Switch Theme:

Soup is not the problem - LVO 2019  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

 admironheart wrote:
just get rid of the base 3 CP for a battleforged army if all your detachments are not the same faction.

It doesn't penalize overly much but still significant. It lessons the benefits of CP batteries a bit.

Not much change to any codex or how we play the game.

It may be enough to give an edge to solo faction forces.


Be easier to balance if they had a Min and Max CP for points level.

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Spoiler:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?


Better balance is better for everyone no?


But are Castellans really the only matter or are they just a gatekeeper for other equally unbalanced lists?


Who said they were the only problem - but if they are a problem its better addressed than ignored?

Thats what they didn't do in 6th and 7th when we had Gladius, Riptides, Wave Serpents and Wraith Knights.


I just want people to be careful with their wishes, I don't think it is possible for GW and its way of working to make the game fundamentally better.
Even if Knights were fixed people would still be disappointed in the long run.

The game needs another reset for that.
8th edition was just a lazy rework (which is also the reason for why the rules are so dumped down, it is just cheaper to produce) to raise people's hopes of 40k changing fundamentally and make fresh cash. If you're honest, nothing substantually changed from mid 7th (when I quit) to now, were are basically at the same point again.


Disagree - for me the rules are MUCh better this edition, 6th and 7th were a disaster - the blance, rubbish like the Riptides etc being Creatures, the rules for vehicles, formations etc.

They are interacting with the audience and doing so much more interesting elements.

Could some stuff be better - yep, Could it be worse - much - just look at the 6th and 7th.


7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm. It's clear that 8th has been somewhat a beta test as the rules are mostly made as they go. Supplements are the real bane of the edition (formations with free benefits, overpowered detachments in books, Daemons in general). The core rules design itself however was a better system for implementing more flavour and distinct rules that would make the game fun to play over the same-ness that some of the 8th edition stuff is still being ironed out of. There were plenty of issues with the core rules too, though. For me, the Psychic phase was terrible, and the weird Monstrous Creature rules were weird for not having Firing Arcs (when some of them should have just followed the walker rules). But in the latter case, that now also applies to Land Raiders and the like aswell in 8th, so I wouldn't make that comparison as a positive for 8th.
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




Darsath wrote:

7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm. It's clear that 8th has been somewhat a beta test as the rules are mostly made as they go. Supplements are the real bane of the edition (formations with free benefits, overpowered detachments in books, Daemons in general). The core rules design itself however was a better system for implementing more flavour and distinct rules that would make the game fun to play over the same-ness that some of the 8th edition stuff is still being ironed out of. There were plenty of issues with the core rules too, though. For me, the Psychic phase was terrible, and the weird Monstrous Creature rules were weird for not having Firing Arcs (when some of them should have just followed the walker rules). But in the latter case, that now also applies to Land Raiders and the like aswell in 8th, so I wouldn't make that comparison as a positive for 8th.


So true IMO. Getting rid of the 8(?) unit type was correct, streamlining USR was the right idea, but could have been executed in a better way. But apart from that, 7th was playable and could have been interactive and fun if not for the codices...
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Darsath wrote:

7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm.


Core rules were never the problem of 40k
But that was the one thing that was always changed to make the game "better"

Of course there was the break in the game between 2nd and 3rd edition and each edition hat its problems with specific builds
The real problem came from Codex rules that were written to work around the core rules wich caused the problems in the first place (no need for a core rule if everyone as a special rule to ignore it)

But instead of fixing those problems the core rules were changed while the Codex rules stayed.

7th was a bloated mess, but the core was good with some minor easy to fix issues (looking at Horus Heresy) the mess came from the Codex rules.
Now we have 8th, the core is good (with some minor issues) but the Codex rules are the same mess as before


I also say that soup is not a problem by itself, but because Factions rules are written with specific weaknesses that can be bypassed that way and that not all factions have access to that bypass
One thing that would help could be that non-Codex units could only be used with an Allied Support Detachment, making Fluffy Soup possible (but this is no real solution anyway)

And people are now used to Soup since allies were introduced a while back, and remember 8th edition was said to be the ultimate solution to "Soup"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 21:00:06


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Khorne Rhino Driver with Destroyer






The Castellan benefits WAY too much from the CP of cheaper Soup elements. First Castellans should be more like 700 pts and guardsman need a bump up in point cost. Second, there needs to be a rules revision on how much CP benefit a unit like a Castellan can have with cheap brigades that the guard offer.

5500 points
6000 points 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What do you mean by "intended limits of a faction"? All factions should have a variety of playstyles.


Tau should not have melee. Khorne should not have good shooting. IG should have trouble projecting force and claiming units outside their deployment zone. IK should have limited CP and poor ability to hold objectives. Etc. That's the whole point of having different factions, if every faction can be good at every role then you just have one faction with a variety of aesthetic choices for which models you use.

