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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.

Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue:
It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.

It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to completely bypass the obviously intended mechanism of the "Auxiliary" Detachments. It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to bring anything larger than a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead as an "Allied" detachment. Anyone who had any actual fricking clue as to the mechanisms of what was going on with Guard lists being allied in at the start of 8th could see the writing on the wall once Conscripts got nerfed. It literally is because of this garbage that we're having this dumpsterfire of a "debate" how long after the Codex dropped?

Remove the ability to take ANY army outside of a Patrol, Outrider, Vanguard, Spearhead, or Auxiliary Detachment. Remove the ability for Guard Infantry Squads to take Mortars to shut the whiners up.

Then let's see how long we keep seeing Infantry Squads versus Conscripts in light of the existence of that ridiculous Custodes with Banner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Relics being free was quite possibly GW's dumbest decision to date. Make them purchased items again.

Honestly, making them purchased items might be just as bad.

Gonna harp on it again, I like AoS' relic system better. You get one to start with and need to have Warscroll Battalions to add another one.

I'd need a better descriptor of how that works for AoS. As is, YEAH purchasing might be bad, and GW never repriced Relics in 7th.

You get to take a single Relic for a character in your army by default. There's usually multiple tables worth of Relics, with certain types of characters only able to take certain ones.

In order to take any further Relics, you need to have paid the points to organize some of your units into a Warscroll Battalion. For every Warscroll Battalion you field, you get an extra Relic. Since you pay for the units initially and pay for the Warscroll Battalion proper.

A good parallel here would be taking any non-Patrol Detachment I guess? It's a bit hard to do a 1:1 comparison since Battalions are more like the Formations of 7th than they are Detachments, despite what some people like to argue.

However, you can always reprice a Relic per how effective it is. I can straight tell you that it's kinda silly that I would pick The Spartean over Teeth of Terra or The Shield Eternal when all these items are free. GW with Chapter Approved shows that they aren't afraid to put new prices on various items.

Let's even assume that the Aquila works so that you only get 1Cp from it max a turn. You're not gonna choose the Power Sword relic ever because they have the same cost: 0 points.

Let's be fair, even if the Aquila was pointed while the Power Sword relic wasn't? Almost nobody would take the Power Sword relic as Guard unless it really was good. Especially not if it's some goon who isn't actually playing Guard but rather is just taking them for the Aquila or filling out CP generation.

Dude...mortars in infantry squads is not even a problem. 5 point mortars and 4 point infantry squads IS the issue.

Among other issues. Captain slamquinius is also an issue. 130 point modles shouldn't 1 shot 400 point ones. Prophets of the flesh...also an issue. 15 point Dessie - also an issue - it's a 25 point weapon.

The main reason IMO people are bringing the minimum infantry squads when they used to take conscripts is because they buffed the CP of a battillion to 5, and you want as cheap a battillion as possible to fuel other factions that have trouble generating CP.

Mortars probably are a few points undercosted, but how 3 of them on 3 infantry squads is ruining anyone's day isn't something I understand.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
People are shocked that GT lists are not original?

Well colour me surprised, who would have thought the most competitive players would make the most boring lists to eliminate all random chance, call it "Strategy" and people are wanting to be surprised?

It's always been this way, look at every edition in the past.

If someone brings a mono-Night Lord list and wins a GT like this then I'll be surprised and take that scene more seriously.

.

People bring the best lists that are most likely to win. Get over it. "Take seriously" like you would've ever done anything competitively.

If anything, those odd ball lists that do only well on occasion aren't healthy because people will just assume the game is balanced when it isn't. How else do you expect GW to know there's problem units?

Actually confused here. If you see earlier comments you can see people are also bored of the unoriginal. I just made a comment on that people are surprised that other people will bring the most boring lists with no originality to win a game of plastic man-dollies. I just found that quite funny as I thought people would have been used to it by now after years of GW repeating the power creep cycle that will probably never end.

What I think is more toxic to the forum and the community as a whole is people like you who immanently jump down peoples throats after expressing opinion rather than seeing it as a point of discussion. I personally have little respect for the competitive scene because to be quite honest any idiot could grab a list from the internet take it to a tourney and win for some of those sweet ITC points. I've seen it happen on too many occasions. I mean if you wanted that theirs chess. 0 Possibility of random outcomes since all movements are fixed and can be "Pre-measured" per say in spaces Play with some guts! Bring the units that you like rather than the ones that "work", adapt around random elements rather than eliminate it all together. Makes a much more intense game which true competitive gamers thrive for.

