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.

So, I’m just going to say this.

If you up Guard to 5ppm, or require additional squads for the CP the following will happen in Imperial Soup lists.
5ppm per model – nothing changes. People will take the 30 point hit.
Require additional squads -
Everyone will change to 2 Engineseers and 3 squads of min Rangers, using the -1 to hit dogma and Monitor Malevolus Warlord trait. (or go Graia to get the free +1 CP relic)
All for the sweet price of 199 points. Sure, it’s not quite the same as Grand Strategist, but it works for all stratagems used in the game and will still stack with BA relic.

Kdash wrote:
So, I’m just going to say this.

If you up Guard to 5ppm, or require additional squads for the CP the following will happen in Imperial Soup lists.
5ppm per model – nothing changes. People will take the 30 point hit.
Require additional squads -
Everyone will change to 2 Engineseers and 3 squads of min Rangers, using the -1 to hit dogma and Monitor Malevolus Warlord trait. (or go Graia to get the free +1 CP relic)
All for the sweet price of 199 points. Sure, it’s not quite the same as Grand Strategist, but it works for all stratagems used in the game and will still stack with BA relic.

That's the point though the fact that they cost more don't have anything like the CP generation and are also much less of a problem in terms of screening. 30 wounds with a 5+ save takes more effort to kill than 15 with a 4+ save.

It might be that CP regenerate needs to be FAQ'd that you can only roll one dice per CP spent so stacking veritas and Monitor malevolus would still only net you 1 roll for a 1CP strategum and 2 rolls for a 2CP or more strategum. It atleast stops people gaining CP from stacking them.

Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

Stopping CP sharig destroys small factions like inquisition, assasins, SoS as they have no native acess to CP.
It also doesn't address the advantage guard have over every other faction in CP wealth.
It's actually makes the CP imbalance more prominent

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

Cp sharig destoys small factions like inquisition, assasins, SoS as they have no native acess to CP.
It also doesn't address the advantage guard have over every other faction in CP wealth.

So is the quantity that IG have a problem or not? If yes then cap it.
If its sharing: then stop it and give any factions that this causes an issue with a bonus. Same as the new Rogue Trader unit has its own CP generation

lets make this as easy as possible

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

Stopping CP sharig destroys small factions like inquisition, assasins, SoS as they have no native acess to CP.
It also doesn't address the advantage guard have over every other faction in CP wealth.
It's actually makes the CP imbalance more prominent

Those factions are index only. They don't have CPs, but they also don't have any stratagems to use them!
Sure they have the basic ones, but it doesn't exactly invalidate a faction not being able to have a reroll!

They will get special snowflake CPs like minidexes do, as soon as they have something to spend it on.

No CP sharing IS the solution to the problem.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, no, in that it opens up possibilities that were far more broken than if they were confined to a single book, hence why we see allies dominating tournaments. It opens a wider array of broken units able to be taken in a wider array of configuration and interacting in potentially much more powerful manners.

It's one thing to build an army around your codex's one or two OP units, it's another to build an army entirely out of OP things because you can pick the best things from every book for every slot, and even worse when they then interact to make elements more powerful than they would be otherwise by doing things like providing a glut of CP.

So what? Shadowsword is more powerful with Imperial guard CP than it would be without it. Should we make Astra Militarum Super Heavy Regiments a separate faction from Astra Militarum Infantry Regiments and have them incur whatever penalty you're envision from allying? What is one faction or isn't is arbitrary. Tempestus Scions ore pretty damn separate organisation from normal Guard regiments and often work closely with the Inquisition. Why there should be a penalty for putting an Inquisitor and Scions in the same army but not for putting Infantry Sqads and Scions in one army? Why is a Cadian Company receiving support from Space Marines something that should be punished, but the same company receiving support from Tempestus Scions isn't?

I'm not, however the way these factions are handled currently is really poor. Some of them are still Index factions, most never really should have been distinct separate factions in the first place. If armies like Grey Knights are to stand on their own, they need to be fixed within their own book, not rely on Guard allies to feed them CP as a makeshift crutch for GW's poor release (I've got about 2500pts of GK's waiting for such a day...).

