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.
So, I 100% agree something needs to be done about CP farming , but another unit I'd like to address is the shadowsword. I believe it needs a price increase. It's by far the cheapest and most useful superheavy the guard get.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 04:50:09
Check out my slow progressing work blog Vlka Fenryka
Guards could need some fixing, especially the shadowsword, but they are low priority so i doubt that they will fix them in the FAQ. While infantry could probably use having the cost increased by one point, no one is getting shredded by playing 2000 vs 2030 points, right?
Or how about just increase their cost? Infantry is 5 points/model, Conscript 4 and Veterans 6. It makes zero sense to bring Conscripts to the table when the Guardsmen cost the same, have higher WS and BS, higher leadership, access to special weapons and follow all orders.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 06:10:46
bibotot wrote: Or how about just increase their cost? Infantry is 5 points/model, Conscript 4 and Veterans 6. It makes zero sense to bring Conscripts to the table when the Guardsmen cost the same, have higher WS and BS, higher leadership, access to special weapons and follow all orders.
Because guard players want 3ppm conscripts back as they believe they are balanced at 3ppm.
I don't understand why people can't see the glaring issue with the Astra Millicheese codex, but then again people claimed scatbikes were weak and invisibility was ok in 7th.
Someone mentioned Shadow Swords needing a fix? How? Currently there are tons of equal or better units out there, what makes the ShadowSword OP? Price? Because it's a lot different then equivalent knights, or lords of war. Don't touch El Jeffe.
bibotot wrote: Or how about just increase their cost? Infantry is 5 points/model, Conscript 4 and Veterans 6. It makes zero sense to bring Conscripts to the table when the Guardsmen cost the same, have higher WS and BS, higher leadership, access to special weapons and follow all orders.
Because guard players want 3ppm conscripts back as they believe they are balanced at 3ppm.
I don't understand why people can't see the glaring issue with the Astra Millicheese codex, but then again people claimed scatbikes were weak and invisibility was ok in 7th.
Because Conscripts were nerfed as they were one of the few units at that time with easy access to Morale immunity.
Since then, we've seen Conscripts nerfed by the addition of "Raw Recruits"(to perform an Order, they need to pass a 4+ roll on a D6) to their unit entry in the Codex, reduction of unit max size from 50 to 30 tops, and the Commissar nerf.
We've also seen Morale immunity become far more widespread via traits like Iyanden.
So if they're okay with Morale immunity being more widespread, Conscripts can get their points dropped back down and/or Commissars can see a reversion. Remember that the whole point between those two units being nerfed was for soup--looks like that worked out great, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Honestly, I'd rather see Company Commanders stay at 30, but with Refractors being an upgrade.
Then they'd have to drop even further. Refractors are baked into their points cost.
That said, swapping the Refractors with Carapace Armor instead of Refractors base and making Refractors an upgrade isn't entirely unreasonable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 12:33:18
There are two tiers of troops, balance wise, as I see it currently:
IG/Fire Warriors/DE/AdMech
Marines/CWE/Necrons/Nids
There are also some outliers further along the way I'd consider trash tier, but they aren't balanced around eachother - Storm Guardians et al get to hang out there.
In the first tier, IG are pointed fairly. Compare them to Fire Warriors, Kabs, or AdMech, 5ppm is far too high.
In the second tier, IG are undercosted. Compare them to Tacs, Guardians, Necron Warriors, or Gaunts, and 4ppm is far too low.
When IG were *the* outlier, very early in the edition, 5ppm would have been the perfect fit. Now, a fix to IG requires fixing everything else in that tier as well - otherwise, you're unfairly nerfing IG. Conversely, you could fix Tacs to be fairly costed around what IG cost - but would need to fix CWE/Necrons/Nids/etc too.
Either way, setting the points values just for IG Troopers doesn't fix the game. And a middleground solution makes nobody happy - IG are now downright worse than half the armies, but they're still downright better than half the armies.
Now, I prefer the second group. Perhaps it's personal bias (my Dire Avengers and my Tacs are my two favorite units). I think it's more because there's more room for careful balance with bigger numbers.
In either case, it needs a wider-range points cost change than just IG. Perhaps we'll get that in CA, but I highly doubt it.
