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.

The last thing this game needs is more AP firepower. If anything it should be dialed back on a lot of shooting.

For a shooting weapon to be AP-4 or better, it should come with serious drawbacks or situational uses. AP-3 is already way too common in shooting, and should be reserved for heavier weapons.

And where is the news about this update? It's already half way through March and we know nothing.

Who ever heard if having previews of an errata document?

I keep seeing rumors of regular guardsmen being upped to 5 ppm.

50 points for 10 guardsmen or 60 for 20 conscripts, I could see myself going to all conscript route. Must admit though I find it kind of funny: In 7th edition (when platoons were a thing) I always thought to myself "If I could run only conscripts, I would." I guess that's happening.

 Cothonian wrote:
I keep seeing rumors of regular guardsmen being upped to 5 ppm.

50 points for 10 guardsmen or 60 for 20 conscripts, I could see myself going to all conscript route. Must admit though I find it kind of funny: In 7th edition (when platoons were a thing) I always thought to myself "If I could run only conscripts, I would." I guess that's happening.

Conscripts are 4ppm so its 80 for 20 or 50 for 10 guardsmen its actually not a bad balance point for the trade offs

gendoikari87 wrote:
Gw could just fix marines 11 point marines 16 point intercessors, mix throughout. Done. Marines suck, that’s problem. Fix it for once instead of sticking your head in the sand


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously 3+ armor isn’t worth what gw charges, it never has, the one time marines were good, they had to give them all free transports.

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters? I mean, there's nothing saying you can't leave even Devastator squad members at 13 if that's a price where they're a good but not automatic choice.

But, more comprehensively, I don't know that adjusting tacticals makes it much more important to change other prices. Mostly those other units already need price adjustments. Maybe adjusting tacticals makes it obvious that other things are already in a bad place, but that's a good thing. Like, since you so rarely see tactical marines anyway, nothing is being taken because of how it matches up to tactical marines, so the price of tactical marines doesn't matter much to how anything else in the game is doing. It's just an annoying feature of the game that so many factions' basic troops are overpriced. The new Tau codex, for all that can reasonably be criticized about it, should probably be commended for making standard Fire Warriors a relatively appealing model. It looks like the Necron codex is not addressing Warriors being lackluster, though, so my guess is that GW is still overvaluing certain things.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Gw could just fix marines 11 point marines 16 point intercessors, mix throughout. Done. Marines suck, that’s problem. Fix it for once instead of sticking your head in the sand


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously 3+ armor isn’t worth what gw charges, it never has, the one time marines were good, they had to give them all free transports.

Basically man - if you are in power armor and have 1 wound - you need a price drop (except for eldar stuff) Reapers obviously don't need to come down in price. Though things like warp spiders and striking scorpions could drop some points too. Rubrics are actually one of the best MEQ units right now but even they are over costed by about 3-4 points. Sisters are already in a good place being 4 points cheaper than a tac with the same armor and same weapon and better cheap weapon options - obviously they don't need to go down in price ether.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters? I mean, there's nothing saying you can't leave even Devastator squad members at 13 if that's a price where they're a good but not automatic choice.

But, more comprehensively, I don't know that adjusting tacticals makes it much more important to change other prices. Mostly those other units already need price adjustments. Maybe adjusting tacticals makes it obvious that other things are already in a bad place, but that's a good thing. Like, since you so rarely see tactical marines anyway, nothing is being taken because of how it matches up to tactical marines, so the price of tactical marines doesn't matter much to how anything else in the game is doing. It's just an annoying feature of the game that so many factions' basic troops are overpriced. The new Tau codex, for all that can reasonably be criticized about it, should probably be commended for making standard Fire Warriors a relatively appealing model. It looks like the Necron codex is not addressing Warriors being lackluster, though, so my guess is that GW is still overvaluing certain things.

Good points. Devastators I see often. I have yet to see an assault marine this edition though....I see tacticals more often oddly enough.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Gw could just fix marines 11 point marines 16 point intercessors, mix throughout. Done. Marines suck, that’s problem. Fix it for once instead of sticking your head in the sand


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously 3+ armor isn’t worth what gw charges, it never has, the one time marines were good, they had to give them all free transports.

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

Wouldn't 11 point tacticals imply 16 point Rubrics (before the gun)? Not sure where you're getting the 13 number from.

 andysonic1 wrote:
Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

Wait... your upset that a specialist melee unit is only good at melee?

 djones520 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

Wait... your upset that a specialist melee unit is only good at melee?

pretty sure he's joking.

BrianDavion wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

Wait... your upset that a specialist melee unit is only good at melee?

pretty sure he's joking.

Being snide can be pretty hard to pick up sometimes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters? I mean, there's nothing saying you can't leave even Devastator squad members at 13 if that's a price where they're a good but not automatic choice.

But, more comprehensively, I don't know that adjusting tacticals makes it much more important to change other prices. Mostly those other units already need price adjustments. Maybe adjusting tacticals makes it obvious that other things are already in a bad place, but that's a good thing. Like, since you so rarely see tactical marines anyway, nothing is being taken because of how it matches up to tactical marines, so the price of tactical marines doesn't matter much to how anything else in the game is doing. It's just an annoying feature of the game that so many factions' basic troops are overpriced. The new Tau codex, for all that can reasonably be criticized about it, should probably be commended for making standard Fire Warriors a relatively appealing model. It looks like the Necron codex is not addressing Warriors being lackluster, though, so my guess is that GW is still overvaluing certain things.

Isn't reanimation protocols supposed to be changed? If its better than I could see that as a reason they aren't changing the cost

Apparently not, according to the leaks.
Don't point changes come in chapter approved anyway?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Apparently not, according to the leaks.
Don't point changes come in chapter approved anyway?

Based on GW's wording, half the users believe point changes come in CA and March both.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

 Zid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

maybe, in other cases though I think it is intended, such as using chaos familer to grant a death guard sorc access to warp time

 Zid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

Then you have factions that really aren't meant to stand on their own, like Inquisition, Officio Assasinorium, and all those other fun Imperial departments (I'd even say Admech, although I'll probably get a lot of flack for it), that would get totally ruined by soup restrictions. Now, I wouldn't mind if such penalties were put in place to hammer soup, but only if GW gave us a roadmap for how they intended to develop factions that were clearly meant to function in an auxiliary capacity.

The only thing I can hope for is that -1 to hit caps out at 6+, which is something I find likely, perhaps making so CP can only be used in the detachment that generated them, which I find unlikely, and the ability to let walkers go up levels, which I don't think will happen.

So could the soup problem be solved by making it so Allied detachments (units from a different codex than the "main") be forced to use the patrol detachment? At least for the tournament scene


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or the -1 CP auxiliary slot

 techsoldaten wrote:

I would hope GW would not do that and would much rather see the FAQ provide better synergy for mixed detachments on par with what you get using a mono-Codex army.

There is no problem with a soup list per se. Rules for allies fighting together was a big improvement in 6th.

This filled in a lot of gaps that came out of giving armies their own Codexes. Grey Knights used to be part of the Daemonhunters Codex. Daemons used to be part of the Chaos Space Marines Codex. It's perfectly natural to want to play them as part of a larger Inquisition or Chaos force, and I would hate to see them nerfed for working together.

The problem with soup lists is when people are forced to use them because their Codex options are too weak to stand on their own. On the one hand, synergy between two forces fighting together is hit-or-miss. SM / IG get a lot, CSM / CD don't. That's not fair. Eldar / Tau will have no synergy, and that's really awful.

On the other hand, it makes you wonder how important Codexes are now that we have Detachments. A Codex is now a collection of datasheets, warlord traits, stratagems, relics, and psychic abilities. If you can't build a strong army with a given Codex, should it even exist?

Probably not. That's a sign of bad game design, not a problem with mixing lists.

People aren't forced to do anything.

The problem with soup lists is quite simple - players are using it to cherry pick the most efficient and effective units from any given codex and mashing them together because the rules allow it. Celestine finds her way into a ton of Space Marine lists and seems to love hanging around the IG for some reason. You can make fluff excuses for anything but after a time you have to concede it for what it is.

It also breaks game balance. How on earth are the designers supposed to balance a group of potentially 10+ different codexes that can be used together. Traditionally armies had strengths and weaknesses. This is intentional and by design. Soup lists allow players to circumvent this and mitigate their factions' weakness by taking another detachment from a vaguely related army.

Orks can't take allies or soup. We manage. Same with Tau and Necrons.

Of course soup lists allow GW to sell more models so there's no way they'll be cutting it. No way should it be rewarded further though. It's already a reward and it already allows imbalance.

tournies could just insist every army be made up of a single battalion detachment, it worked for ages back in the day of 3rd through 5th editions. It WILL resctrict some models (primarchs and super heavies) and armies (imperial Knights) that are LOWs (although that could be changed by allowing everyone to take 1 super heavy auxillery detachment as well) but it'd proably ensure a semi level playing field. although it'd likely result in some armies "Staying home" from tournies. but that might simply be the way to do it if soup is deemed a problem.

Would a simple solution to the phenomenon of 'soup' not be to just bring back the old 25% limit on allied codices?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Genuine question here - why is this bad? Is it because of luff or you find this particular build too strong?

Neither actually - it's strong list but things like that could come out of a single faction as well.
As far as I'm concerned, fluff isn't part of this discussion.

The problem is that it's a list that has simply cherry-picked the best units with the best synergies from an entire faction without any downside at all. As long as this is the case, single faction armies will never be able to compete (unless vastly more stronger than all other options) and even at a very high level of balance, there will be no more than 2-3 ways to run an entire faction (chaos or imperium), most likely with a big overlap between top lists.
In a fictional scenario, a DA player would get a stronger list by dropping his deathwing knights and replacing them with custodes terminators. Then he dropps his ravenwing for white scars bikers and replaces his rank and file with IG guardsmen, leaving little reason play DA at all.
Eldar are slightly less affected by this, but if you have a dark eldar unit that has the same job as a craftworld or harlequin units, only the best of the three will see play in ynnari lists.

Considering how the game has a natural limit on how many units can be run (usually 10-20 units at 2k), this would lead to large amount of faction units being unused. Small factions like GK, Harlequins or TS could be left with zero competitive units.

Sure, in theory you could balance all units to be viable choices, but from what I've seen in other competitive games and esports, even when companies doing their very best and the games is considered in decent state of balance, only the top 10% units/cards/characters see play in highly competitive environments.

Therefore I think cherry-picking needs to be limited, but not made completely impossible. Adding a second (or third) army to your list to compensate weaknesses is good and intended, combining all the best units of your faction into one army is not.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How on earth are the designers supposed to balance a group of potentially 10+ different codexes that can be used together. Traditionally armies had strengths and weaknesses. This is intentional and by design. Soup lists allow players to circumvent this and mitigate their factions' weakness by taking another detachment from a vaguely related army.
Orks can't take allies or soup. We manage. Same with Tau and Necrons.

Obviously they just need let Xenos be a faction keyword.

Let space marine players use Celestine. I'll be deep striking in my Monolith and unloading 30 boyz while my Fire Warriors cap objectives.

Audustum wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Apparently not, according to the leaks.
Don't point changes come in chapter approved anyway?

Based on GW's wording, half the users believe point changes come in CA and March both.

After all, it seems logical that Matched Play points fall under the heading of "rules".

Still, this is GW, so logic may not apply

Any changes to Soup lists (and strategems) would it force smaller points games, not larger and that doesent sound very GW to me.

If there's a problem with Strategems, it's in command point saturation that some armies get while others don't. Fix that. Reward mono lists, don't punish mixed ones.

I think the 3 freebie Battleforged CP should be for mono only. Then soup armies will have to be a little more conservative. And if you're doing brigades anyway, then congrats for buying so much.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

Then you have factions that really aren't meant to stand on their own, like Inquisition, Officio Assasinorium, and all those other fun Imperial departments (I'd even say Admech, although I'll probably get a lot of flack for it), that would get totally ruined by soup restrictions. Now, I wouldn't mind if such penalties were put in place to hammer soup, but only if GW gave us a roadmap for how they intended to develop factions that were clearly meant to function in an auxiliary capacity.

I can see your point here; so perhaps have strategems that can only be used in an auxiliary capacity? For example, IG could call in mortars or something as an aux detachment. For the Inquisition it would be anti-psycher or anti-chaos stuff. I think the issue is that the main strategems were all balanced around the actual army itself, but not tested when combined with other armies stuff. This was the exact same issue 6th edition had, with rerollable 2++ save dark eldar/eldar deathstars

Do you really think Allies and fixing holes will ever stop? Immediately after a codex drops the gamers are seeking the most OP and broken combos and gloating that they discovered them. I've seen list ideas on this site that make me cringe.

All it does is cement the idea that 40K isn't supposed to be a tournament competitive game.

But back to OP, I would like to see command point regeneration be limited to the army specific Strategems. Why should half the armies get their CP back on rerolls, when DG have to pay have to roll a 7, and also limit to DG Strategems only.



Ive seen people try and gain their CP back from the extra relic Strategems.... Isn't that during list building?