For the others that may not be intended to ever stand on their own, they really should be collected into an "Imperial Agents" book with more detailed rules on use in other forces or acting together. As is, their rules for interacting with other factions are generally minimal in the extreme, usually just an ability or two that affect other Imperial units and not just their own subfaction, leaving everything else up to the Detachment system, with demonstrable balance results.

But those factions being allyable mini-factions works just fine under the current rules. Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

Cp sharig destoys small factions like inquisition, assasins, SoS as they have no native acess to CP.
It also doesn't address the advantage guard have over every other faction in CP wealth.

So is the quantity that IG have a problem or not? If yes then cap it.
If its sharing: then stop it and give any factions that this causes an issue with a bonus. Same as the new Rogue Trader unit has its own CP generation

lets make this as easy as possible

They don't actually have CP generation they just get bonus CP for being the warlord, thats not the same.

Guard having cheap detachments for cheap CP is one issue.
Guard being the only codex with both a regen warlord trait and a steel relic for CP is another issue.
Combining the above was the most ridiculously short sighted or blatantly biased decision up to that point in codex design.
Just another wonderful example of the designers not thinking decisions through along with Alitoc minus to hit stacking.

1 Guard need to loose Grand Strategists and Kurov's from matched play. This is needed regardless of soup or mono guard.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

Stopping CP sharig destroys small factions like inquisition, assasins, SoS as they have no native acess to CP.
It also doesn't address the advantage guard have over every other faction in CP wealth.
It's actually makes the CP imbalance more prominent

Those factions are index only. They don't have CPs, but they also don't have any stratagems to use them!
Sure they have the basic ones, but it doesn't exactly invalidate a faction not being able to have a reroll!

They will get special snowflake CPs like minidexes do, as soon as they have something to spend it on.

No CP sharing IS the solution to the problem.

Not it's a possition being pushed by guard players because they refuse to admit that being the only faction bringing 18 CP plus regenerate on a 5+ and steel on 5+ for under 600 points is a problem.
Give up grand strategist and Kurov's and I'll let CP sharing go.

Guard can bring 3 LoW plus double battalion for under 2k what other faction can pull that out of one codex, aswell as turning that 16 starting CP into 28 CP.

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

Cp sharig destoys small factions like inquisition, assasins, SoS as they have no native acess to CP.
It also doesn't address the advantage guard have over every other faction in CP wealth.

So is the quantity that IG have a problem or not? If yes then cap it.
If its sharing: then stop it and give any factions that this causes an issue with a bonus. Same as the new Rogue Trader unit has its own CP generation

lets make this as easy as possible

They don't actually have CP generation they just get bonus CP for being the warlord, thats not the same.

Guard having cheap detachments for cheap CP is one issue.
Guard being the only codex with both a regen warlord trait and a steel relic for CP is another issue.
Combining the above was the most ridiculously short sighted or blatantly biased decision up to that point in codex design.
Just another wonderful example of the designers not thinking decisions through along with Alitoc minus to hit stacking.

1 Guard need to loose Grand Strategists and Kurov's from matched play. This is needed regardless of soup or mono guard.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Would it not be easier to just have a max CP?

so 2000pts might have 15 CP pts - any additional are lost.

No need to adjust anything else?

Simples

Wouldn't do much to the actual issue without disallowing CP sharing.

Many IG, IK, BA lists don't have more than 15 starting CPs.

Fair enough - do both then.

Stopping CP sharig destroys small factions like inquisition, assasins, SoS as they have no native acess to CP.
It also doesn't address the advantage guard have over every other faction in CP wealth.
It's actually makes the CP imbalance more prominent

Those factions are index only. They don't have CPs, but they also don't have any stratagems to use them!
Sure they have the basic ones, but it doesn't exactly invalidate a faction not being able to have a reroll!

They will get special snowflake CPs like minidexes do, as soon as they have something to spend it on.

No CP sharing IS the solution to the problem.

Not it's a possition being pushed by guard players because they refuse to admit that being the only faction bringing 18 CP plus regenerate on a 5+ and steel on 5+ for under 600 points is a problem.
Give up grand strategist and Kurov's and I'll let CP sharing go.