For the most part, I liked what I saw for points in Kill Team (aside from weapons costs). That's probably not what CA is going to do, but it'd be great.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kan,
Iyanden isn't anything like the morale immunity for Eldar as Commisars were for IG. It sure sounds like it. On paper, it seems like it. But the same rule on different armies is not the same thing.
Consider a 6+ FnP. Guard would love that. Certainly worth at least +1ppm. Now consider it on DG. Not gonna do a whole lot for them - doesn't stack with their rules.
Similarly, when you have a 30-50 model unit (depending on when) with low LD at dirt-cheap ppm, losing at most just one guy from morale is great. Because if you shoot half their models dead, they'd have lost a gakton more models.
On the other hand, when you have a 5-man unit with LD8, what does that rule do for you? Here:
-Lose 3 guys: 1/6 chance to lose 1 guy in LD - no impact from the buff
-Lose 4 guys: 1/6 chance to lose 1 guy, and the buff doesn't matter. But there's also a 1/6 chance to lose 2 of your 1 remaining guy... so the buff doesn't matter
-Lose 5 guys: No morale check
The vast majority of CWE units are fielded as 5-mans, by fluff, tradition, iconic army structure, and crunch. Guardians are the one squad it's likely to make a difference - but they're twice the cost of Conscripts. They are not a horde unit. (Although we should share a laugh at the Iyanden trait being best used by an Uthwe Black Guardian army...) Even for Guardians, though, Iron Hands (6+++) or Raven Guard (-1-to-hit outside 12") does more for durability.
I agree that armies far too easily ignore LD. But Iyanden is a minor example of that, at best.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 13:18:50
Bharring wrote: There are two tiers of troops, balance wise, as I see it currently:
IG/Fire Warriors/DE/AdMech
Marines/CWE/Necrons/Nids
There are also some outliers further along the way I'd consider trash tier, but they aren't balanced around eachother - Storm Guardians et al get to hang out there.
In the first tier, IG are pointed fairly. Compare them to Fire Warriors, Kabs, or AdMech, 5ppm is far too high.
In the second tier, IG are undercosted. Compare them to Tacs, Guardians, Necron Warriors, or Gaunts, and 4ppm is far too low.
When IG were *the* outlier, very early in the edition, 5ppm would have been the perfect fit. Now, a fix to IG requires fixing everything else in that tier as well - otherwise, you're unfairly nerfing IG. Conversely, you could fix Tacs to be fairly costed around what IG cost - but would need to fix CWE/Necrons/Nids/etc too.
Either way, setting the points values just for IG Troopers doesn't fix the game. And a middleground solution makes nobody happy - IG are now downright worse than half the armies, but they're still downright better than half the armies.
Now, I prefer the second group. Perhaps it's personal bias (my Dire Avengers and my Tacs are my two favorite units). I think it's more because there's more room for careful balance with bigger numbers.
In either case, it needs a wider-range points cost change than just IG. Perhaps we'll get that in CA, but I highly doubt it.
For the most part, I liked what I saw for points in Kill Team (aside from weapons costs). That's probably not what CA is going to do, but it'd be great.
I basically agree.
The one thing I'll say, though, is that I don't think it's as simple as adjusting point costs for non-IG troops. I think there are several issue at the moment:
1) Soup. As long as Soup is all benefits and no drawbacks, then competitive players will just use the most efficient troops available to them from across all armies.
2) Lack of role. So many troops simply have no discernible role, because of how the game operates. Yeah, they can hold objectives, but so can a tank. And that tank will usually do a whole lot more while sitting on said objective. Yeah, troops are (in theory) slightly better at holding objectives than non-troops... but that makes no difference when your troops are scattered in bloody pieces across the battlefield because they tried to take an objective off a tank.
For all 5th edition's faults, I think one of the best things it did was make it that troops - and only troops - could score objectives. It gave troops an actual reason to exist which wasn't predicated on their ability to match the firepower and durability of more elite units. As it stands, there's really very little purpose to troops beyond being cheap detachment fillers.