Guardsmen are absolutely taken because they are inherently overpowered. They are also taken in larger groups than the minimums to fill brigades or battalions. They are not the cheapest possible CP battery for the IK faction, that honour now belongs with Ad Mech. Setting their point level at a proper and fair place should absolutely be one of the key aims of GW at this moment in time. How they escaped not rising to at least 5 ppm as Cultists is incredible. They would certainly not become unplayable in mono IG because mono IG is incredibly strong (11th place finish at LVO anyone?). You cannot justify overpowered units with the existence of soup. Overpowered units are overpowered, whether taken in mono or soup lists.


There's a reason it's called "loyal 32", not "loyal 320". If guardsmen were that overpowered on their own merits and that was the reason IK lists took them you'd see more than the minimum required to get the CP battery. You can talk theory all you want, but in practice the IK players are treating the guardsmen as a tax unit that they have to take to get the CP, not an overpowered unit that they'd want in their army even if it didn't come with all that CP. And yes, nerfing them to a point where the CP battery becomes unappealing would make them unplayable in mono-IG armies. 5ppm would only be a 30 point difference for IK, so you'd still see the loyal 32. You'd have to give them an increase above 5ppm, at which point nobody takes them in IG armies anymore.

Also, I have to laugh at the idea that an 11th place finish is considered "incredibly strong".

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Units and abilities synergize in different ways with different things. Soup allows armies to have access to abilities they wouldn't otherwise have and things to interact in ways not possible in a strictly mono-codex format. Units have different values depending on the context of the force they're in, when you change that context, the balance changes. What's fine in one context is not fine in others. That's the inherent fundamental problem with allies/soup in 40k. You're basically allowing armies to pick and choose optimal tools that they may not really be intended to have access to, even if they're otherwise just fine in their original place, and as a result, forces are much more powerful than they otherwise would be. You could have perfect mono-codex balance, and Allies soup will throw it all in the air.

There's a reason most tabletop games don't allow stuff like this or place dramatic restrictions on such stuff.


Again, if all units were properly and accurately balanced against each other, it wouldn't make a difference.
That's not possible with distinct army concepts, as each has their own context, and it changes from army to army. What's balanced within the context of a static attritional gunline may not be when paired with highly mobile elite force. The entire concept of distinct forces makes this a nonstarter.

You can balance units within their original context and codex, but not when you start adding in stuff from other books. CP aside, that's where we see most of the battlefield value in Guardsmen for instance, is in providing screening and ground control that otherwise wouldn't be available to armies made up of a tiny number of models and originally balanced around that concept. Even if you deleted Guardsmen from the game, such forces would just move to the next option to cover that intentional inherent weakness and the problem would still exist, they'd just move onto the next best option.

To put it another way, to make many of the dominant Soup lists "balanced", you'd have to nerf some components so hard that the original force no longer functions. Yeah, if Guardsmen are 7 or 8 PPM, the loyal 32 are no long as much of an issue with Castellan lists, but at that point you've just destroyed the viability of Guardsmen within actual IG armies.

An army should have a selection of playstyles. If they are unable to provide their own I see no problem them drawing from other factions to try a new style. The problem is the existence of "optimal tools". Optimal tools is another way of saying overpowered units.

I'm not saying I think soup is absolutely fine as is and requires no changes, but I'm quite certain that fixing problematic units will definitely help with the current imbalance of the game.
Fixing problematic units will help, but again, units are designed and costed within a specific context, and that context is not "yeah you can take anything from a dozen different books and run it as one army".

Codex books are, with few exceptions, written as self contained forces with unique strengths and weaknesses. They are not and should not be capable of every playstyle. Some armies have long establish fluff that pigeonholes them into certain playstyles, and that's fine too as long as they're functional. If they have a problem, it should be addressed within the codex, not by nabbing stuff from another force that may be perfectly balanced within the context of that other force but may have dramatically different results in the context of another force.

Guardsmen are absolutely taken because they are inherently overpowered.They are also taken in larger groups than the minimums to fill brigades or battalions
Going back to my point above, even if we nerf Guardsmen, there's a difference between Guardsmen in Soup and Guardsmen within IG armies. If they're made 5ppm, that may be appropriate for the context of a mono-IG army, but won't do squat to solve Soup. What will solve the Soup issue will have substantial impacts on mono-IG armies. Ultimately, that need isn't removed just because you've removed Guardsmen, they just happen to be the best at it and there are other alternatives that could be easily switched to, and these units aren't being costed within the context of being screener/field control for other armies. That's the issue here, the context is the fundamental problem.