Guard can bring 3 LoW plus double battalion for under 2k what other faction can pull that out of one codex, aswell as turning that 16 starting CP into 28 CP.

Rule of three ruined pure Militarum Tempestus. I’m making a battalion and an Airwing (because I still consider Valkyries as pretty much Militarum Tempestus), and I only get 9 CP. I wish I could run two battalions.

 Crimson wrote:

So what? Shadowsword is more powerful with Imperial guard CP than it would be without it. Should we make Astra Militarum Super Heavy Regiments a separate faction from Astra Militarum Infantry Regiments and have them incur whatever penalty you're envision from allying?

Design failures can happen at many points, however the issues with Soup aren't always things that can be fixed in the original books, and are by far the largest current balance issues and stands out by far as the single common factor among top placing tournament lists. The Shadowsword has some problem in its original context, and could use some adjusting, I'm not opposed to that (just as I'm also not opposed to GS and KA going away and dumping the CP regen stuff), but it's also not being synergistically supercharged by stuff that it wasnt designed alongside.

What is one faction or isn't is arbitrary. Tempestus Scions ore pretty damn separate organisation from normal Guard regiments and often work closely with the Inquisition.

And thats why they are handled slightly differently within the Imperial Guard codex, but are in no way as separate from normal Guard regiments as say, Space Marines, and don't work terribly well on their own on the table and are composed of basically just 2 units (Stormtroopers and their Officers, 3 if you want to count command squads), hence why they are still a part of the Guard codex and not a separate army.

Why there should be a penalty for putting an Inquisitor and Scions in the same army but not for putting Infantry Sqads and Scions in one army?

There shouldn't be in that specific example, but I explained elsewhere how I think they should be treated.

Why is a Cadian Company receiving support from Space Marines something that should be punished, but the same company receiving support from Tempestus Scions isn't?

In terms of Background, Stormtroopers still operate under the same big umbrella as the Cadians, they share the same operational and strategic command structures, they are supplied by the same organizations, etc. A Commissar can discipline or lead Stormtroopers and Cadian Guardsmen, they do not have the authority to do so with a Space Marine or Sister of Battle, and vice versa. One will notice Imperial Navy assets generally fall under Guard usage as well, despite being a different service, for the same reasons, stuff like Officers of the Fleet, Valkyries, FW flyers like Thunderbolts, etc.

Stormtroopers are to the Guard what US Socom is to the broader US Military, they have their own little niche with wide lattitude and the like, but they're still ultimately part of the same broader organization. Space Marines are not, Space Marines are more equivalent to a modern PMC that holds sovereign authority over its members and base of operations with their own distinct supply chain and unique equipment & gear. Such a force could fight alongside a US military force, but would not be directly enjoying the full benefits of the US command, logistics, & training doctrine backbone (stuff that Stratagems and CP's portray) either, nor be subject to the UCMJ and command heirarchy.

From a gameplay perspective, these units are in the same book (with a long history of being part of the same army for every edition of this game) with very clear rules and dramatically more thought on how they operate together. The same is not true of Space Marines.

But those factions being allyable mini-factions works just fine under the current rules. Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken?

Because the broader allies system as a whole is very clearly broken. It is by far the single most abuseable thing in the game and the common point in pretty much all top performing lists regardless of faction.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Design failures can happen at many points, however the issues with Soup aren't always things that can be fixed in the original books, and are by far the largest current balance issues and stands out by far as the single common factor among top placing tournament lists. The Shadowsword has some problem in its original context, and could use some adjusting, I'm not opposed to that (just as I'm also not opposed to GS and KA going away and dumping the CP regen stuff), but it's also not being synergistically supercharged by stuff that it wasnt designed alongside.

But they were designed to work alongside with eachother! It is absurd to say Knights were not designed to work with allies when they shared a book with Ad Mech and are sold in Forgebane with them! Furthermore, I really don't think any of the often cited soup issues are not issues with the units and mono-faction themselves. Smash captain is definitely too good for its points, even in a mono-army, so is Custodes bike captain, and so is Raven Castellan with the relic and warlord trait. And sure, these units become even more problem with Guard's endless CP, but that too is a problem in a pure guard army too.

And Ynnari buff is just stupid. Yes, you trade a lot of special rules to get it, but as it can supercharge one unit, it doesn't matter, as you can just have a Ynnari mini-detachment and the rest of the army gets their normal special rules. It needs a complete redesign, but again, the issue is not that the Ynnari were not designed to be allied with other Eldar, they were explicitly designed to do just that!

Yeah blaming Ynari on Soup isn't their issue.

We can poke about the specifics of each form of soup all day long, but at the end of the day, it doesnt change the fact Soup is the common thread in every major winning tournament list. We can bicker about the intricacies of the various different flavors, but it doesn't change the fact that they're all Soup. Yes some things were meant with allies in mind, but are also repeatedly abused in ways and with allies that werent meant to be so close or in ways that just open too many variables to be adequately accounted for, and most have basically zero indication they were intended to rely on allies or were really built with the possibility in mind. The one common thing, regardless of Ynnari or Infantry Squads or Jetbikes or Castellans, is Soup. No matter if it's Imperial, Chaos, or Xenos, Soup is what is not only winning but dominating. Fixing that tones down a whole lot of stuff at once and makes picking out the individual issues after that much easier and futureproofs new releases as well.

Ultimately, and almost without exception, it's allies & Soup that is the common thread among broken power lists, far and away above any single other thing. Nothing else links all these horrific power lists, but it's a strong feature of all of them.

Banning Allies and Leaving Guard untouched will just lead to Guard being the competitive army for the next 6 months.

No-one is arguing that soup is balanced, it isn't what is being argued about.

The issue is your lock CP to detachments or factions won't actually have the effect of increasing list diversity as guard players will have infinite CP, Drukari have a stong codex an Alitoc -2 to hit army wide was dumb. Great thats 3 factions that can be competitive for the next 6 months.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So what? Shadowsword is more powerful with Imperial guard CP than it would be without it. Should we make Astra Militarum Super Heavy Regiments a separate faction from Astra Militarum Infantry Regiments and have them incur whatever penalty you're envision from allying?

Design failures can happen at many points, however the issues with Soup aren't always things that can be fixed in the original books, and are by far the largest current balance issues and stands out by far as the single common factor among top placing tournament lists. The Shadowsword has some problem in its original context, and could use some adjusting, I'm not opposed to that (just as I'm also not opposed to GS and KA going away and dumping the CP regen stuff), but it's also not being synergistically supercharged by stuff that it wasnt designed alongside.

What is one faction or isn't is arbitrary. Tempestus Scions ore pretty damn separate organisation from normal Guard regiments and often work closely with the Inquisition.

And thats why they are handled slightly differently within the Imperial Guard codex, but are in no way as separate from normal Guard regiments as say, Space Marines, and don't work terribly well on their own on the table and are composed of basically just 2 units (Stormtroopers and their Officers, 3 if you want to count command squads), hence why they are still a part of the Guard codex and not a separate army.

Why there should be a penalty for putting an Inquisitor and Scions in the same army but not for putting Infantry Sqads and Scions in one army?

There shouldn't be in that specific example, but I explained elsewhere how I think they should be treated.

Why is a Cadian Company receiving support from Space Marines something that should be punished, but the same company receiving support from Tempestus Scions isn't?

In terms of Background, Stormtroopers still operate under the same big umbrella as the Cadians, they share the same operational and strategic command structures, they are supplied by the same organizations, etc. A Commissar can discipline or lead Stormtroopers and Cadian Guardsmen, they do not have the authority to do so with a Space Marine or Sister of Battle, and vice versa. One will notice Imperial Navy assets generally fall under Guard usage as well, despite being a different service, for the same reasons, stuff like Officers of the Fleet, Valkyries, FW flyers like Thunderbolts, etc.

Stormtroopers are to the Guard what US Socom is to the broader US Military, they have their own little niche with wide lattitude and the like, but they're still ultimately part of the same broader organization. Space Marines are not, Space Marines are more equivalent to a modern PMC that holds sovereign authority over its members and base of operations with their own distinct supply chain and unique equipment & gear. Such a force could fight alongside a US military force, but would not be directly enjoying the full benefits of the US command, logistics, & training doctrine backbone (stuff that Stratagems and CP's portray) either, nor be subject to the UCMJ and command heirarchy.

From a gameplay perspective, these units are in the same book (with a long history of being part of the same army for every edition of this game) with very clear rules and dramatically more thought on how they operate together. The same is not true of Space Marines.

But those factions being allyable mini-factions works just fine under the current rules. Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken?

Because the broader allies system as a whole is very clearly broken. It is by far the single most abuseable thing in the game and the common point in pretty much all top performing lists regardless of facción.

You must still be thinking Scions are Kasrkin. But, they have been retconned and have many of their own unique regiments in similar fashion that Space Marines do. They are known for having different specialties. They operate under the direction of the Adeptus Ministorum, and it appears they may also have some discretion for when they choose to act, by example when they aided a distress call along with the Flesh Tearors.

Ice_can wrote:
Banning Allies and Leaving Guard untouched will just lead to Guard being the competitive army for the next 6 months.

I wasnt saying ban allies, but lets reduce their interoperability at least a little bit, as clearly there are issues.

No-one is arguing that soup is balanced, it isn't what is being argued about.

The issue is your lock CP to detachments or factions won't actually have the effect of increasing list diversity as guard players will have infinite CP, Drukari have a stong codex an Alitoc -2 to hit army wide was dumb. Great thats 3 factions that can be competitive for the next 6 months.

As has unfortunately usually always been the case in every edition of 40k

However, the disparity between the top and bottom should be reduced, and hopefully we see fewer armies that make zero background sense. At that point, targeted balance changes also becomes easier.

 Apple Peel wrote:

You must still be thinking Scions are Kasrkin. But, they have been retconned and have many of their own unique regiments in similar fashion that Space Marines do.

Right I get that, but that's how they've always been, the only difference is that in older fluff it was the Stormtrooper Regiment (singular), then Kasrkin were a Cadian specific equivalent, then GW basically dropped the Kasrkin and redid the Stormtrooper Regiment as the Tempestus Scions comprised of many regiments.

They are known for having different specialties. They operate under the direction of the Adeptus Ministorum, and it appears they may also have some discretion for when they choose to act, by example when they aided a distress call along with the Flesh Tearors.

Ministorum or Munitorum?

They've always been semiautonomous, but never wholly divorced from the Guard.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Banning Allies and Leaving Guard untouched will just lead to Guard being the competitive army for the next 6 months.

I wasnt saying ban allies, but lets reduce their interoperability at least a little bit, as clearly there are issues.

No-one is arguing that soup is balanced, it isn't what is being argued about.

The issue is your lock CP to detachments or factions won't actually have the effect of increasing list diversity as guard players will have infinite CP, Drukari have a stong codex an Alitoc -2 to hit army wide was dumb. Great thats 3 factions that can be competitive for the next 6 months.

As has unfortunately usually always been the case in every edition of 40k

However, the disparity between the top and bottom should be reduced, and hopefully we see fewer armies that make zero background sense. At that point, targeted balance changes also becomes easier.

 Apple Peel wrote:

You must still be thinking Scions are Kasrkin. But, they have been retconned and have many of their own unique regiments in similar fashion that Space Marines do.

Right I get that, but that's how they've always been, the only difference is that in older fluff it was the Stormtrooper Regiment (singular), then Kasrkin were a Cadian specific equivalent, then GW basically dropped the Kasrkin and redid the Stormtrooper Regiment as the Tempestus Scions comprised of many regiments.

They are known for having different specialties. They operate under the direction of the Adeptus Ministorum, and it appears they may also have some discretion for when they choose to act, by example when they aided a distress call along with the Flesh Tearors.

Ministorum or Munitorum?

They've always been semiautonomous, but never wholly divorced from the Guard.

Whoops, autocorrect.