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.

Orders fail on a 1 or 2. On a roll of 1 the unit issuing the order can't issue any more for the rest of the turn.

Cultists lose the traitor astartes keyword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest, that basically kills the most significant cheesy combos in the game.

This kills several several units that literally can't exist as standalone armies.

 BlaxicanX wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest, that basically kills the most significant cheesy combos in the game.

This kills several several units that literally can't exist as standalone armies.

Such as? Don't say units like assassins please or the ynnari characters, I'm talking about mixing real factions. Units like assassins or those elves should be just part of some already existing imperium and aeldari faction. Of course units that don't belong to any codex should be included in one or more.

Even harlequins, with their grand total of 8 entries in their entire codex, work very well as a stand alone army. Now even knights, with their baby robots, can work as a stand alone army.

Ice_can wrote:

Iron Bulwark actually has a very good reason why it exsists as a warlord trait, it's just unfortunately GW didn't forsee people stacking all the combos with unlimited Guard CP.

Just make it so that it doesn't stack with the stratagem. Add wording to the stratagem which says 'up to maximum of 4+.' Easy fix.

Cawls Wrath on the otherhand is an unbalanced abomination on top of an already powerful weapons platform.

Make it just a Plasma Pecimator which always fires at the overcharged profile without actually having a change to overheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest,

I'd ban whichever army you happen play from the matched.

Laspistols and lasguns have AP +1.

Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?

Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?

Ghorgul wrote:
Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?

Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?

My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.

3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.

 Blackie wrote:
I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest, that basically kills the most significant cheesy combos in the game.

This is indeed true, but banning it entierly is bit drastic. Maybe just limit it to 2 factions (maybe add a exception for small factions, like the Rogue trader, inquisition, assasins etc, or make them a specialised detachment that gives no or less CP. Or "If you wish to include a third faction in your army list, this faction MUST be in a 'Patrol' detachment, unless it's the 'Auxillary' detachment.)

You want to play the Loyal 32, Custodes on jetbikes and 3 Knights? Haha, too bad. Drop one faction and you are free to go.
You are free to take 3 detachments of Imperial Guard, or two guard and one Space Marine, but if you want to take one Guard, one Marine and one Admech for example, one of them must be either Patrol or Auxillary.

Custodes bikes. People taking them must let opposing players kick them in the groin before the battle begins.

 Hawky wrote:


You want to play the Loyal 32, Custodes on jetbikes and 3 Knights? Haha, too bad. Drop one faction and you are free to go.

I'd probably go further punishing soups. If they're not completely banned I'd alternatively cut any interactions between units from different codexes, like drukhari units cannot benefit from a target that was Doomed by an eldar psyker. I'd also lock the CPs to the detachment that generates it if there are different factions in the same list. Do you want the loyal 32 in a wider imperium faction? Then those 5 CPs could only be invested on that detachment.

No unit can benefit in any way from a psychic power used by a model from another faction.

That means everything. You don't count enemy units as not having an invuln save if you're not heretic astartes and you're shooting a Death Hexed enemy. You don't get Doom if you're a drukhari. You don't have -1 to hit drukhari models if a Harlequin psyker cast a -1 to hit buff on you, only if you try to target Harlequin models.

Just get rid of the Doom interaction, and every other interaction that might exist elsewhere. If something is intended to affect soup, it needs to be DESIGNED AND COSTED with soup in mind.

That, and the "command points generated by a faction can only be used by that faction" fix would solve an enormous amount of problems currently in the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?

Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?

My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.

3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.

The difference is that for knights to have 6 CP from the detachment they are into it for 1056 points compair that to a competitive IG battalion for 12CP at sub 800 points.
Realistically it's more like 1400 points for 6 CP, mono knights are often starting with 9 CP at 2k they might be able to stretch to 12 CP.
The issue is bolting on 800 points of guard competitive on their own with 12 CP as a free bonus.

CP shouldn't have ecen been based on detachments with the ith edition allies rules as they are.

Ice_can wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?

Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?

My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.

3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.

The difference is that for knights to have 6 CP from the detachment they are into it for 1056 points compair that to a competitive IG battalion for 12CP at sub 800 points.
Realistically it's more like 1400 points for 6 CP, mono knights are often starting with 9 CP at 2k they might be able to stretch to 12 CP.
The issue is bolting on 800 points of guard competitive on their own with 12 CP as a free bonus.

CP shouldn't have ecen been based on detachments with the ith edition allies rules as they are.

So you are saying Knights should have more CP and IG should have less?

 AtoMaki wrote:
Laspistols and lasguns have AP +1.

So I get +1 to my saves like if I was shot by a crossbow or bow in 2nd ed? Now there's a throwback I can get behind!

Giving different armies drastically different amount of CPs was a bad idea from the get go, and cause of most of the soup problems. If some army has more powerful stratagems (like the Knights) then those stratagems can just cost more CP.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?

Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?

My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.

3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.

The difference is that for knights to have 6 CP from the detachment they are into it for 1056 points compair that to a competitive IG battalion for 12CP at sub 800 points.
Realistically it's more like 1400 points for 6 CP, mono knights are often starting with 9 CP at 2k they might be able to stretch to 12 CP.
The issue is bolting on 800 points of guard competitive on their own with 12 CP as a free bonus.

CP shouldn't have ecen been based on detachments with the ith edition allies rules as they are.

So you are saying Knights should have more CP and IG should have less?

Frankly it shouldn't have ever been scaled to anything other than points, IMHO.
Playing 1000 pointa everyone gets 8 CP, playing at 1500 points you get 12 CP, at 2000 points you get 16, at 2500 you get 20CP.
The current system scales horibly.

The weird CP allocation was GW's attempt to emphasize Troops oriented armies while allowing people to otherwise take whatever they wanted. It really has not turned out terribly well however, the detachment thing has been something of a mess.

CP's can only be spent between units that share faction keywords that are not aeldari, imperium or chaos (and maybe tyranid or ynnari for consistency purposes?).

This will curb taking of the CP batteries so you can pew pew with bigger things.

With this change, perhaps we'll see a more coherent AM army with bane-variant as the lynchpin LoW instead of the castellan.

Good lord that orders for cp idea is terrible. Just make it so only a factions cp can only be used on their stratagems. There’s precedent in the elucidian starstrider and gellerpox WL traits.

If guard orders must be changed, make them only resolve on. 3+ for infantry and 2+ for vets/officers, and prevent units from ordering themselves. Orders are the backbone of guard, making them cost cp would be like making nids pay cp to activate synapse each turn

 skchsan wrote:
CP's can only be spent between units that share faction keywords that are not aeldari, imperium or chaos (and maybe tyranid or ynnari for consistency purposes?).

This will curb taking of the CP batteries so you can pew pew with bigger things.

With this change, perhaps we'll see a more coherent AM army with bane-variant as the lynchpin LoW instead of the castellan.

Still doesn't actually address the underlying issue that not all armies have equal troops and hence access to CP, hence strategums need to be costed differently, which fractures the game balance even worse. As a marine fight twice strategum should be 1 CP and guard one 4CP or more due to the availability and quality of troops

Much better for GW designers to just fix it to something than try and add more variables to their own mess.

Ice_can wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
CP's can only be spent between units that share faction keywords that are not aeldari, imperium or chaos (and maybe tyranid or ynnari for consistency purposes?).

This will curb taking of the CP batteries so you can pew pew with bigger things.

With this change, perhaps we'll see a more coherent AM army with bane-variant as the lynchpin LoW instead of the castellan.

Still doesn't actually address the underlying issue that not all armies have equal troops and hence access to CP, hence strategums need to be costed differently, which fractures the game balance even worse. As a marine fight twice strategum should be 1 CP and guard one 4CP or more due to the availability and quality of troops

Much better for GW designers to just fix it to something than try and add more variables to their own mess.