Likewise, particularly in Soup lists, the number of Guardsmen we're seeing is generally the minimum required for whatever detachment or CP level is desired, not always but usually 90% of the time. We're not seeing armies built with two dozen Infantry Squads, we're not seeing people routinely using stuff like Special Weapons Squads which, even without Officer support, can be dramatically more cost effective in terms of raw killing efficiency for their points investment (possibly the best in the game). We're seeing people bring just enough to cover screening and CP needs for the overwhelmingly vast majority of Soup/Allies armies.

EDIT: didn't mean for this post to be so IG centric, it's just the easiest faction to illustrate with.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 21:17:52


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

Tau should not have melee. Khorne should not have good shooting. IG should have trouble projecting force and claiming units outside their deployment zone. IK should have limited CP and poor ability to hold objectives. Etc. That's the whole point of having different factions, if every faction can be good at every role then you just have one faction with a variety of aesthetic choices for which models you use
.

Tau should rely on specific units for Melee - Alien Auxilaries like the Kroot.

Guard should rely on speclaist units for that - Stormtroopers and specific regiments with intergral air support.

Khorne - I kinda agree on

o put it another way, to make many of the dominant Soup lists "balanced", you'd have to nerf some components so hard that the original force no longer functions. Yeah, if Guardsmen are 7 or 8 PPM, the loyal 32 are no long as much of an issue with Castellan lists, but at that point you've just destroyed the viability of Guardsmen within actual IG armies.


The inidividual unit is not (IMO) the issue.

The issue is the fact that they are using that unit for that reason - it looks like they are starting to work on this issue with GSC's.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 21:14:15


"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

Command points need to be restricted to the subfaction that created then. That would be an improvement.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Matlacha, FL

Martel732 wrote:
Castellans and guardsmen both need nerfs. The guardsmen are just as guilty, if not more.


Guardsmen aren't good on their own or in a pure IG list. They only need nerfed in IK lists because they provide cheap CP and objective holders. Again, the soup is the problem because if you balance them based on an IK soup list, they will cost so much they'll be unplayable in a pure IG list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 argonak wrote:
Command points need to be restricted to the subfaction that created then. That would be an improvement.


It would, but I still think you would see imperial soup and ynnari soup winning tournaments at almost the same rate they are now. Something needs to be fundamentally changed with the way armies are allowed to be built to fix this. As I said in the OP, that won't happen because then people won't need to buy 3 codexes, a supplement, and 32 guard models they would never buy otherwise just to have a decent imperial army. Soup is good for GW's sales numbers, and because of that they couldn't care less how bad it is for the game or that it shoehorns people into playing a certain list if they want to be competitive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 21:16:09


Roll Tide! Beat everyone!  
   
Made in gb
Missionary On A Mission






 Dysartes wrote:
 Toofast wrote:
I'm not sure how anyone of sound mind could follow the tournament scene


I kinda think this nails it...


Yeah, but...

... yeah.

- - - - - - -
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

You could have a extra charge for units not in your primary faction?

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






Spoiler:
 Peregrine wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
What do you mean by "intended limits of a faction"? All factions should have a variety of playstyles.


Tau should not have melee. Khorne should not have good shooting. IG should have trouble projecting force and claiming units outside their deployment zone. IK should have limited CP and poor ability to hold objectives. Etc. That's the whole point of having different factions, if every faction can be good at every role then you just have one faction with a variety of aesthetic choices for which models you use.

Guardsmen are absolutely taken because they are inherently overpowered. They are also taken in larger groups than the minimums to fill brigades or battalions. They are not the cheapest possible CP battery for the IK faction, that honour now belongs with Ad Mech. Setting their point level at a proper and fair place should absolutely be one of the key aims of GW at this moment in time. How they escaped not rising to at least 5 ppm as Cultists is incredible. They would certainly not become unplayable in mono IG because mono IG is incredibly strong (11th place finish at LVO anyone?). You cannot justify overpowered units with the existence of soup. Overpowered units are overpowered, whether taken in mono or soup lists.


There's a reason it's called "loyal 32", not "loyal 320". If guardsmen were that overpowered on their own merits and that was the reason IK lists took them you'd see more than the minimum required to get the CP battery. You can talk theory all you want, but in practice the IK players are treating the guardsmen as a tax unit that they have to take to get the CP, not an overpowered unit that they'd want in their army even if it didn't come with all that CP. And yes, nerfing them to a point where the CP battery becomes unappealing would make them unplayable in mono-IG armies. 5ppm would only be a 30 point difference for IK, so you'd still see the loyal 32. You'd have to give them an increase above 5ppm, at which point nobody takes them in IG armies anymore.

Also, I have to laugh at the idea that an 11th place finish is considered "incredibly strong".