2.5) Confused role. Related to the above but more of an issue with regard to mechanical ability. Tactical marines (and marines in general) are in this really awkward place where they want to be elite units and yet also cheap enough to be spammed. Probably not helped by them basically being hemmed in by other units and the limited stat blocks.
To my mind, Primaris Marines were a horrible, horrible idea. It seems like it would have been far more sensible to simply give those stats and roles to regular marines. That way, GW could have made marines feel like actual elites and focused on that role - instead of making them these weird pseudo-elites who are just middling at everything.
Anyway, we've also got Guardians - who seem designed to sit near the back, babysitting a long-range heavy weapon . . . except that their weapons have a range of 12". What.
Then there are Necron Warriors, which look good on paper but just end up waddling around firing ineffectual guns.
3) Special Rules. Not always a major factor but can be important. I mention them mainly because of Necron Warriors - which are currently saddled with Resurrection Protocols (which is supposed to give them survivalist but in reality just locks them into 20-man squads and rarely even matters) and Gauss (now just an extra -1 on their weapons, which is supposed to help against vehicles but doesn't do nearly enough to be relevant). This is noteworthy because Necron Warriors basically *are* those two special rules. They don't bring special or heavy weapons, they don't have a sergeant or melee weapons. They're entirely reliant on those rules to be functional.
4) I also think more dedicated infantry-support could help. e.g. rather than just making auras affect everything, perhaps limit them to infantry models - or even specifically troops. Or have auras be more effective on troops (e.g. reroll 1 auras could let troops reroll all misses). That way commanders can actually help pull troops up and make them more effective, rather than it being better for them to just pick the already good units and buff them even more. I find this particularly obnoxious in the case of the DE Archon. He has no mobility options (wings, jetbike etc.), his aura doesn't work inside, into, or out of a transport, he can only buff a tiny fraction of the DE army, and virtually all the infantry he's capable of buffing want to stay in transports. So, rather than buffing DE Infantry, he just ends up sitting at the back with a group of Ravagers. This, to me, just smacks of terrible design.
Now, granted, I don't think this is as big of an issue as the others - but it's definitely something that could be done to help out armies with struggling troops or infantry.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Add 50% to the points cost of all units that don't share 2 or 3 faction keywords with your warlord. This would allow some soup, but adds more difficult decisions to list building. Admittedly, I don't know all of the faction keywords on all of the datasheets, so there are probably some unforeseen interactions.
For all 5th edition's faults, I think one of the best things it did was make it that troops - and only troops - could score objectives. It gave troops an actual reason to exist which wasn't predicated on their ability to match the firepower and durability of more elite units. As it stands, there's really very little purpose to troops beyond being cheap detachment fillers.
This, is the single best idea since Flesh lights. I love this. I had no idea that was the old way. That could even make Fast attack vehicles like Sentinels viable again!
Bharring wrote: There are two tiers of troops, balance wise, as I see it currently:
IG/Fire Warriors/DE/AdMech
Marines/CWE/Necrons/Nids
There are also some outliers further along the way I'd consider trash tier, but they aren't balanced around eachother - Storm Guardians et al get to hang out there.
In the first tier, IG are pointed fairly. Compare them to Fire Warriors, Kabs, or AdMech, 5ppm is far too high.
In the second tier, IG are undercosted. Compare them to Tacs, Guardians, Necron Warriors, or Gaunts, and 4ppm is far too low.
When IG were *the* outlier, very early in the edition, 5ppm would have been the perfect fit. Now, a fix to IG requires fixing everything else in that tier as well - otherwise, you're unfairly nerfing IG. Conversely, you could fix Tacs to be fairly costed around what IG cost - but would need to fix CWE/Necrons/Nids/etc too.
Either way, setting the points values just for IG Troopers doesn't fix the game. And a middleground solution makes nobody happy - IG are now downright worse than half the armies, but they're still downright better than half the armies.
Now, I prefer the second group. Perhaps it's personal bias (my Dire Avengers and my Tacs are my two favorite units). I think it's more because there's more room for careful balance with bigger numbers.
In either case, it needs a wider-range points cost change than just IG. Perhaps we'll get that in CA, but I highly doubt it.
For the most part, I liked what I saw for points in Kill Team (aside from weapons costs). That's probably not what CA is going to do, but it'd be great.
