th for me.

And now in 8th, I run up against The IG Battery powered Knight lists with Slamguines or Eldar Soup lists, its basically the same thing. But here is the thing, 8th isn't ruined and can be fixed with just a simple tweak that will utterly piss off the WAAC/TFG players and make everyone else happy. GET RID OF ALLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get rid of allies in matched play and suddenly these problems go away. Sure you can make some special snowflake rules for the factions that can't stand alone (knights, Assassins, Inquisition) but get rid of allies and CP sharing between allies and suddenly the meta changes dramatically. I am not by any means saying this will fix every balance issue in the game, far from it, but what it will do is get rid of the biggest offenders and the ones that most other factions can't even duplicate.

As for friendly games, yeah, go ahead and forge that narrative as hard as you want.

Without allies those 4 Knights still stomp all over you, Ynnari still destroys you, DE still destroys you, Craftworld Eldar will still destroy you.

Yes all those lists are better with allies but removing allies doesn't stop them from being amazingly broken. A Castellan doesn't stop being an insane amount of firepower for its points. Dissi Ravers are still amazing without Doom, Talon with 4++ are still bonkers, Allaitoc is still as broken as ever, Strength from Death is still a completely broken rule
Remove allies and you will see less variety of play, not more. It won't 'fix' any balance problems, it will just make more things 'uncompetitive'.

 Ordana wrote:
Without allies those 4 Knights still stomp all over you, Ynnari still destroys you, DE still destroys you, Craftworld Eldar will still destroy you.

Yes all those lists are better with allies but removing allies doesn't stop them from being amazingly broken. A Castellan doesn't stop being an insane amount of firepower for its points. Dissi Ravers are still amazing without Doom, Talon with 4++ are still bonkers, Allaitoc is still as broken as ever, Strength from Death is still a completely broken rule
Remove allies and you will see less variety of play, not more. It won't 'fix' any balance problems, it will just make more things 'uncompetitive'.

The Castellan isn't as big a problem when it doesn't have 8-15 CP to spend on strats, same with pretty much most soup lists that bring another codex's troops choice to fill battalions to generate CP.

I'd love to face 4 Knights without much CP if any instead of 1-2 Knights with 9 CP each. Being able to kill a knight with my new codex isn't as hard as it was, but being able to kill one that has a constant durability boost and damage boost is a bit harder, especially when its surrounded by the loyal 32.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Without allies those 4 Knights still stomp all over you, Ynnari still destroys you, DE still destroys you, Craftworld Eldar will still destroy you.

Yes all those lists are better with allies but removing allies doesn't stop them from being amazingly broken. A Castellan doesn't stop being an insane amount of firepower for its points. Dissi Ravers are still amazing without Doom, Talon with 4++ are still bonkers, Allaitoc is still as broken as ever, Strength from Death is still a completely broken rule
Remove allies and you will see less variety of play, not more. It won't 'fix' any balance problems, it will just make more things 'uncompetitive'.

The Castellan isn't as big a problem when it doesn't have 8-15 CP to spend on strats, same with pretty much most soup lists that bring another codex's troops choice to fill battalions to generate CP.

I'd love to face 4 Knights without much CP if any instead of 1-2 Knights with 9 CP each. Being able to kill a knight with my new codex isn't as hard as it was, but being able to kill one that has a constant durability boost and damage boost is a bit harder, especially when its surrounded by the loyal 32.

It's also far easier to determine how much a knight should cost if you don't have to calculate the 300 other units it could be used in conjunction with. If knights had to be used on their own, or max of 1 as an ally to a single codex detachment, they would be far easier to accurately cost. Instead you have to choose between the appropriate points cost when used in a list with loyal 32 and 10 custodes jetbikes or the appropriate point cost in an all knight army, which are vastly different numbers.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Watched the video...competitive imperial soup player literally says hed pay up to 735 for the model but thinks the model should be 665...LOL. Dude...

I got 2nd hand embarassment watching him rant for (over 1 minute?) about how he told GW "don't **** this up", "don't increase it's points", "it's not fair" and then turns around and blames GW for sitting on it's hands. And also exactly that disrepancy between his "fair point cost" and the "point cost he would pay" is just hilarious, you get to pick only one! Should GW also balance units by giving them 2 point costs and let players pick whichever they like more?