Spoiler:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Units and abilities synergize in different ways with different things. Soup allows armies to have access to abilities they wouldn't otherwise have and things to interact in ways not possible in a strictly mono-codex format. Units have different values depending on the context of the force they're in, when you change that context, the balance changes. What's fine in one context is not fine in others. That's the inherent fundamental problem with allies/soup in 40k. You're basically allowing armies to pick and choose optimal tools that they may not really be intended to have access to, even if they're otherwise just fine in their original place, and as a result, forces are much more powerful than they otherwise would be. You could have perfect mono-codex balance, and Allies soup will throw it all in the air.

There's a reason most tabletop games don't allow stuff like this or place dramatic restrictions on such stuff.


Again, if all units were properly and accurately balanced against each other, it wouldn't make a difference.
That's not possible with distinct army concepts, as each has their own context, and it changes from army to army. What's balanced within the context of a static attritional gunline may not be when paired with highly mobile elite force. The entire concept of distinct forces makes this a nonstarter.

You can balance units within their original context and codex, but not when you start adding in stuff from other books. CP aside, that's where we see most of the battlefield value in Guardsmen for instance, is in providing screening and ground control that otherwise wouldn't be available to armies made up of a tiny number of models and originally balanced around that concept. Even if you deleted Guardsmen from the game, such forces would just move to the next option to cover that intentional inherent weakness and the problem would still exist, they'd just move onto the next best option.

To put it another way, to make many of the dominant Soup lists "balanced", you'd have to nerf some components so hard that the original force no longer functions. Yeah, if Guardsmen are 7 or 8 PPM, the loyal 32 are no long as much of an issue with Castellan lists, but at that point you've just destroyed the viability of Guardsmen within actual IG armies.

An army should have a selection of playstyles. If they are unable to provide their own I see no problem them drawing from other factions to try a new style. The problem is the existence of "optimal tools". Optimal tools is another way of saying overpowered units.

I'm not saying I think soup is absolutely fine as is and requires no changes, but I'm quite certain that fixing problematic units will definitely help with the current imbalance of the game.
Fixing problematic units will help, but again, units are designed and costed within a specific context, and that context is not "yeah you can take anything from a dozen different books and run it as one army".

Codex books are, with few exceptions, written as self contained forces with unique strengths and weaknesses. They are not and should not be capable of every playstyle. Some armies have long establish fluff that pigeonholes them into certain playstyles, and that's fine too as long as they're functional. If they have a problem, it should be addressed within the codex, not by nabbing stuff from another force that may be perfectly balanced within the context of that other force but may have dramatically different results in the context of another force.

Guardsmen are absolutely taken because they are inherently overpowered.They are also taken in larger groups than the minimums to fill brigades or battalions
Going back to my point above, even if we nerf Guardsmen, there's a difference between Guardsmen in Soup and Guardsmen within IG armies. If they're made 5ppm, that may be appropriate for the context of a mono-IG army, but won't do squat to solve Soup. What will solve the Soup issue will have substantial impacts on mono-IG armies. Ultimately, that need isn't removed just because you've removed Guardsmen, they just happen to be the best at it and there are other alternatives that could be easily switched to, and these units aren't being costed within the context of being screener/field control for other armies. That's the issue here, the context is the fundamental problem.

Likewise, particularly in Soup lists, the number of Guardsmen we're seeing is generally the minimum required for whatever detachment or CP level is desired, not always but usually 90% of the time. We're not seeing armies built with two dozen Infantry Squads, we're not seeing people routinely using stuff like Special Weapons Squads which, even without Officer support, can be dramatically more cost effective in terms of raw killing efficiency for their points investment (possibly the best in the game). We're seeing people bring just enough to cover screening and CP needs for the overwhelmingly vast majority of Soup/Allies armies.

EDIT: didn't mean for this post to be so IG centric, it's just the easiest faction to illustrate with.

So I get the distinct impression the two of you are arguing against my points because you enjoy 4ppm Guardsmen. That's all good. But it doesn't change the fact that truly balanced stratagems, psychic powers and units would make soup irrelevant and a non-issue.

Let's make it super simple - if every unit had exactly the same abilities and costed exactly the same the armies would be perfectly balanced, right? Like checkers is a perfectly balanced game. Now we don't want every army to be identical, obviously. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a sweet spot where the melee capability of a unit can be balanced against the shooting capability of another. I agree that IG should generally be a gunline style army. I completely disagree that there is an inherent problem with them taking a melee element from another army to sure up weaknesses. If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.

4ppm Guardsmen are mathematically too strong. They are evidently too strong. We can see this in the numbers. If they were balanced correctly, they would not be an auto-include but would instead be a fluff or aesthetic decision. Part of their balance should be the fact that they provide CP. I think most troops should be increased in cost because CP is so valuable. The same for HQs. Elite, Fast attacks and the other 1 CP detachment units should be comparatively better than troops for their cost because they do not provide as much CP. Knights need to be appropriately balanced against other superheavies. This isn't hard stuff - compare the Stompa to a Castellan. Compare the Wraithknight to a Castellan. It's obvious why the Castellan is taken in such numbers. As to Guardsmen, the special weapons squad comparison is a red herring when heavy weapons teams are taken in such large quantities. They are taken in groups larger than the minimum to get CP. And to clarify, the minimum Guardsmen to fulfil a CP requirement for IK is 0. They can pick from any Imperium faction and as I have stated, the so called Rusty 17 are cheaper. So people value the Loyal 32 because of the units themselves, not their cost.

E -
 Toofast wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Castellans and guardsmen both need nerfs. The guardsmen are just as guilty, if not more.


Guardsmen aren't good on their own or in a pure IG list. They only need nerfed in IK lists because they provide cheap CP and objective holders. Again, the soup is the problem because if you balance them based on an IK soup list, they will cost so much they'll be unplayable in a pure IG list.


Can we kill this meme please? IG are one of the most powerful mono factions. Guess what they take as their troop of choice? You got it! Guardsmen!

Guardsmen are great in an Imperial soup list. They are great in a pure IG list. They would be great if I could take them in my Ork list. They are great, great units and they need to be balanced.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 21:46:09


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Again, if all units were properly and accurately balanced against each other, it wouldn't make a difference. An army should have a selection of playstyles. If they are unable to provide their own I see no problem them drawing from other factions to try a new style. The problem is the existence of "optimal tools". Optimal tools is another way of saying overpowered units.

I'm not saying I think soup is absolutely fine as is and requires no changes, but I'm quite certain that fixing problematic units will definitely help with the current imbalance of the game.


The conflict is that a Castelan in an Imperial Soup list alongside allies is clearly worth a lot more points than in a mono-Knight list.

On this issue you can, to some degree, just say tough. These asymmetries after all happen even in mono-dexes - there are plenty of units which are "good" when using certain available synergies, but are decidedly meh without them. Do we for instance balance Eldar with the knowledge that they are going to be Alaitoc, or assume that they will pick Iyanden for... reasons? It seems rational to balance on the assumption that people will pick the best - but if you price units on this basis, it underscores the need to pick the best options. The question then becomes how you nerf the synergy - without at the same time making it even more integral to get good performance out of units and therefore limiting build options. Arguably the best option would be to tweak things like Alaitoc's Chapter Tactic, further limitations on Ynnari, separate CP pools, maybe limit Knight invuls to 4++ etc etc - but this would require more modelling than just slightly raising/lowering points and seeing how it plays out.

If a Castelan goes up to say 700 points, it might still be worth it in a soup list due to the synergy - but it would have an even harder time when run mono.

Also agree with you on Guardsmen - most of these lists are running a brigade so this idea that its just the loyal 32 CP battery is false.
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






Tyel wrote:
The conflict is that a Castelan in an Imperial Soup list alongside allies is clearly worth a lot more points than in a mono-Knight list.

On this issue you can, to some degree, just say tough. These asymmetries after all happen even in mono-dexes - there are plenty of units which are "good" when using certain available synergies, but are decidedly meh without them. Do we for instance balance Eldar with the knowledge that they are going to be Alaitoc, or assume that they will pick Iyanden for... reasons? It seems rational to balance on the assumption that people will pick the best - but if you price units on this basis, it underscores the need to pick the best options. The question then becomes how you nerf the synergy - without at the same time making it even more integral to get good performance out of units and therefore limiting build options. Arguably the best option would be to tweak things like Alaitoc's Chapter Tactic, further limitations on Ynnari, separate CP pools, maybe limit Knight invuls to 4++ etc etc - but this would require more modelling than just slightly raising/lowering points and seeing how it plays out.

If a Castelan goes up to say 700 points, it might still be worth it in a soup list due to the synergy - but it would have an even harder time when run mono.

Also agree with you on Guardsmen - most of these lists are running a brigade so this idea that its just the loyal 32 CP battery is false.

Ah I kind of agree with you but I think the Castellan is worth the same amount regardless of whether he is taken in a mono IK list or a soup list. And in both he is too cheap IMO.