I basically agree.
The one thing I'll say, though, is that I don't think it's as simple as adjusting point costs for non-IG troops. I think there are several issue at the moment:
1) Soup. As long as Soup is all benefits and no drawbacks, then competitive players will just use the most efficient troops available to them from across all armies.
2) Lack of role. So many troops simply have no discernible role, because of how the game operates. Yeah, they can hold objectives, but so can a tank. And that tank will usually do a whole lot more while sitting on said objective. Yeah, troops are (in theory) slightly better at holding objectives than non-troops... but that makes no difference when your troops are scattered in bloody pieces across the battlefield because they tried to take an objective off a tank.
For all 5th edition's faults, I think one of the best things it did was make it that troops - and only troops - could score objectives. It gave troops an actual reason to exist which wasn't predicated on their ability to match the firepower and durability of more elite units. As it stands, there's really very little purpose to troops beyond being cheap detachment fillers.
2.5) Confused role. Related to the above but more of an issue with regard to mechanical ability. Tactical marines (and marines in general) are in this really awkward place where they want to be elite units and yet also cheap enough to be spammed. Probably not helped by them basically being hemmed in by other units and the limited stat blocks.
To my mind, Primaris Marines were a horrible, horrible idea. It seems like it would have been far more sensible to simply give those stats and roles to regular marines. That way, GW could have made marines feel like actual elites and focused on that role - instead of making them these weird pseudo-elites who are just middling at everything.
Anyway, we've also got Guardians - who seem designed to sit near the back, babysitting a long-range heavy weapon . . . except that their weapons have a range of 12". What.
Then there are Necron Warriors, which look good on paper but just end up waddling around firing ineffectual guns.
3) Special Rules. Not always a major factor but can be important. I mention them mainly because of Necron Warriors - which are currently saddled with Resurrection Protocols (which is supposed to give them survivalist but in reality just locks them into 20-man squads and rarely even matters) and Gauss (now just an extra -1 on their weapons, which is supposed to help against vehicles but doesn't do nearly enough to be relevant). This is noteworthy because Necron Warriors basically *are* those two special rules. They don't bring special or heavy weapons, they don't have a sergeant or melee weapons. They're entirely reliant on those rules to be functional.
4) I also think more dedicated infantry-support could help. e.g. rather than just making auras affect everything, perhaps limit them to infantry models - or even specifically troops. Or have auras be more effective on troops (e.g. reroll 1 auras could let troops reroll all misses). That way commanders can actually help pull troops up and make them more effective, rather than it being better for them to just pick the already good units and buff them even more. I find this particularly obnoxious in the case of the DE Archon. He has no mobility options (wings, jetbike etc.), his aura doesn't work inside, into, or out of a transport, he can only buff a tiny fraction of the DE army, and virtually all the infantry he's capable of buffing want to stay in transports. So, rather than buffing DE Infantry, he just ends up sitting at the back with a group of Ravagers. This, to me, just smacks of terrible design.
Now, granted, I don't think this is as big of an issue as the others - but it's definitely something that could be done to help out armies with struggling troops or infantry.
Not saying you are wrong... but I believe too many people is reading too much into it... when it as easy as making Infantry Squads, Kabalites, Firewarriors and Skitarii Rangers/Vanguards +1ppm... (And I play Tau, firewarrior heavy lists)... and then, from there, make bigger changes to the game and system.
But I disagree with making troops only score objetives. For all of is faults, in 8th, troops are the most usefull they have been in many, many years. Only Eldar and Space marine troops feel underwhelming. Orks, Tyranids, Tau, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Necrons (Their troops are in the context of the faction, usable, at least inmortals, but the faction needs buffs), Adeptus Mechanicus, Custodes... all have very usefull troops.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 14:41:58
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: [spoiler]
Not saying you are wrong... but I believe too many people is reading too much into it... when it as easy as making Infantry Squads, Kabalites, Firewarriors and Skitarii Rangers/Vanguards +1ppm... (And I play Tau, firewarrior heavy lists)... and then, from there, make bigger changes to the game and system.
I'm not so sure. Increasing the cost of those models will do nothing to fix Tacticals, Necron Warriors, Guardians etc.
Also, why Kabalites? I can understand the complaints against Guardsmen, since they appeared in all the top 10 Imperial Soup lists. However, I'm not seeing the same for Kabalites. Indeed, only one person in the top 10 had taken any Kabalites at all, and then just a single squad of them to unlock Agents of Vect (in a way which normally wouldn't even work but which was apparently permitted by NOVA).
Hence, I'm struggling to see 6pt Kabalites as being that much of an issue.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Grumblewartz wrote: Everyone knows the fix - CP can only be spent by the army (not faction), thereby making guard CP allies moot. We all know this is the problem. Pure guard armies are not winning tournaments. It's getting silly that every week people suggest a fix that doesn't actually address the core problem.
This. Soup with IG is a problem the ig itself is not.
Galas wrote: [spoiler]
Not saying you are wrong... but I believe too many people is reading too much into it... when it as easy as making Infantry Squads, Kabalites, Firewarriors and Skitarii Rangers/Vanguards +1ppm... (And I play Tau, firewarrior heavy lists)... and then, from there, make bigger changes to the game and system.
I'm not so sure. Increasing the cost of those models will do nothing to fix Tacticals, Necron Warriors, Guardians etc.
Also, why Kabalites? I can understand the complaints against Guardsmen, since they appeared in all the top 10 Imperial Soup lists. However, I'm not seeing the same for Kabalites. Indeed, only one person in the top 10 had taken any Kabalites at all, and then just a single squad of them to unlock Agents of Vect (in a way which normally wouldn't even work but which was apparently permitted by NOVA).
Hence, I'm struggling to see 6pt Kabalites as being that much of an issue.
You don't see Skitarii Rangers or Tau Firewarriors either, because you can't just look at the top 10 armies of a tournament (with a different format than normal warhammer) and believe that only the units that place there are the only that deserve nerfs and changes. You can't justify 5ppm Imperial Guard with 6ppm Kabalites, and 7ppm Firewarriors. They are mathemathically too good for their cost and don't allow design space. Is better to make them more expensive than to make SM, Necron Warriors, etc... cheaper, because you just have then power creep: You need more models, you have less space because the more units you have being cheaper with point costs so low, the more difficult is to balance them between them, etc...
They are two different issues. Making Tacticals and Necron warriors cheaper won't make Infantry Squads or Kabalites worse, and making Infantry Squads and Kabalites more expensive won't make the other infantry better.
TLR: Firewarriors and Kabalites maybe don't enter the top 10 ITC for many reasons. But they are still mathematically too good and being that cheap doesn't allows for design space and proper balance changes at that point level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 19:18:23
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
You don't see Skitarii Rangers or Tau Firewarriors either, because you can't just look at the top 10 armies of a tournament (with a different format than normal warhammer) and believe that only the units that place there are the only that deserve nerfs and changes.
Perhaps not, but traditionally one uses evidence to prove why a unit needs nerfing.
Galas wrote: You can't justify 5ppm Imperial Guard with 6ppm Kabalites, and 7ppm Firewarriors.
So maybe leave their costs alone?
This is only an issue in the first place because you're so desperate to increase the cost of guardsmen.
TLR: Firewarriors and Kabalites maybe don't enter the top 10 ITC for many reasons. But they are still mathematically too good and being that cheap doesn't allows for design space and proper balance changes at that point level.
If you really want to increase design space then the first step would be to simply double the cost of everything, thus giving you more space to modify unit costs without stepping on the toes of similar units.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
I actually like the idea of doubling the cost of everything, but alas, It won't happen.
And increasing the cost of cheap infantry is not for some arbitrary reason. It is needed because theres just no more room in the low brackets to fit stuff. Also, we need games with less models, no more.
And also, because Infantry Squads are just too durable for their cost, so the solution is to make EVERYTHING ELSE cheaper, or take the 3-4 infantry units that are undercosted, and make them more expensive.
The firepower of Tau Firewarriors is insane, for example. Wounding literally everything with 5's, their Overwatch hability, being OB-sec, and their 4+ (3+ in cover) save... I can't expres enough how dirty I feel playing with tons of them.
Yeah, maybe they aren't good enough to win top tables agaisnt soup armies... that doesn't mean they aren't a problem.
In 7th edition, weren't Flyrants a problem? Weren't Tau a problem? You didn't saw them winning tournaments because Daemon Infinite armies and Eldar where so OP. That does not mean they are not a problem.
People need to learn that when 60% of the game is fine and relatively balanced with one another and 20% is so much powerfull, the solution is not to make everything as powerfull, but to nerf the outliers. Also, buff the 20% that is very, very weak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 20:35:08
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I think, and this is just my personal grumpy old man opinion, that the game would seem much less broken if Dakka implemented some sort of post-count filter for new users to prevent them posting "fix" threads below a certain level.
Seems like any Tom Dick or Harry can just fire up an account and start bitching.
To be honest I prefer to be able to have a under-sized squad (Like 8 Firewarriors or 6 Tactical Marines) and only pay for the models I have instead of paying for more, like I have to do in AoS, because I have the 5 minotaur unit from Mierce but they come in packs of 3.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
To be honest I prefer to be able to have a under-sized squad (Like 8 Firewarriors or 6 Tactical Marines) and only pay for the models I have instead of paying for more, like I have to do in AoS, because I have the 5 minotaur unit from Mierce but they come in packs of 3.
AOS way is really annoying and quite unnatural. Units always come in predetermined increments. There can be no 43 zombies wandering around; on no, the zombies prefer neat round numbers! It may make sense for armies with strict hierarchy and structure, but it is nonsensical and gamey for most of the stuff.
going back to the OP's original suggestion, one thing that could be done is to return to the days of 5th edition's guard FOC chart. where the guard could not TAKE Infantry squads as troops. instead they took infantry PLATOONS.
So a troops slot for the guard would consist opf a platoon of Mandatory: 1 Platoon Commander, 2 infantry squads and or vetearn. and could include an additional 3 infantry squads (and or vet squads) , 0-5 Heavy weapons squads, 0-2 special weapons squads, and 0-1 conscript squads.
this would address a number of the guards problems, it'd reduce the "overly cheap CP battery" issue, it'd allow conscripts to be made nice and dirt cheap (because you had a "infantry squad tax" for them) and proably would be of minimal problems to anyone actually running a guard list anyway.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
BrianDavion wrote: going back to the OP's original suggestion, one thing that could be done is to return to the days of 5th edition's guard FOC chart. where the guard could not TAKE Infantry squads as troops. instead they took infantry PLATOONS.
So a troops slot for the guard would consist opf a platoon of Mandatory: 1 Platoon Commander, 2 infantry squads and or vetearn. and could include an additional 3 infantry squads (and or vet squads) , 0-5 Heavy weapons squads, 0-2 special weapons squads, and 0-1 conscript squads.
this would address a number of the guards problems, it'd reduce the "overly cheap CP battery" issue, it'd allow conscripts to be made nice and dirt cheap (because you had a "infantry squad tax" for them) and proably would be of minimal problems to anyone actually running a guard list anyway.
Why does everyone think Platoons will make things better?
They won't. They were atrocious then, they'll be atrocious now. No army should have to take multiple units for a single Troops choice.
You want to fix the "overly cheap CP battery issue"? Then you remove the ability for anything larger than a Patrol, Outrider, Spearhead, Vanguard Detachment, or a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment to be taken as an Allied force.
Make it so if you want to take anything other than those you have to be sharing a minimum of two faction keywords across your army. It'll have a bonus effect of tagging Chaos and Eldar soup and potentially Tyranids+GSC stuff that could be coming down the pipeline.
It keeps Allies as a viable thing but it drastically limits the amount of CPs that can be brought by your Allies(unless you're literally just stacking stuff from the same book or doing stuff like Marines where they have the Adeptus Astartes and Imperium keywords). Couple it with a few things here and there to further address some of the sillier outliers; I'm fond of Astra Militarum getting a rule called "We are but mortals..."(or something to that effect) where they can never be the Warlord if there's an Adeptus Astartes, Adeptus Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Adepta Sororitas, or Inquisition Character in the army.
Boom, there goes your Grand Strategist nonsense in these regards for Imperial Soup.