Agreed. With how CP generation works in 8th ed, GW should have overhauled the existing notion of what constitutes 'troops,' and really explore the option to make troop FOC the slot with the most choices available.

I'm currently in the process of tinkering with a house rule that re-shifts the FOC's where any and all units that can be a backbone element become troops, and upgraded troops (i.e. tac vs vets) and support elements become elite slots.

For example, SM troops could look something like:
-tac marines
-devastator
-assault
-termies
-scout

and elites:
-veterans
-vanguard vets
-apothecary/ancient/etc

Dark Reapers:
Unit size: 3-5

Shining Spears:
Unit size 3-6

Farseer:
Doom is WC8

Rangers:
Retain 'Asuryani', but lose <Craftworld> (may be more of a fluff than balance thing)

CWE "bombs" (Guardian Bomb, etc):
Remove WWP from the CWE book (but not Harlie/DE books)

Knights:
Use WK pricing scheme

When you soup you lose the 3 CP for being battleforged. If you soup a third faction you lose another 3 CP.

Reword buff stratagems and physic powers to require additional CP, or require a higher cast roll for every 10 models in the unit.

 Valentine009 wrote:
When you soup you lose the 3 CP for being battleforged. If you soup a third faction you lose another 3 CP.

Reword buff stratagems and physic powers to require additional CP, or require a higher cast roll for every 10 models in the unit.

Hmm, I like the idea of -3 CP per additional codex you bring in beyond the first. Knights + Guard are still viable, but without the smashcaps it would be a lot more reasonable to fight against.

 Horst wrote:

 Valentine009 wrote:
When you soup you lose the 3 CP for being battleforged. If you soup a third faction you lose another 3 CP.

Reword buff stratagems and physic powers to require additional CP, or require a higher cast roll for every 10 models in the unit.

Hmm, I like the idea of -3 CP per additional codex you bring in beyond the first. Knights + Guard are still viable, but without the smashcaps it would be a lot more reasonable to fight against.

Nobody took smash captains after the Big FAQ beta nerf anyways.

Change Doom so it only gives one unit a chance to reroll to wound and it can only target Asuryani units.

Change Alaitoc -1 to Hit to +1 cover save or something else.

Even though I find it fun I'd probably change the Prophets of Flesh ability.

Ynnari would be given its own codex with its own point costs. All Ynnari Psychic powers can only target Ynnari typed units.

 skchsan wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Valentine009 wrote:
When you soup you lose the 3 CP for being battleforged. If you soup a third faction you lose another 3 CP.

Reword buff stratagems and physic powers to require additional CP, or require a higher cast roll for every 10 models in the unit.

Hmm, I like the idea of -3 CP per additional codex you bring in beyond the first. Knights + Guard are still viable, but without the smashcaps it would be a lot more reasonable to fight against.

Nobody took smash captains after the Big FAQ beta nerf anyways.

Funny, because I see new ones pop up almost daily on r/warhammer40k. But, no. nobody takes them obvs.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Change Doom so it only gives one unit a chance to reroll to wound and it can only target Asuryani units.

If you want to make it easier for your opponent to kill your units, go right ahead...

Because CWE need more of their power to be in the buff-one-unit form? Because they aren't pushed hard enough into playing deathstars?

The change you suggest helps Knight armies and Deathstar armies, and hurts MSU armies and Combined Arms-style armies. Why go that way?

It's a horrible change to doom.

I'm totally fine with doom in its current form. It punishes people that invest heavily into one really strong model or unit, like Knights.

The whole paradigm in 8th is just off.

Infantry as a whole is almost universally too cheap. (Can we really say that any model should be less than 6 points?)

Super heavies as a whole are almost universally too cheap.

Everything in the middle just gets to huff chode and die.

Ok, but doom the way it is now means instant lose to elite armies. I understand that eldar need it to beat knights, and I understand that eldar players like to have a codex that can deal with all other factions and armies. But a rule that invalidates whole other codex, just because it exists, is not just a bad one, but a stupid one.