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.

No I understood and agree that hyper competetive players will follow flavor. However to say mono Codexes aren’t in a good spot is also wrong. GSC, tau, and even mono guard are in good spots for mono Codexes. So is Craftworlds and drukhari. It’s just ynnari and imperium soup beat them out. The OTHER mono codex to fall short, but that’s been a thing since.. well 40k existed that some mono codex were underwhelming

Sure, but thats no reason to resignate and not change it.

I just think it would be a lot easier to balance for ecxample a new Codex SM/GK/DA/BA etc if you dont have to crosscheck every unit and stratagem how it could be abused with Loyal32 and a Castellan.

 Yarium wrote:
Over at Proposed Rules we have a neat discussion going about using either Leadership or Power Level to differentiate troops more; that the Troop with the highest Ld/Power Level is able to hold objectives over Troops with a lower Ld/Power Level.

There were a couple of objective-even-more-secured rules in 7th, but it's a game of one-upmanship.

An alternative is the rule chaos knights have, one model can be worth more than one model for the purposes of deciding who holds the objective. Still easy to use but less of an all-in proposition.

So lets clear up this again.

Stratagems from other detachments are never going away. Period.

it would invalidate several armies, and choices. Like Imperial Assassins.

At this point, soup isn't going away. What you might see, and what is desired is that Mono faction get bonuses to allow them to compete better against soup.

What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

So for units like some tyranid monsters that are already over costed, you want to further increase their cost for a gene stealer cult player to take them for fluff purposes..

At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

So for units like some tyranid monsters that are already over costed, you want to further increase their cost for a gene stealer cult player to take them for fluff purposes..

I see your point. But soup is a problem. I would say thematic battles off fluff might not play by competitive level rules? I dunno. But either soup is a problem for all armies, or none. You can't say that 'nids get an out because fluff.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What if there was a Soup Tax, on points. Like, first soup detachment has a X per model points increase. Second soup det gets a X+Y points per model increase.

So, in basic terms:

1 BN of guard, a squad of troops costs 40pts, or 4pts per model. In the second Det, a squad costs 50, or 5 pts per model. In the third, 60.

Obviously there are different taxes for different roles, with the tax getting larger obviously for higher cost units. So a Knight that costs 600 might cost 800 in the third Det.

So for units like some tyranid monsters that are already over costed, you want to further increase their cost for a gene stealer cult player to take them for fluff purposes..

I see your point. But soup is a problem. I would say thematic battles off fluff might not play by competitive level rules? I dunno. But either soup is a problem for all armies, or none. You can't say that 'nids get an out because fluff.

I’m not saying that, I don’t even play nids, I play Aeldari soup. My point was that the idea wouldn’t work, nor would GW go for something along those lines. I am
By no means insulting you, because at least you’re trying to think of something. I’m just saying

Soup is not going anywhere - GW makes money, and a lot of people love the ability to mix/match units. Its even pretty fluffy.

Mono-Dex armies definitely need a buff against Soup. Soup gives you more options, but it shouldn't be as dominate as it is. I've heard a lot of good ideas, and I definitely think pts reduction is a huge factor (especially SM vs IG). But I think the best solution is to look at CP costs. I just finished a local GT with a Blood Angels army. I'm not the best competative player by ANY means, but I often felt that a big reason I couldn't keep up was I started with 10 CP (Battalion/Vangaurd/Spearhead), and a most other players had MINIMUM 13-18 CP. By turn 3 I'm out of CP, and they are still throwing Strategems around like candy.

So I suggest that if your army is Mono-Dex (everyone share the right keyword with your Warlord) - then the bonuses for battle-forged detachments would go up by maybe 1-3 CP. Maybe if you have 2 datachements that match keywords you get 1 CP, and if all three match you get 3 CP or something. That gives you an incentive to play a single faction, but if you have a cool soup combo you like you CAN play it for a CP cost. Looking at the new assassin rule for inspiration. I think this could work really well.


Thoughts?

EDIT: Spelling

Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

Would it be crazy to have soup be allowed in binary terms?

Imperium vs. Everyone else?

A List of Orks, Tau, and Eldar would be awesome!

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Would it be crazy to have soup be allowed in binary terms?

Imperium vs. Everyone else?

A List of Orks, Tau, and Eldar would be awesome!

*7th edition intensifies*

TauDar is the worst thing on the planet.

I suppose I wouldn't mind running triple riptide on top of my DE list. But it wouldn't be fair.

 Marmatag wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Would it be crazy to have soup be allowed in binary terms?

Imperium vs. Everyone else?

A List of Orks, Tau, and Eldar would be awesome!

*7th edition intensifies*

TauDar is the worst thing on the planet.

I suppose I wouldn't mind running triple riptide on top of my DE list. But it wouldn't be fair.

Xenos/Chaos/Imperial

That would put Dark Eldar in with Chaos.

I love how yet another topic not about soup is not about soup...

As for the OP.
I dont buy it, Troops already have great value from obsec. not allowing anyone else to hold objectives is going way way to far.

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

I'd just do points. Otherwise very high PL units with minimal upgrades will create the imbalanced scenario we have now. 5 Deathwatch Veterans with no upgrades would provide 3 CP.

Generally speaking the biggest problem right now is ultra cheap troops for only certain factions, which is why cultists, guardsmen, GSC and others have such good troops. Anything paying 10 points or more for troops sucks by comparison.

That, and the ability to have ultra-cheap troops providing CP to fuel powerful units like Castellans means the framework of the game breaks down.

We should just basically relegate CP to be used by the army that generated them. Guard only get guard CP, knights only get knight CP. Ynnari are irrevocably messed up, and need to be completely overhauled to fit into the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

I'd just do points. Otherwise very high PL units with minimal upgrades will create the imbalanced scenario we have now. 5 Deathwatch Veterans with no upgrades would provide 3 CP.

Yeah but not everyone uses points, because you need many more books for that, while PL is something that you are sure that every player has. For this reason all rules always refer to PL and never to points.

They changed tactical reserves to points. If you're playing PL then they can have a separate rule, but there is nothing stopping use of points for proper balance.

what if there was a cp bonus for single codex armies?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Command points should be based on the points values of troops you take. If you spend 300 points on troops you should get more cp than someone who spends 120.

It's a race to the bottom because of that.

Only troops holding objectives is a *TERRIBLE* idea. If they restricted it to <INFANTRY>, <BIKER>, and <CAVALRY> i'd be okay with that. But it does completely feth over some armies entirely, which doesn't seem like a good way to balance the game.

I'm laughing so hard that people think allies are a problem.

Why aren't all the Space Marines + Castellan lists winning? Same percentage of allies. Where are they?
What about Sisters of Battle + Castellan?
What about all knights, including Castellan?
What about all Scions + Castellan?

There is a smoking gun here. But seeing the truth is hard, so it's easier just to blame "soup." I put soup in quotes because it really stopped being soup when they banned IMPERIUM, CHAOS, and TYRANIDS as legal detachment construction keywords.

This^

Also, this is exactly what i expect to happen following that hint.
CPs being based on the actual POINTS spent on troops. A simple beta rule could do it "A detachment can give a maximum of one CP for every 3 PL of troops in it". Done.
Now a battalion requires 15 pl of troops in it to give the full 5 CP, and a battalion requires a really big investment in troops to do the same.

I would like it.

I'd just do points. Otherwise very high PL units with minimal upgrades will create the imbalanced scenario we have now. 5 Deathwatch Veterans with no upgrades would provide 3 CP.

Wouldn't that be a great way to show the elite factor of the troops?

Point values are far more accurate to the matched play environment than PL for the same objective.

Reemule wrote:


it would invalidate several armies, and choices. Like Imperial Assassins.

"These stratagems may be used even if your Warlord doesn't have the [insert faction name here] keyword" It takes exactly one line to fix that issue. Outlier factions do not stop GW from restricting stratagems to the Warlord's faction.

What video?

 Blndmage wrote:


Wouldn't that be a great way to show the elite factor of the troops?

I think that is better served by what they do on the table. Under this system you would need 200 points of IS before commanders for 5 CP. This would mean 128 points of DW SB Vets could "cap out" that max 5 CP. You just shifted the problem instead of fixing it.

I think they should redress the Detatchment CP bonuses for armies with detatchments from multiple factions, leaving Soup playable but strongly curbing the incentive for doing the Loyal 32:

Mono Codex gets 3CP for battleforged, 5CP for a batallion etc as normal

Soup get 2CP for battleforged and 2 for *any* additional detatchment. Max of 8CP for soup armies.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

If you take soup armies, you're only tied into 1 set of maelstrom cards.

Just do the same with Soup strats. If you're taking Craftworlds and Drukhari in one list for instance, you can only use Craftworld or Drukhari stats, not both.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
At what point did anyone start winning with objectives in eighth? It's still kill everything in three turns.

People that play the actually game and not the 1 mission that is Kill points.

Try doing that in any CA missions and see how you fair, or try Maelstrom. The game is more than just ITC you know. Try it sometime you might find it more fun.

Maybe if you play ITC Champions missions it's kill everything in three turns, but not using real missions.

*BOOM* Headshot.