BrianDavion wrote: going back to the OP's original suggestion, one thing that could be done is to return to the days of 5th edition's guard FOC chart. where the guard could not TAKE Infantry squads as troops. instead they took infantry PLATOONS.
So a troops slot for the guard would consist opf a platoon of Mandatory: 1 Platoon Commander, 2 infantry squads and or vetearn. and could include an additional 3 infantry squads (and or vet squads) , 0-5 Heavy weapons squads, 0-2 special weapons squads, and 0-1 conscript squads.
this would address a number of the guards problems, it'd reduce the "overly cheap CP battery" issue, it'd allow conscripts to be made nice and dirt cheap (because you had a "infantry squad tax" for them) and proably would be of minimal problems to anyone actually running a guard list anyway.
Why does everyone think Platoons will make things better?
They won't. They were atrocious then, they'll be atrocious now. No army should have to take multiple units for a single Troops choice.
You want to fix the "overly cheap CP battery issue"? Then you remove the ability for anything larger than a Patrol, Outrider, Spearhead, Vanguard Detachment, or a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment to be taken as an Allied force.
Make it so if you want to take anything other than those you have to be sharing a minimum of two faction keywords across your army. It'll have a bonus effect of tagging Chaos and Eldar soup and potentially Tyranids+GSC stuff that could be coming down the pipeline.
It keeps Allies as a viable thing but it drastically limits the amount of CPs that can be brought by your Allies(unless you're literally just stacking stuff from the same book or doing stuff like Marines where they have the Adeptus Astartes and Imperium keywords). Couple it with a few things here and there to further address some of the sillier outliers; I'm fond of Astra Militarum getting a rule called "We are but mortals..."(or something to that effect) where they can never be the Warlord if there's an Adeptus Astartes, Adeptus Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Adepta Sororitas, or Inquisition Character in the army.
Boom, there goes your Grand Strategist nonsense in these regards for Imperial Soup.
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
A relatively easy and limited adjustment could be made just by modifying the Grand Strategist trait to only work on Guard stratagems. That way the bulk of the recycling is kept paired with the Guard strats with which they were designed but other Imperial armies wouldn't be able to take advantage. They'd still get some back from kurov's but that's 1 per enemy stratagem which is a very different beast to rolling per cp you spend. Would even be a slight nerf to Guard in that using Insane Bravery would be two non recyclable CP spent.
To be honest I prefer to be able to have a under-sized squad (Like 8 Firewarriors or 6 Tactical Marines) and only pay for the models I have instead of paying for more, like I have to do in AoS, because I have the 5 minotaur unit from Mierce but they come in packs of 3.
AOS way is really annoying and quite unnatural. Units always come in predetermined increments. There can be no 43 zombies wandering around; on no, the zombies prefer neat round numbers! It may make sense for armies with strict hierarchy and structure, but it is nonsensical and gamey for most of the stuff.
Honestly, non-neat numbers really bother me. I rather leave 12 points off my Necron list than purchase the 11th Necron Warrior.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
To be honest I prefer to be able to have a under-sized squad (Like 8 Firewarriors or 6 Tactical Marines) and only pay for the models I have instead of paying for more, like I have to do in AoS, because I have the 5 minotaur unit from Mierce but they come in packs of 3.
AOS way is really annoying and quite unnatural. Units always come in predetermined increments. There can be no 43 zombies wandering around; on no, the zombies prefer neat round numbers! It may make sense for armies with strict hierarchy and structure, but it is nonsensical and gamey for most of the stuff.
Honestly, non-neat numbers really bother me. I rather leave 12 points off my Necron list than purchase the 11th Necron Warrior.
I do the same. Thats why I hated the 7-man box of plague marines. I use units of 5 or 10 But the "buy unist by packs" wouldn't work with neat numbers, but with how many come in a box. If one unit comes at 3 in a box, forget having a 5-man or 10-man unit. It will be 3-6-9-12. So yeah, a big loss of flexibility.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
R: Firewarriors and Kabalites maybe don't enter the top 10 ITC for many reasons. But they are still mathematically too good and being that cheap doesn't allows for design space and proper balance changes at that point level.