Yes this is my own interpretation of how I think competitive games should be played. Yes not everyone thinks the same way. I really, really don't care. You can stick your nose up at me and get anal-retentive in semantics as much as you want and I couldn't give a flying . At the end of the day all armies and sub-factions should have a decent chance to stand on their own and win tourneys with a good, skilled player behind them. No one should be ever be penalised for taking the "wrong army/sub-faction" especially in a tournament. 40k still isn't there which is unfortunate, but using GT's as a testing ground for what should be a finished product isn't acceptable either because, quite frankly I think competitive gamers would feel a lot better knowing they got there to the top because of how they played rather than because they chose "List X, Y or Z".

The CP farm combining the IG warlord, relic, and BA relic is also head and shoulders more broken than just taking a 180 point battillion for CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Warp Forge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
People are shocked that GT lists are not original?

Well colour me surprised, who would have thought the most competitive players would make the most boring lists to eliminate all random chance, call it "Strategy" and people are wanting to be surprised?

It's always been this way, look at every edition in the past.

If someone brings a mono-Night Lord list and wins a GT like this then I'll be surprised and take that scene more seriously.

.

People bring the best lists that are most likely to win. Get over it. "Take seriously" like you would've ever done anything competitively.

If anything, those odd ball lists that do only well on occasion aren't healthy because people will just assume the game is balanced when it isn't. How else do you expect GW to know there's problem units?

Actually confused here. If you see earlier comments you can see people are also bored of the unoriginal. I just made a comment on that people are surprised that other people will bring the most boring lists with no originality to win a game of plastic man-dollies. I just found that quite funny as I thought people would have been used to it by now after years of GW repeating the power creep cycle that will probably never end.

What I think is more toxic to the forum and the community as a whole is people like you who immanently jump down peoples throats after expressing opinion rather than seeing it as a point of discussion. I personally have little respect for the competitive scene because to be quite honest any idiot could grab a list from the internet take it to a tourney and win for some of those sweet ITC points. I've seen it happen on too many occasions. I mean if you wanted that theirs chess. 0 Possibility of random outcomes since all movements are fixed and can be "Pre-measured" per say in spaces Play with some guts! Bring the units that you like rather than the ones that "work", adapt around random elements rather than eliminate it all together. Makes a much more intense game which true competitive gamers thrive for.

Yes this is my own interpretation of how I think competitive games should be played. Yes not everyone thinks the same way. I really, really don't care. You can stick your nose up at me and get anal-retentive in semantics as much as you want and I couldn't give a flying . At the end of the day all armies and sub-factions should have a decent chance to stand on their own and win tourneys with a good, skilled player behind them. No one should be ever be penalised for taking the "wrong army/sub-faction" especially in a tournament. 40k still isn't there which is unfortunate, but using GT's as a testing ground for what should be a finished product isn't acceptable either because, quite frankly I think competitive gamers would feel a lot better knowing they got there to the top because of how they played rather than because they chose "List X, Y or Z".

You shouldn't blame competitive players for wanting to bring the best list possible. You should blame GW is the best lists don't create a fun playing environment for the game. This game is so complicated that it's very difficult to foresee issues before releasing things. At least they are actively recruiting test players and releasing FAQs to fix these issues ASAP.

I also think it's silly to think that anyone could take the winning list and go 8-0 just from the strength of the list. Tons of lists similar to the winning list were beaten by other lists from many factions over the course of the event, and it still takes a top player to have that kind of performance.

These are about what I expected, sadly.

Imperial soup, Elf soup.

Personally hoping to see CA 2018 further restricts allies, especially of the two previously stated. Mono lists and limited allied I personally believe will bring more variety.

4ppm guard and 5 point mortars are NOT the problem. The fact that every Imperial Soup army spams this combo IS the problem.

If you saw a mono-guard army list with these units you wouldn't even bat an eyelid. Because on their own they get wiped off the board pretty easy when there aren't huge threats like baby titans and super hero humans.

Take away CP regen and even reduce the CP of allied detachhments and you wont see anyone take them, even if they are good value at 4ppm.

You know, the fact that a number of lists are a bunch of Guard, a couple Space Marines and a Knight kinda warms my fluff heart. It's not the exact makeup I'd go for, but it is something.

Honestly, do we really care that much? The lists are the result of the current meta with what works. Organizers of these large events need to put their big boy pants on and make some harsh requirements instead of leaving it to GW if they want more variety..
Or, maybe the players who actually go to these events like it and it really is just the armchair generals that have a problem.

The game can be played a multitude of ways. Don't want to play vs these kind of lists, then sit with your opponent and lay out some ground rules. Opponent not interested? Move on.

There is no "meta". The "meta" is bring as much undercosted crap as you can. Plus spam CP on power units.

Dismissing what you don't understand doesn't make it so.

A "Metagame" is different everywhere you go, but tends to be similar at the top of competitive gaming. My personal metagame is mostly mono-armies, because that's what we like to play. Sometimes two factions will be mixed... whooo! But it's still a metagame. The tendency of certain units to perform better than their points would suggest because of the opponents you face. If all I faced were Orks, Little Nids and Guardsmen without Tanks, Heavy Bolters would be king. You wouldn't ever use something else! And if all I ever faced were Knights, I'd be farming Lascannons as cheaply and plentifully as possible.

The Imperial Soup lists are all "Gear Check" lists. Do you have enough punch to nail down a Knight... while mowing down all the infantry... and have the ability to "snipe" out the BA commanders? If you answer no to any of those questions, the Soup player has a component to his list you have no counter for, and will (through skill and experience) create a game state in which that item will be a key to success. They are TAC lists, that can only be answered by similarly *efficient* TAC lists. They ask all the questions, and have all the answers. If you list doesn't do the same, it will defeat you.

Plus, you know, lots of CP helps.

The game is about spamming undercosted crap - that is the meta.

The #1 issue in 40k is the CP being connected to the detachments. All armies should get a flat amount. Now armies with cheap HQ and troops have a huge advantage.

All competitive games eventually develop a rigid meta. The rise of the Internet and easy access to information has just turbocharged that process.

So far the 8E meta has been pretty fun to follow since it seems to change all the time with all of the rules updates and new releases. It feels like a lot of armies have had their time in the sun this edition. Guilliman gunlines, malefic lords/brimstones, ynnari soulburst, flyrants, the DE meta, custodes, and now knights/catachans/hellhounds have all been creating a lot of interesting new scenarios for players to deal with. At this point we really just need an Ork meta, a Necron meta, and maybe a Tau meta and we'll have most of our bases covered. Oh and Grey Knights could also use a buff.

Make CP usable only by the faction or just detachment that generated it, and we'll see a lot fewer issues. The mix'n'match different armies thing is always going to cause problems. If that IG CP battery generates 20 CP to use on naked a couple dozen guardsmen, while leaving only a couple for the allied combo beatstick unit, then a lot of these issues go away.

As a Tyranid player I want all this gak to go the way of the Tyranids. Nerf it to the ground and throw the babies out with the bathwater. And do away with Allies while at it.

Reducing it to 1 ally would be helpful enough to change the meta.

 Kanluwen wrote:



Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue:
It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.

It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to completely bypass the obviously intended mechanism of the "Auxiliary" Detachments. It is the trainwreck of an Allies system that allows for you to bring anything larger than a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead as an "Allied" detachment. Anyone who had any actual fricking clue as to the mechanisms of what was going on with Guard lists being allied in at the start of 8th could see the writing on the wall once Conscripts got nerfed. It literally is because of this garbage that we're having this dumpsterfire of a "debate" how long after the Codex dropped?

Remove the ability to take ANY army outside of a Patrol, Outrider, Vanguard, Spearhead, or Auxiliary Detachment. Remove the ability for Guard Infantry Squads to take Mortars to shut the whiners up.

Then let's see how long we keep seeing Infantry Squads versus Conscripts in light of the existence of that ridiculous Custodes with Banner.

I'm choosing to ignore your points because they are completely bogus and biased.

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

If your proposed 'fix' effectively replaces Infantry with Conscripts I hate to tell you but it isn't a fix.

Make Infantry 5 or 6 ppm.
Make conscripts armour save 6+.

Then look at soup.

 Smirrors wrote:
4ppm guard and 5 point mortars are NOT the problem. The fact that every Imperial Soup army spams this combo IS the problem.

If you saw a mono-guard army list with these units you wouldn't even bat an eyelid. Because on their own they get wiped off the board pretty easy when there aren't huge threats like baby titans and super hero humans.

Take away CP regen and even reduce the CP of allied detachhments and you wont see anyone take them, even if they are good value at 4ppm.

Mono Guard is one of the best performing mono factions, able to compete at the top tables without souping. We saw this at the last GT.

Also there's a reason every Imperial soup list contains many Infantry units (they aren't all the same combo). (It's because they are too points efficient aka too cheap).

The aquilla/ability to regen CP needs to be fixed too.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.

There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.

Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.

These soup Imperium lists are boring.
Soup needs to be restricted.
Atm, you can take 3 detachments each of which from another codex, say, IK, BA, and AM.
How about restricting to two (or one) codex?

 wuestenfux wrote:
Atm, you can take 3 detachments each of which from another codex, say, IK, BA, and AM.
How about restricting to two (or one) codex?

Removes imperial soups from tournaments at the cost of everyones allied army becoming colateral damage.

Doesn't address any of the underlying problems of armies that are a couple of strong units proping up the rest, or armies that simply don't have all the tools in-codex, or the fact that many books synergize or support themselves so badly that cherry picking is better than pure lists despite unit taxes and incompatible aura/rules.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.

There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.

Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.

They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.

Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?

Ravemastaj wrote:

They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.

Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?

Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.

The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.

Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.

How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.

What about the following for matched play:
At least half of your detachments must share the same detachment level faction keyword. So only 1 allied detachment at 2000 pts.

To benefit from the subfaction traits (chapter, craftworld, etc) the detachment faction must be (or counts as, to allow in things like commisars) that subfaction's. So you can mix in 1 other subfaction, but that counts as your 1 allied detachment.

You may only take relics from your warlord's faction. No additional relic stratagems from other factions.

Guard infantry models 5 points each.

I'm not sure exactly what the solution is to all this soup but I know roughly what that solution would feel like when selecting your army. Using allies or not should always feel like a meaningful choice, with pros and cons to be considered. Right now, especially on the Imperial side, there's simply no disadvantage to taking a soup army. The opportunity cost is basically 0 because the allies will cover each other's weaknesses and the advantages are huge, in the form of extra CPs, more bodies and access to the best individual elements from each allied force.

Man all those "solutions" to soup... That only kill allies and wont make the meta better because people will find the hole in the new ally sistem.
As one of the 8 players in the world that plays fluffy imperial soup with a ton of different combinations because I have the attention spawn of a 3 years old (Custodes without bikes+Tempestus on Tauroxes and Bullgryns+ Imperial Knight Valiant and Warglaive+Celestine Patrol+Sisters of Silence+Vindicares) Im actually afraid of having all my imperial stuff expect for my Dark Angels, invalidated for matched pkay unless I spent a ton of money in doing all of those into 2000 point armies.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ravemastaj wrote:

They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.

Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?

Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.

The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.

Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.

How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.

You are ignoring why they are taking Guard in the first place. Yes, guardsmen are points efficient...at being bodies. So are Tyranids, with the ability to revive 10 hormagaunts a turn for every Tervigon they have-and the other 20 bodies in those 30 man swarms can have guns, too. You don't see Tyranids at the top list because they can't ally in a Slamguinus or a Knight. People take infantry squads for their cheap points, but they wouldn't take Guard at all if they couldn't use the CP. Guard need cheap bodies to function on their own. They aren't Custodes or in power armor. Flooding the board with a stationary gunline is their schtick, and other people are taking that because it is cheap.

Fix the ally problems first, THEN propose a change to the points of Guard. If they're still around after the change to CP batteries, then you will be correct. I doubt it though - skitarii has better statlines for troops and are basically cheaper marines.

Are we still pretending imperial guard is busted? Is this meme still happening?

It was scions and conscripts. Then it was Russ tanks. Then it was baneblade variants. Then it was manticores and basilisks.

What is it this time..

One thing that jumped out to me are all these Knights in Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachments listing households. Are they allowed them given the codex (pg106) says they're excluded

So are they just putting them down because Battlescribe forces you to put one in, or are they actually using the traditions on top of strategems...