You bring up an interesting point regarding balance around a particular sub-faction trait. First off I don't think there should be any that give a -1 to hit at range. It is far too powerful to hand out so easily and it is by far the best trait in any of the codexes in which it exists. I think all sub-faction traits should be properly balanced against each other. Or they should give a bonus to a certain playstyle. For example it annoys me that my particular faction of choice (Evil Sunz) is the defacto choice for all Orks because it makes Boyz and other Ork infantry way quicker. I'd have been happy if it only affected bikes and vehicles or had less of an effect on infantry. Either way, we should balance units assuming no faction traits. Faction traits need to be better balanced to ensure that one is not far superior to another and that they do not make units go from balanced to imbalanced. A flyer with -1 to hit in built isn't too bad. A flyer with -2 to hit because of a faction trait stacking is a different story.
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

So I get the distinct impression the two of you are arguing against my points because you enjoy 4ppm Guardsmen. That's all good. But it doesn't change the fact that truly balanced stratagems, psychic powers and units would make soup irrelevant and a non-issue.
Then, at least for my posts, I don't think I'm making my point well enough. 4ppm Guardsmen aren't anything I'm wedded to, I was fully expecting them to get a price bump with CA and was shocked they didn't get it. To illustrate the point better, I'll reiterate, if Guardsmen are undercosted at 4ppm, but are ok at 5ppm within a monoIG army, the Loyal32 probably doesn't take a meaningful power hit until they're so expensive (7 or 8ppm) that they're not useable in a mono-IG list anymore, because the value changes with the context.

Guardsmen are just the easiest go-to example to use, not really the core of the argument I'm trying to make. I'd really prefer to use something else besides Guardsmen, and to be far more specific, Infantry Squads (lets be real, nobody is talking about Special Weapons Squads, non-Mortar equipped HWS's, Veterans, Command Squads, etc because none of these units are appearing in Tournament lists), but they're just the most common example.

Ultimately, yes individual units need to be looked at, but again even if you deleted Guardsmen from the game, we'd just see a shift to the next inexpensive infantry unit and the problem would remain, in that armies like Knights having access to inexpensive infantry fills lots of capability gaps that they were intended to not have filled. Some goes for pretty much any Soup combo we see now.


Let's make it super simple - if every unit had exactly the same abilities and costed exactly the same the armies would be perfectly balanced, right? Like checkers is a perfectly balanced game. Now we don't want every army to be identical, obviously. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a sweet spot where the melee capability of a unit can be balanced against the shooting capability of another. I agree that IG should generally be a gunline style army. I completely disagree that there is an inherent problem with them taking a melee element from another army to sure up weaknesses. If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.
The problem is that the melee element has a different value in the other army than it does in the Guard army. In the Guard army, that CC ability is going to be either useless because it doesn't synergize with the shooting emphasis (as we've typically seen with most IG CC units through history), or it's going to be ungodly broken because it's opening up tactical capabilities the army was never meant to have.

That's exactly what we see with Knights. They lack CP and board control. They take Guardsmen to cover these gaps. Even if we delete Guardsmen from the game entirely, nevermind what they cost lets just assume they're gone entirely and aren't even an option to take, does the issue with Knights go away? No. If they have the ability, they're still going to take another inexpensive infantry unit that grants more CP and board control than they natively have access to. That makes them significantly more powerful than they were designed to be, the army's costs and capabilities were designed with limited numbers in mind to counteract being big and powerful. If you can have big and powerful, but can also control the board and use more Stratagems than intended, you're going to throw out the intended balance.

As to Guardsmen, the special weapons squad comparison is a red herring when heavy weapons teams are taken in such large quantities.
Why? They serve different purposes, a plasma equipped SWS is probably the most cost-efficient MEQ killer in the game, l and the only HWS's we are seeing taken are those equipped with Mortars for dirt-cheap and sat hidden away in back on auto-pilot, nobody is running HWS's with any of the other weapons options really, and even then usually you only see them to fill out HS slots for a Brigade since they're the cheapest option (same way people take single Multilaser Sentinels as FA choices to fill out slots, but they're not actually great units).

They are taken in groups larger than the minimum to get CP. And to clarify, the minimum Guardsmen to fulfil a CP requirement for IK is 0. They can pick from any Imperium faction and as I have stated, the so called Rusty 17 are cheaper. So people value the Loyal 32 because of the units themselves, not their cost.
Again, lets ignore Guardsmen entirely, pretend they don't exist.

What will happen?

We'll just see the Rusty 17 or another equivalent take their place, and the value they provide in that context will be greater than the value they provide within the context of a mono-Admech army.

Because that weakness of board control and CP is still there for the Knights, and the option to be mitigated or negated is still there, we'll see it just as often as we see the Loyal32 now, with probably only a trivial change in ultimate outcome.

Yes, the Loyal32 are currently better than the Rusty 17 and that makes them the default Soup choice, but that's a secondary issue, the problem is that the value of either changes when used in a different context than the one they were originally intended for, and the unintended synergy created makes something more powerful than was possible in either army individually.


Can we kill this meme please? IG are one of the most powerful mono factions. Guess what they take as their troop of choice? You got it! Guardsmen!
To be fair, there's 3 Guard troops choices, one of which is simply flatly inferior in literally every possible way to Infantry Squads and offers no capabilities or tactical opportunities that Infantry Squads can't do (conscripts) and from a fluff perspective really shouldn't be the core of most Guard armies in the first place, the other (stormtroopers) functions radically differently and requires a separate detachment to use its faction bonuses. Really, for most Guard armies there's only one Troops choice, the Infantry Squad.

The Infantry Squad is also the only unit that has consistently been a Troops choice through the history of the game without any strings attached (e.g. Stormtroopers and Veterans have moved in and out, Conscripts used to only be an option as an add-on to an Infantry Platoon). The Infantry Squad *should* be the default, ubiquitous Troop choice given the other options.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:50:07


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in pt
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon




Lisbon, Portugal

What about removing the +3CP for a BB army AND reducing both Battalion and Brigade back to their original values? ALSO, increase the CP given by these 3 specialist detachments: Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead (+2 instead of only +1), AS LONG AS they have the EXACT Faction keywords from the Warlord's detachment?

This will not only reduce overall CP, but will also make people want to play more with one Faction book (as they'll get more CP that way) instead of freaking loyal 32/rusty 17 everywhere. And have the added benefit of screwing Castellan solo show.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:27:21


40k Dark Angels
BFG Tau

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress





Just make soup a Narrative only gameplay possibility. Problem solved. Casual and fluffy bunny players can still do their combinations. Competitive players can find something else to complain about.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Just make soup a Narrative only gameplay possibility. Problem solved. Casual and fluffy bunny players can still do their combinations. Competitive players can find something else to complain about.


I think that Games Workshop are fully aware that a very large majority of players still play using points and play casually. It's just easier for pick-up games.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Darsath wrote:


7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm.


It really didn't.

Yes, let's have terrible wound allocation rules that would more at home in a skirmish game when we have a game that can use hundreds of models. No.


As for the OT- Thank you! Soup is a blight on this game in both physical appearances of the armies and player perception of how this is a "normal" way to play the game. The sooner it gets dealt with the better. If GW insist on doing soup then the two things that need to happen are as follows: CP can only be used by whatever detachment generated them (Warlord determines what detachment gets the battleforged +3) and, to take a cue from Malifaux with their merc units is they have a minor cost increase if taken outside their parent faction- so those loyal 32 are now more expensive (once again, Warlord determines who parent faction is) when taken with IK.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Grimtuff wrote:
Darsath wrote:


7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm.


It really didn't.

Yes, let's have terrible wound allocation rules that would more at home in a skirmish game when we have a game that can use hundreds of models. No.


As for the OT- Thank you! Soup is a blight on this game in both physical appearances of the armies and player perception of how this is a "normal" way to play the game. The sooner it gets dealt with the better. If GW insist on doing soup then the two things that need to happen are as follows: CP can only be used by whatever detachment generated them (Warlord determines what detachment gets the battleforged +3) and, to take a cue from Malifaux with their merc units is they have a minor cost increase if taken outside their parent faction- so those loyal 32 are now more expensive (once again, Warlord determines who parent faction is) when taken with IK.


Wounds being allocated to the closest model first, and requiring line of sight to the model taking the wound actually make more sense, not less.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Darsath wrote:


Wounds being allocated to the closest model first, and requiring line of sight to the model taking the wound actually make more sense, not less.


Okay, now do that when playing Nids or Orks.

There's a reason 6th and 7th are the shortest lived editions of 40k ever.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:45:07




A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Grimtuff wrote:
Darsath wrote:


Wounds being allocated to the closest model first, and requiring line of sight to the model taking the wound actually make more sense, not less.


Okay, now do that when playing Nids or Orks.



I have done that. Finding the front of a unit isn't hard.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.


This is where you are wrong. You're ignoring the existence of synergies, diminishing returns, etc, where a unit's value depends on what other units are available. Guardsmen in a pure IG army are good screening troops with efficient small arms fire. Guardsmen in an IK army have all of that, but also the considerable additional value of adding abundant CP to an army that is unable to get it without allies. So how do you set the price of guardsmen? If you balance them for use in a pure IG army they're overpowered as an IK CP battery, if you balance them as a CP battery then they're too expensive to be viable in a pure IG army. And it's the same in other cases. Gaining access to something you otherwise can't have is often more valuable than taking yet another unit to do a job you're already winning at, and you can't set an appropriate price for both uses at the same time. The only way to balance the game is to remove the ability to take the best units from every faction without penalty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote:
I have done that. Finding the front of a unit isn't hard.


I seriously doubt you removed the closest unit, measuring to 0.00001mm precision when necessary. Casualty removal from the front only works if you play it super casually and are willing to roughly approximate it without worrying about who is gaining an advantage by removing the wrong model. IOW, the rule only works if you don't follow the rule. And that's a bad mechanic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:47:31


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in pt
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon




Lisbon, Portugal

Darsath wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Darsath wrote:


Wounds being allocated to the closest model first, and requiring line of sight to the model taking the wound actually make more sense, not less.


Okay, now do that when playing Nids or Orks.



I have done that. Finding the front of a unit isn't hard.


I think he meant that rule hindered melee armies by quite a lot

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:49:07


40k Dark Angels
BFG Tau

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






 Peregrine wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.


This is where you are wrong. You're ignoring the existence of synergies, diminishing returns, etc, where a unit's value depends on what other units are available. Guardsmen in a pure IG army are good screening troops with efficient small arms fire. Guardsmen in an IK army have all of that, but also the considerable additional value of adding abundant CP to an army that is unable to get it without allies. So how do you set the price of guardsmen? If you balance them for use in a pure IG army they're overpowered as an IK CP battery, if you balance them as a CP battery then they're too expensive to be viable in a pure IG army. And it's the same in other cases. Gaining access to something you otherwise can't have is often more valuable than taking yet another unit to do a job you're already winning at, and you can't set an appropriate price for both uses at the same time. The only way to balance the game is to remove the ability to take the best units from every faction without penalty.


As I said, take a leaf out of what Malifaux does (or did are they're going into 3rd ed.). Outcasts, which are a faction in their own right but also mercs that can be taken by other factions have a +1pt increase when taken outside of Outcasts. Something like this for 40k would go some way to curbing a bit of soup if GW insist on keeping it.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Guardsmen are fantastic on their own. They would be worth 4 ppm with no guns.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:52:28


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Spoiler:
 Peregrine wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.


This is where you are wrong. You're ignoring the existence of synergies, diminishing returns, etc, where a unit's value depends on what other units are available. Guardsmen in a pure IG army are good screening troops with efficient small arms fire. Guardsmen in an IK army have all of that, but also the considerable additional value of adding abundant CP to an army that is unable to get it without allies. So how do you set the price of guardsmen? If you balance them for use in a pure IG army they're overpowered as an IK CP battery, if you balance them as a CP battery then they're too expensive to be viable in a pure IG army. And it's the same in other cases. Gaining access to something you otherwise can't have is often more valuable than taking yet another unit to do a job you're already winning at, and you can't set an appropriate price for both uses at the same time. The only way to balance the game is to remove the ability to take the best units from every faction without penalty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote:
I have done that. Finding the front of a unit isn't hard.


I seriously doubt you removed the closest unit, measuring to 0.00001mm precision when necessary. Casualty removal from the front only works if you play it super casually and are willing to roughly approximate it without worrying about who is gaining an advantage by removing the wrong model. IOW, the rule only works if you don't follow the rule. And that's a bad mechanic.


If you gotta measure it, then you can do so with a tape measure. The rules specifically state that when the models in the unit are equidistant, then the controlling player may choose which model to remove. I'm not sure if you are aware of this rule though.
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Spoiler:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.


This is where you are wrong. You're ignoring the existence of synergies, diminishing returns, etc, where a unit's value depends on what other units are available. Guardsmen in a pure IG army are good screening troops with efficient small arms fire. Guardsmen in an IK army have all of that, but also the considerable additional value of adding abundant CP to an army that is unable to get it without allies. So how do you set the price of guardsmen? If you balance them for use in a pure IG army they're overpowered as an IK CP battery, if you balance them as a CP battery then they're too expensive to be viable in a pure IG army. And it's the same in other cases. Gaining access to something you otherwise can't have is often more valuable than taking yet another unit to do a job you're already winning at, and you can't set an appropriate price for both uses at the same time. The only way to balance the game is to remove the ability to take the best units from every faction without penalty.


As I said, take a leaf out of what Malifaux does (or did are they're going into 3rd ed.). Outcasts, which are a faction in their own right but also mercs that can be taken by other factions have a +1pt increase when taken outside of Outcasts. Something like this for 40k would go some way to curbing a bit of soup if GW insist on keeping it.


Certainly would help. But 1 ppm still dosen't make or break a soup list.

It might have when guardsmen were still 5ppm but now?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:52:04


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






 Vector Strike wrote:
Darsath wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Darsath wrote:


Wounds being allocated to the closest model first, and requiring line of sight to the model taking the wound actually make more sense, not less.


Okay, now do that when playing Nids or Orks.



I have done that. Finding the front of a unit isn't hard.


I think he meant that rule hindered melee armies by quite a lot


Nope. I meant because what Perri said and the fact it slowed down the game to ridiculous levels. It is fine for a skirmish game (or up to about 2nd ed 40k), but not in a huge game that is supposed to be streamlined. That rule is the literal opposite of streamlined.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: