Switch Theme:

Take away the automatic 3 command points for armies with allies.  [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 de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Chiashi_Zane wrote:

The issue with things like soup for that type of strategem is that IG allows people to cheaply fill out battalions or even brigades, so now I can infiltrate my entire ravenguard part of my army at what amounts to little cost tactically later in game.

You loose initiative for sure, how is that "little cost"? For 9 CP you'll add at the very least 3HQ6Troop3Elite3Heavy3FA units, that's 18 drops. And you can't mitigate that without investing further points for transports. And if you leave all of those units bare-bone, you're wasting a quarter of your army at 2000pts.

I often run my Guard with a lot more than 9CP, just Guard. A proper build can get you 23 CP for 2000pts, taking advantage of how Guard have models that grant extra CP.

Don't bother, I've already tried to explain that to him - it's all "But you wanted to take IG anyway so the CP is free" / "but battalions are just conscripts and commissars and everyone wants to bring those anyway".
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Phoenix, AZ

nekooni wrote:
 Chiashi_Zane wrote:

The issue with things like soup for that type of strategem is that IG allows people to cheaply fill out battalions or even brigades, so now I can infiltrate my entire ravenguard part of my army at what amounts to little cost tactically later in game.

You loose initiative for sure, how is that "little cost"? For 9 CP you'll add at the very least 3HQ6Troop3Elite3Heavy3FA units, that's 18 drops. And you can't mitigate that without investing further points for transports. And if you leave all of those units bare-bone, you're wasting a quarter of your army at 2000pts.

I often run my Guard with a lot more than 9CP, just Guard. A proper build can get you 23 CP for 2000pts, taking advantage of how Guard have models that grant extra CP.

Don't bother, I've already tried to explain that to him - it's all "But you wanted to take IG anyway so the CP is free" / "but battalions are just conscripts and commissars and everyone wants to bring those anyway".


Yeah, but I'm doing that 23CP without a single Conscript or Commissar. And throwing in a Super-heavy detachment to boot. Which really means I'm pulling 20CP out of 500pts. I can't even use all of those CP in a single game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/07 14:31:06


From the weakness of the mind, Omnissiah save us. From the lies of the Antipath, circuit preserve us. From the rage of the Beast, iron protect us. From the temptations of the Fleshlord, silica cleanse us. From the ravages of the Destroyer, anima shield us. From this rotting cage of biomatter, Machine God set us free. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





I get it, sonas long as things can be justified through fluff people don't care about balance. Got it. Sure IG when you are reading about giant battles with full regiments join forces. But is not reflected on the table by the scale of the battle. Beyond that it is clear to me that no one is interested in incentives to play single faction. Because the imperium should be able to draw units from half the game at no cost.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






Breng77 wrote:
I get it, sonas long as things can be justified through fluff people don't care about balance. Got it. Sure IG when you are reading about giant battles with full regiments join forces. But is not reflected on the table by the scale of the battle. Beyond that it is clear to me that no one is interested in incentives to play single faction. Because the imperium should be able to draw units from half the game at no cost.

If you're suggesting that the scale of the battle means it should be only a single regiment then it should also be mono build - only infantry, only tanks, etc. "Can be justified through the fluff" is not the same as "dictated by the fluff". You might get elements from a couple of different chapters fighting in the same battle but this is the exception. When guard deploy it is almost always as elements from multiple regiments.

And your "draw units from half the game" is a total red herring - we're talking about mixing regiments/chapters/forgeworlds/whatever which everyone can do. There's a big difference between that and mixing codexes.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/07 18:15:20


 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Honestly I'm not sure that difference is as big anymore. Either way you are selecting units for the purpose of what has the best rules. And much of the thread has been talking about both. And in both cases it is people saying "in the fluff... so don't penalize me for doing it."
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






Breng77 wrote:
Honestly I'm not sure that difference is as big anymore.

If you're going to go on about how unfair it is for Imperium to have so many allies then it's a big difference since taking several doctrines from the same codex is something that's available to everyone.

Breng77 wrote:
Either way you are selecting units for the purpose of what has the best rules.

Yes, that's called sensible army selection.

Breng77 wrote:

And much of the thread has been talking about both. And in both cases it is people saying "in the fluff... so don't penalize me for doing it."

OP started that by claiming that you should be rewarded for taking a fluffy army but that fluffy armies would be single-codex. The initial premise of this thread is not that allies is a game balance issue, it is that it is fluffy to take a single-codex army and you should be rewarded for that. Since that point is pretty obviously nonsense people have, rightly, been pointing that out.

there should be some compensation for running a fluffy, single chapter type of army list, with no allies

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/07 19:58:10


 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Taking multiple doctrines is not something available to everyone. Right now it is available to 4 codices. GK and DG don't get it nor does anyone without a codex. So unless you include allies not everyone will have that advantage.

Yes min maxing is a sensible way to build an army hence why I would like to see rewards for making other choices. The best way to have done that would have been for detachments with single keywords to have a small buff, and armies with only that keyword to have an additional buff. But no one wants that because it hurts their min maxing of their fluffy army.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

Breng77 wrote:
I get it, sonas long as things can be justified through fluff people don't care about balance. Got it. Sure IG when you are reading about giant battles with full regiments join forces. But is not reflected on the table by the scale of the battle. Beyond that it is clear to me that no one is interested in incentives to play single faction. Because the imperium should be able to draw units from half the game at no cost.

I'm sorry, but most of the argument from your side (not you as a person) of the argument was about how multi-faction armies are unfluffy, and you just did it again. There are almost no IG regiments that mix different doctrines, almost all of them are literally Infantry OR Tanks OR Artillery OR Horses. Just accept that the lore of the IG does not support mono-doctrine armies and move on.

Taking multiple doctrines is not something available to everyone. Right now it is available to 4 codices. GK and DG don't get it nor does anyone without a codex. So unless you include allies not everyone will have that advantage.

That's ... an interesting point of view. DG are Chaos, GK are Imperium, they are specific Chapters/Legions of their faction and by that very nature are part of a bigger ecosystem.
It doesn't make sense to introduce sub-factions to a single Legion or Chapter. It makes sense, because it's in the lore, to have subfactions of Eldar, Tyranids, Mechanicum and so on.

DG don't have to run around on their own. You can just ally in Chaos Daemons or Renegates, for example. Or regular Chaos Space Marines of a different Legion origin.

Let's be honest: All you care about is that you don't like multi-factions and therefore the best option HAS to be mono-faction.
In your new meta people will simply spam e.g. Mordian Leman Russes (just a random example) all over the place and just drop the other options, because maximizing the Doctrine effect is more important than having a diverse list - in competitive play. Meanwhile, all the non-competitive players that do use Matched Play rules (which is probably the majority) are punished for playing diverse lists by them being not as good as monofaction armies that just spam the new hotness. But hey, at least you got your cake and ate it.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/10/07 20:37:26


 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





No I don't want mono-faction = best. I want it as a viable choice, where I'm not disadvantaging myself because I want to stick to a single faction. Because right now that is the case. If I want to play mono-GK I am willfully operating at a disadvantage because I gain nothing for doing so and would lose nothing for taking a detachment of IG/AM and in fact have a much stronger army. That is simply a fact of the game right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also know why certain books don't have subfactions. But it means that there is no functional difference between allying between books and sub factions of a single book. Which was what I was addressing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/07 21:07:12


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

Breng77 wrote:

But it means that there is no functional difference between allying between books and sub factions of a single book. Which was what I was addressing.

Well, yes. Is that an issue though?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
No I don't want mono-faction = best. I want it as a viable choice, where I'm not disadvantaging myself because I want to stick to a single faction. Because right now that is the case. If I want to play mono-GK I am willfully operating at a disadvantage because I gain nothing for doing so and would lose nothing for taking a detachment of IG/AM and in fact have a much stronger army. That is simply a fact of the game right now.

the only reason for this to be true is that GK are not as good as AM. Which might very well be true, but is not an issue with the ally system but with overall balance, and that's what I've been advocating throughout this entire thread - fix the issues, like Conscript spam. Leave the ally system alone, it's not the issue.

If you bring GK and ally in Inquisition, you end up with a worse army than you'd have had if you'd brought just GK, and that's with an ally that's designed and supposed to work with all the other Imperial factions.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/07 21:29:49


 
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

The problem is that, while the Imperium is very vast in terms of how much of the game it occupies, a lot of its smaller factions are supplementary. Even the Adeptus Mechanicus codex faction is too hamstrung on its own to function as a competitively viable full army (with 16 units across the whole book, it should be no wonder as to why).

Really, it sounds like the problem is with IG. Everyone gets better when you can throw in some overpowered and undercosted IG stuff in. But the same cannot be said of adding certain factions the other way around.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





nekooni wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

But it means that there is no functional difference between allying between books and sub factions of a single book. Which was what I was addressing.

Well, yes. Is that an issue though?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
No I don't want mono-faction = best. I want it as a viable choice, where I'm not disadvantaging myself because I want to stick to a single faction. Because right now that is the case. If I want to play mono-GK I am willfully operating at a disadvantage because I gain nothing for doing so and would lose nothing for taking a detachment of IG/AM and in fact have a much stronger army. That is simply a fact of the game right now.

the only reason for this to be true is that GK are not as good as AM. Which might very well be true, but is not an issue with the ally system but with overall balance, and that's what I've been advocating throughout this entire thread - fix the issues, like Conscript spam. Leave the ally system alone, it's not the issue.

If you bring GK and ally in Inquisition, you end up with a worse army than you'd have had if you'd brought just GK, and that's with an ally that's designed and supposed to work with all the other Imperial factions.


I disagree, it is much harder to balance things in a ally system, because you need to
Test all possible combinations. For example marine armies need to now
Be balanced as if they have access to cheap chaff units, artillery etc, IG needs to be balanced assuming it has access to better assault units Rowboat etc. As such it makes the individual factions either horribly unbalanced when they include allies (not balanc d to in life allies or tested that way)or the individual factions are weaker when those allies are not included (balanced assuming allies). So in order for allies to be balanced there have to be benefits to not taking allies. Sure some armies/units are crap, the solution to this should be allies


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The solution is to make those armies able to stand on their own. For me the ideal is to make both ally play and non-ally play viable for all factions. To do this essentially requires you give some benefit to offset the allied benefits. The only way that isn't the case is if all units in the game are functionally equivalent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/08 01:18:45


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





It sounds to me like this conversation might be moving to address a couple different distinct topics.

On one hand, we're discussing soup versus non soup armies in the sense that GK could ally in guard, eldar could ally in harlequins, etc. The main issue here being the ability to select from a larger catalogue of units and potentially take the most points efficient ones for a given task from that catalogue.

On the other, we're also discussing the impact of faction bonuses on multi-detachment lists regardless of whether you're taking options from another codex. For instance, taking Tallarn for all of your units that want to scoot forward, Cadian rules for all the units that want to sit back, etc.

The former is an issue that basically boils down to, "Do we want players to be able to broaden their catalogue with allies?" I think reasonable people could disagree on that point, but I also think it's clear that such an option favors certain factions (mostly the imperium, but eldar and chaos to a lesser extent) over factions without a lot of allies ('nids, 'crons, orks, tau).

The latter seems more like a matter of perspective to me. Breng77 has already pointed out that tournament play penalizes certain armies over others. Dire Avengers, for instance, are notoriously overcosted right now. They are a sub-optimal choice for a tournament list as a result. I think we can all acknowledge that there are units in most books that competitive players won't be taking because there are simply better options out there. Whether or not this *should* be the case is probably a topic for another thread.

So, if we acknowledge that there are good options and less-good options within a given faction, shouldn't playing a multi-sub-faction army (Tallarn, Catachans, etc.) just be viewed as another option? Cadian artillery instead of Tallarn artillery is basically the same as picking from two distinct units or two distinct pieces of wargear, is it not? Taking all Catachan instead of Catachan + Vostroyan (or whatever) is like running an army with nothing but burna boyz. The option may not be a bad one, but you're choosing to play a weaker army by not taking advantage of your options.


So the way I see it...
* If you want to weaken multi-faction armies on the basis that they're more powerful than mono-faction, I'd like to point out that there are plenty of other, probably more severe, imbalances between options that we could stand to address first.

*If you want to weaken multi-faction armies on the basis that you want to see mono-faction armies rewarded, then from a certain perspective, aren't you arguing that all armies should be equally effective regardless of what you choose to include in that list?

"I could have taken a different list with stronger options, but I diddn't want to. I should be able to play whatever combination of units I want and not be punished for taking sub-optimal picks."

As someone who believe list creation is, at least in its current incarnation, part of the game, I'd have to disagree with such a stance. Although I could certainly understand an opposing view to my own stance.

*If you're arguing that multi-faction should be worse or that mono faction should be better for fluff reasons, don't. People have already given plenty of examples of "soup" and multi-faction armies that are perfectly inkeeping with the fluff. Sure, it's weird to see grey knights and space puppies hanging out, but this isn't really the hobby for telling people that their fanfiction is bad/wrong.

TLDR; I think we're actually having different conversations here. Are we talking about "soup" in the "IG + GK" sense, or "soup" in the "Tallarn + Catachan" sense? If the latter, then how is taking multiple detachments to get better bonuses different from taking optimized units over unoptimized units? Or do you feel that it should be impossible to build a suboptimal army in general?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





My thoughts would be
1.) Faction choice should not be part of optimization. All factions should be equally viable as such none should require allies to be usable. If GK are tournament viable by taking 1500 points of IG, then they aren't viable.

2.)Thus mono-faction armies need a buff compared to multi-faction in order to compensate for having a more limited unit selection.

3.) faction has no cost associated thus Is not the same as unit selection. A tallaran basilisk costs the same as a catachan one despite a difference in performance.

4.). Personally I don't believe any units should be suboptimal, only that some combinations of units should be. This is not and never has been the case. But it should be, I would like to see builds where every unit can be good.

In the end I would like to see variety in lists be encouraged, and the only way to do this is to offer benefits to certain build types. In this way formations were not a bad idea, they were just poor executed. Like I've said all along there is no reason not to soup right now, no competitive benefit at all to sticking to a single faction as such the meta will contract as optimal builds become more obvious. Right now it already seems to be the case. Most top builds are some type of soup.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Breng77 wrote:
My thoughts would be
1.) Faction choice should not be part of optimization. All factions should be equally viable as such none should require allies to be usable. If GK are tournament viable by taking 1500 points of IG, then they aren't viable.

2.)Thus mono-faction armies need a buff compared to multi-faction in order to compensate for having a more limited unit selection.

3.) faction has no cost associated thus Is not the same as unit selection. A tallaran basilisk costs the same as a catachan one despite a difference in performance.

4.). Personally I don't believe any units should be suboptimal, only that some combinations of units should be. This is not and never has been the case. But it should be, I would like to see builds where every unit can be good.

In the end I would like to see variety in lists be encouraged, and the only way to do this is to offer benefits to certain build types. In this way formations were not a bad idea, they were just poor executed. Like I've said all along there is no reason not to soup right now, no competitive benefit at all to sticking to a single faction as such the meta will contract as optimal builds become more obvious. Right now it already seems to be the case. Most top builds are some type of soup.


1. I don't necessarily disagree, but for the sake of discussion, what is the essential difference between refusing to bolster your GK armies with allies and refusing to take a strong monofaction army build? As an imperial player, guardsmen, grey knights, and sisters of battle are all options that are open to you. What's the essential difference we're trying to defend? Is it just what book GK happen to be located in? Because then I feel like we might be getting int a debate about fluff more than mechanics.

As for "faction choice not being part of optimization," this kind of depends on what level of "faction" you're talking about. Saying that marines shouldn't need to ally in guard is one thing. But saying that guard shouldn't take different types of guard is... more challenging. If Regiment X is good at shooting tanks and Regiment Y is good at shooting infantry, then you're going to have an incentive to to tanks from X and infantry from Y in competitive play. Players have access to an option that makes a unit better at something. My farseer can take Doom, Guide, and Fortune. In my shooty, long-ranged list, I typically find those first two psychic powers more useful than the third. So I'm taking a "free" optimized choice rather than a free unoptimized choice. How is this different from choosing cadian rules for my tanks and some other rule for my infantry?

2. I don't necessarily disagree, but at that point, we may as well just ban allies in general in tournament play. Otherwise, you're just shuffling the meta around rather than balancing out power levels. If there's a specific broken unit that's being sprinkled into a list, I feel we'd likely do more for overall game balance than fiddling with CP penalties. Also, it's important to note that this particular point specifically deals with mixing multiple broad factions together. This is the GK + IG scenario rather than the Tallarn + Cadian scenario. So point 2 doesn't really make a case for punishing Tallarn + Cadians.

3. Eh. Sort of kind of. A catachan basilisk might be more powerful for the same points cost, but I had to specifically take a catachan detachment to get those benefits. If we assume that the <regiment> keyword is worth X points on a unit's profile, and if we assume that all regiment benefits are more or less balanced against one another, then the "cost" is already baked in. Plus, while it's easy to build a list more or less how you want, you do have to find a way to fit in that catachan detachment in addition to the tallarn (or whatever) one to get the benefits of both in your army. Some vostroyan infantry, a vostroyan HQ, and a catachan HQ might have let you field a batallion and gain a few extra CP, but fielding the catachans HQ and his tanks as a different detachment forces you to either field two +1CP detachments or else buy a third HQ to qualify the vostroyan units as a batallion.

So in short, we don't see "catachan regiment rules cost X points," but you do still have to give up some more nebulous "resources" to get them. I wouldn't be opposed to straight up having faction rules cost points though. That way, GW wouldn't have to try and make all <regiment> rules completely balanced against one another.

4. I can agree with that. However, as we're not there yet, we already have a certain amount of imbalance between units on an index level. So it's a worthwhile point, but not one that supports the idea of punishing multi-faction armies.

As for a variety of build types... I mostly agree. However, as long as there are lists that will outperform others in the meta, you will see those lists more frequently than suboptimal lists. My dire avengers are a bad unit choice right now. As a result, I don't expect to win a lot of games if I field them at tournaments. Similarly, GK might be good, but they're probably not as good as if they were combo'd with some IG elements. I mean this as a sincere, non-judgemental question: What is the difference between insisting on playing mono-GK and me choosing to field my Dire Avengers? We could both be fielding more powerful options but opt not to in this hypothetical scenario.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Wyldhunt wrote:


1. I don't necessarily disagree, but for the sake of discussion, what is the essential difference between refusing to bolster your GK armies with allies and refusing to take a strong monofaction army build? As an imperial player, guardsmen, grey knights, and sisters of battle are all options that are open to you. What's the essential difference we're trying to defend? Is it just what book GK happen to be located in? Because then I feel like we might be getting int a debate about fluff more than mechanics.



One requires purchasing and carrying extra books? At some level it is a fluff thing, in that I feel that anything with a codex should be able to be a standalone army and not require allying. Your argument essentially boils down to Imperium are a single faction and should be balanced as a single faction. At which point the individual armies become sub-optimal by default. or if one book (IG) is clearly superior to the others does your optimization for playing GK become. "Well you take 1500 points of IG with 2 units of GK" at which point you're not playing GK anymore you're playing IG.



As for "faction choice not being part of optimization," this kind of depends on what level of "faction" you're talking about. Saying that marines shouldn't need to ally in guard is one thing. But saying that guard shouldn't take different types of guard is... more challenging. If Regiment X is good at shooting tanks and Regiment Y is good at shooting infantry, then you're going to have an incentive to to tanks from X and infantry from Y in competitive play. Players have access to an option that makes a unit better at something. My farseer can take Doom, Guide, and Fortune. In my shooty, long-ranged list, I typically find those first two psychic powers more useful than the third. So I'm taking a "free" optimized choice rather than a free unoptimized choice. How is this different from choosing cadian rules for my tanks and some other rule for my infantry?


Psykers presumably have the cost of their powers built into the units. Based on the fact that points often did not change or even went down for units between index and codex we can clearly say that isn't true for Regiment/Chapter benefits. As for the guard thing. I would still favor benefits for taking say wholly one regiment. So maybe make it such that faction specific strategems are cheaper in a single faction army, or they get an extra level on their CT. Something, part of the issue I have with the guard taking different regiment things, is it makes me feel like I should start forcing people to need the actual models to do so, other wise I see it being "these cadian models are really Mordians, and these cadian models are catachans, and these cadian models are cadians." where the only difference is a base color or some such.




2. I don't necessarily disagree, but at that point, we may as well just ban allies in general in tournament play. Otherwise, you're just shuffling the meta around rather than balancing out power levels. If there's a specific broken unit that's being sprinkled into a list, I feel we'd likely do more for overall game balance than fiddling with CP penalties. Also, it's important to note that this particular point specifically deals with mixing multiple broad factions together. This is the GK + IG scenario rather than the Tallarn + Cadian scenario. So point 2 doesn't really make a case for punishing Tallarn + Cadians.


Why ban them? Allies have their own inherent advantages why shouldn't not taking them? Because you don't like the idea that in non-tournament play that your Catachans are better in a mono-catachan army than they are backing up GK, or Cadians? It is hard to say it is a specific broken unit always sprinked in, it could just be a unit that said army doesn't have access to, which in theory that army should be balanced around not having access to, otherwise all armies that can ally need to be balanced assuming they are going to take models that aren't in faction.






3. Eh. Sort of kind of. A catachan basilisk might be more powerful for the same points cost, but I had to specifically take a catachan detachment to get those benefits. If we assume that the <regiment> keyword is worth X points on a unit's profile, and if we assume that all regiment benefits are more or less balanced against one another, then the "cost" is already baked in. Plus, while it's easy to build a list more or less how you want, you do have to find a way to fit in that catachan detachment in addition to the tallarn (or whatever) one to get the benefits of both in your army. Some vostroyan infantry, a vostroyan HQ, and a catachan HQ might have let you field a batallion and gain a few extra CP, but fielding the catachans HQ and his tanks as a different detachment forces you to either field two +1CP detachments or else buy a third HQ to qualify the vostroyan units as a batallion.

So in short, we don't see "catachan regiment rules cost X points," but you do still have to give up some more nebulous "resources" to get them. I wouldn't be opposed to straight up having faction rules cost points though. That way, GW wouldn't have to try and make all <regiment> rules completely balanced against one another.



I don't feel that there is a ton of cost with taking extra detachments, as you say it is an extra HQ, which many armies have plenty of cheap options for. The only time I see it having a cost is if otherwise you would fill out a brigade and cannot if you bring another detachment. Especially with IG it seems to me to almost always be worth buying an extra HQ to add on another detachment if you would fill it out. I also think based on the "chapter" tactics we have seen for all books that they are in anyway balanced against one another, there are clear winners and losers, so saying the cost of those is built in falls flat. Perhaps it is just difference in experiences but most armies I see have no issue running whatever detachments they choose and often already run 3 to max CP as much as possible. So I don't see them giving up any resources. Their 3 basilisks were already in a spearhead detachment with an HQ, so making them catachan for a buff comes at no cost.




4. I can agree with that. However, as we're not there yet, we already have a certain amount of imbalance between units on an index level. So it's a worthwhile point, but not one that supports the idea of punishing multi-faction armies.

As for a variety of build types... I mostly agree. However, as long as there are lists that will outperform others in the meta, you will see those lists more frequently than suboptimal lists. My dire avengers are a bad unit choice right now. As a result, I don't expect to win a lot of games if I field them at tournaments. Similarly, GK might be good, but they're probably not as good as if they were combo'd with some IG elements. I mean this as a sincere, non-judgemental question: What is the difference between insisting on playing mono-GK and me choosing to field my Dire Avengers? We could both be fielding more powerful options but opt not to in this hypothetical scenario.


I view proposed rules as essentially wishlisting. Not something I would tack on to the game as is, but how I wish the game had been designed. However, given that multi-faction armies seem to be among the best right now, I cannot say I would take issue with punishing them. As for what is the difference between mono-GK and fielding Dire avengers I guess depends on a matter of scale, and requiring buying a new book. So if the answer to dire avengers is you need to take DE warriors, then there is no difference, if it is take some other elder unit, the difference is you are still don't need another codex to play your army. As for the scale issue it depends on 2 things how large a part of your force is dire avengers and how much IG is needed to make GK work. If I need 1500 points of Guard to make GK work, but you just need to drop a single DA squad then there is a significant difference. If it is I need to swap out a single squad and so do you it is a bit closer. It comes down to this question: Do you play Eldar to play a Dire Avenger army? Because presumably the reason someone would play mono-GK is because they want to play a GK army, not to play a guard army with hints of GK.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Well, I was going to suggest that if someone wanted to take allies, then they must follow the force organization and that the allies points total can't be equal or more than the main force point total.

However, looking through the 15 pages of rules and the 7ed SW codex, there doesn't seem to be any force organization chart at all anymore. WTF?

We're gonna need another Timmy!

6400 pts+ 8th
My Gallery
____________________________
https://www.patreon.com/kaotkbliss
 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

kaotkbliss wrote:
Well, I was going to suggest that if someone wanted to take allies, then they must follow the force organization and that the allies points total can't be equal or more than the main force point total.

However, looking through the 15 pages of rules and the 7ed SW codex, there doesn't seem to be any force organization chart at all anymore. WTF?


ah... what? We're talking 8th edition here, and there is one set of 8th edition detachments that organize your forces (found in the BRB). the 7th edition SW codex (or any 7th edition book) is not compatible with 8th edition.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





nekooni wrote:
kaotkbliss wrote:
Well, I was going to suggest that if someone wanted to take allies, then they must follow the force organization and that the allies points total can't be equal or more than the main force point total.

However, looking through the 15 pages of rules and the 7ed SW codex, there doesn't seem to be any force organization chart at all anymore. WTF?


ah... what? We're talking 8th edition here, and there is one set of 8th edition detachments that organize your forces (found in the BRB). the 7th edition SW codex (or any 7th edition book) is not compatible with 8th edition.


I know we're on 8th but as far as I remember, there's always been a force organization chart (must take 1 HQ, 1-# troops, 0-# elites, etc.)
I do admit, I haven't played in 20+ years and keep trying to get back in (I'll find a current copy of the rules and start learning them, but then life gets in the way)

I have the rules downloaded from GW's website which doesn't have anything about organizing an army and apparently there was no force organization in 7th either since the codex didn't have anything on it. And it's always been use the latest release of your armies codex. So that changed too?

No wonder there's a problem with soup armies.
If there's going to be separate factions, then you need some sort of guides for putting together your chosen faction + allies otherwise you might as well just have a total of 2 armies, here's your good guy and here's your bad guy.

We're gonna need another Timmy!

6400 pts+ 8th
My Gallery
____________________________
https://www.patreon.com/kaotkbliss
 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





Instead of a Force Organisation Chart, there are now a number of Detachments you can choose from to build your army. The ones that give you the most Command Points require both HQ and Troop choices, and are generally structured similarly to the old FOC.

The Detachments are found in the big rulebook, not the free PDF sadly.

In 7th edition, the FOC was also in the main rulebook, not codices.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Ahh, I see. Well that does complicate this threads concern quite a bit.

In that case, there could probably be some kind of small bonus for taking units of all 1 faction. Not something that makes a player feel like they are missing out on something because they are taking allies, but maybe something that could be useful in the right situation during a battle if they do stick with a single faction (not counting units that are not part of a full codex army)

We're gonna need another Timmy!

6400 pts+ 8th
My Gallery
____________________________
https://www.patreon.com/kaotkbliss
 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

kaotkbliss wrote:
[ here's your good guy and here's your bad guy.

Good guys in 40k? You really aren't up to date
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Well, better than the bad guys LOL

At any rate, there definitely needs to be some incentive for people not to mix.

And I retract the comment about a soup army feel like they are missing out since they already have the advantage of a huge range of troop choices since they aren't sticking with a single faction. So a player chooses, do I get this cool bonus or do I get a wider selection of troops?

We're gonna need another Timmy!

6400 pts+ 8th
My Gallery
____________________________
https://www.patreon.com/kaotkbliss
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Phoenix, AZ

kaotkbliss wrote:
Well, better than the bad guys LOL

At any rate, there definitely needs to be some incentive for people not to mix.

And I retract the comment about a soup army feel like they are missing out since they already have the advantage of a huge range of troop choices since they aren't sticking with a single faction. So a player chooses, do I get this cool bonus or do I get a wider selection of troops?


There is definitely some benefits to not mixing vs mixing. As a Guard player, I've looked into it. Tallarn is great for getting up close, fast, but then once they're in melee, the transports can't help. Vallhallans can shoot into melee, as can vostroyans, Mordians can target characters. Vostroyans get a range boost, Valhallans don't fail morale much, Tallarn turn heavy weapons into Assault ones, Armageddon gets more attacks with rapid-fire.

The effects are only on those units though. And unless something in the FAQ changed it, you can't put Vostroyans in a Tallarn transport, because they're different <Regiment>

From the weakness of the mind, Omnissiah save us. From the lies of the Antipath, circuit preserve us. From the rage of the Beast, iron protect us. From the temptations of the Fleshlord, silica cleanse us. From the ravages of the Destroyer, anima shield us. From this rotting cage of biomatter, Machine God set us free. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





That's something that doesn't make sense to me.
They're both IG aren't they? They should count as the same faction, unless each gets their own codex like space marines do.

Each space marine chapter is a separate fighting force, an army in their own right.

IG has different regiments, but none can stand on their own by themselves. They are each a small part of the IG army. So that is how I view them when considering this thread.

We're gonna need another Timmy!

6400 pts+ 8th
My Gallery
____________________________
https://www.patreon.com/kaotkbliss
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: