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.

Tyel wrote:
7th didn't have two tiers. It had a ladder.

Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.

Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.

8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.

Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.

Yeah I got to be honest, Orkz were at an immediate disadvantage in 7th versus basically every other army, with Chaos and Nidz being our best opponents to play against, but only if Nidz didn't spam Flyrants, because there was basically feth all orkz could do Vs. Flyrants besides die in droves.

SemperMortis wrote:

Tyel wrote:
7th didn't have two tiers. It had a ladder.

Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.

Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.

8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.

Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.

Yeah I got to be honest, Orkz were at an immediate disadvantage in 7th versus basically every other army, with Chaos and Nidz being our best opponents to play against, but only if Nidz didn't spam Flyrants, because there was basically feth all orkz could do Vs. Flyrants besides die in droves.

The FOC and no soup capability just leads to the more unbalanced mono armies making the top ranks out under themselves, whilest soup (even though it is problematic imo) leads to atleast more armies having something that is seen in the higher tables.

It gives the illusion that certain codecies work, even though they basically just add 1 -2 units to an army.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
No one has issues with vehicles these days. No one has OP psychic powers. But allies have been broken for 3 editions...and it’s not like “oh fix invisibility”. It’s a Hydra, as soon as you cut off one combo another appears. I’ve listed dominant lists from 3 different editions, with a variety of different units and combinations. You can’t just keep playing whack-a-mole with allies because the same hammer doesn’t work on the same unit in the different possible combos, unless you treat all the alliances as a single army and balance against that metric...but like it or not mono codex is still a major part of 40K and has been for most of the history of the game.
Sure, you can go Grand Alliance style, but that turns 40K into a list-optimization, broken-unit hunt game and not everyone benefits equally. This is before you factor in the rules bloat and ease of play factors, too.

So much that 7TH top lists were Decurion styles formations, Demon Summoning Circus and WK + Scatterbiker spam, none of which used allies AT ALL.

To an extent this is correct. Sometimes they did still pop up (mostly just Centurionstar and Wolfstar), but otherwise the topping armies were mostly pure. In that sense, 7th was good at that.

The method of doing so was really bad though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
7th didn't have two tiers. It had a ladder.

Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.

Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.

8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.

Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.

Necrons are the opposite of slow. This is a giant misconception.

The firepower issue is the problem. Gauss is only effective vs higher point models, and a bunch of free HP3 vehicles is bad news. Then there was the fact the only time Objective Secured was worth anything, in which Eldar and Tau didn't need formations to make their troops function. Sure vs the lower armies you didn't need it, until CSM got their Legion supplement. After that, Necrons sank lower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.

Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!

Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.

You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.

Those things are only weaknesses as long as the models remain bad. In this sense, are you saying it's good for certain models to remain bad?
Also Khorne as an army isn't actually terrible at shooting. Between Skull Cannons, Obliterators, Havocs, Forgefiends, cheap Helbrutes, Crimson Crown affecting shooting, etc., they can easily support their melee element.

So my next question is should these units be toned down the moment they are marked for Khorne?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you talk about vehicles not being inherently broken, but the editions of them being too good and too powerful say otherwise.
You're complaining about external balance when you say you can pick and choose the best units from each codex. That's because those are problem units. They shouldn't be broken when they're used in pure armies in the first place, so why not fix them instead of complaining about allies so you can keep your broken units?

Not Online!!! wrote:
And what excactly is the reason to go back to the old FOC?

No more allies, no more spamming non-troops units and ignoring the core of your army, enforcing more balance in list design.

That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.

Restrictions are a good thing. Some options are bad for the game and should be taken away, and part of the skill element is being able to win despite not being able to abuse whatever hypothetical list you can come up with if you ignore all restrictions.

Not Online!!! wrote:
not to mention that troops go back to 2

Not a problem. The limits on non-troops units (0-3 slots, can not claim objectives) force you to take more than two anyway in all but the smallest games, and with only one detachment allowed there's no more CP farming with minimum-strength detachments.

and armies that can't field squadrons are going to have severly limited options.

Limits are the entire point. You can't just pick the best unit from a codex and spam it up to the point limit, you have to find multiple options and spend a lot of your points on basic troops.

Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.

Then fix the balance of those armies. They're already broken if they depend on soup and spamming non-troops units, the ability to bring them as a soup component just covers up the poor design.

Also it would rephrase back to even more firepower.

Hardly. Remember, there's a 0-3 limit on all of your biggest guns and if you take nothing but firepower you're going to struggle to control objectives and win the game.

Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...

I would be fine with removing vehicle squadrons entirely, or at least re-imposing the old 5th edition restrictions where squadrons had to act as a single unit instead of being multiple independent units taken in a single slot. And yes, tank commanders would let you take an additional two LRBTs, but remember that HQ slots are a 1-2 choice for your entire army. Taking those tank commanders would mean not having any company commanders issuing FRFSRF to your infantry squads, and suddenly the amazing efficiency of guardsmen looks a lot less impressive.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...

Huray, also what are knights f.e and ynnari going to do?
Die off?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...

I would be fine with removing vehicle squadrons entirely, or at least re-imposing the old 5th edition restrictions where squadrons had to act as a single unit instead of being multiple independent units taken in a single slot. And yes, tank commanders would let you take an additional two LRBTs, but remember that HQ slots are a 1-2 choice for your entire army. Taking those tank commanders would mean not having any company commanders issuing FRFSRF to your infantry squads, and suddenly the amazing efficiency of guardsmen looks a lot less impressive.

Mhm and nobody ever would use a leman russ, not to mention that the squadron rules were utter gak.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Oh yeah, that 0-3 limit would totally hurt everyone, especially how vehicles can never be in squads or anything, or how there isn't really an exact copy of those big guns in anyone's HQ slot...

I would be fine with removing vehicle squadrons entirely, or at least re-imposing the old 5th edition restrictions where squadrons had to act as a single unit instead of being multiple independent units taken in a single slot. And yes, tank commanders would let you take an additional two LRBTs, but remember that HQ slots are a 1-2 choice for your entire army. Taking those tank commanders would mean not having any company commanders issuing FRFSRF to your infantry squads, and suddenly the amazing efficiency of guardsmen looks a lot less impressive.

Mhm and nobody ever would use a leman russ, not to mention that the squadron rules were utter gak.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Huray, also what are knights f.e and ynnari going to do?
Die off?

Both were idiotic ideas and should die. I won't miss them.

Mhm and nobody ever would use a leman russ, not to mention that the squadron rules were utter gak.

Counter-argument: plenty of people took LRBTs in 5th edition, and plenty of people take single LRBTs (which would not be hurt by the loss of squadron rules) in 8th.

Well this has been a miserable 22 pages.

Fun diverse factions means asymmetry. Allowing a competitive player to tailor an army across multiple factions means maxing out on overpowered units that aren't overpowered in their intended context. No brainer right?
Analogy time: lets take this back to chess since that comes us enough. Knights play chess with the king having the same moveset as the queen. Guard play with pawns able to give sideways one square. Craftworlds replace 2 pawns with rooks, drukhari replace 2 pawns with bishops, harlies replace 2 pawns with knights. Mono faction there is a lot going on but it's maybe balanced enough, combine all these specials at no penalty and things get soupy fast.

40K isn't quite that drastic, but the principle applies. I'm not allowed to play Eldar with T'au because it's supposedly too powerful to give an army that was meant to be absurdly good at shooting, due to lacking 2 phases, units that are absurdly good at psychic.
However, drukhari who also lack a psychic phase, compensating with movement, get to have those craftworld psychers at no penalty.
Khorne armies have no psy and compensate with melee, but can throw Ahriman and 2 DPoT in without penalty.
IG vehicles lack invulns and buff strats and so they choose to add a knight, who lack obsec and bodies.

Fluff wise, some of these are at greater odds than others. I don't understand why naughty and haughty elves get along so well. I don't think tiny humans and ultimate mechanical power should see eye-to-eye either. There should probably be some drawback to these kinds of combos. Yes, that means that lists that were never optimum could get worse. We will learn to adapt or choose to ignore rules for friendly play.

As a separate issue some factions are just underperforming (necron i think, grey knights certainly, astartes somewhat). These factions and even units in top tier factions should be adjusted. The specifics of which are for other threads.

So yes, soup is an issue. Infantry squads should be 5ppm to give conscripts a reason to exist and balance better for their core rules to other factions. Castellans should never have been given a 3++, though I do think some other defense is appropriate. Aeldari need to be less flexible between detachments. Exceptional abilities should be contained, or mixed with counterbalances.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those things are only weaknesses as long as the models remain bad. In this sense, are you saying it's good for certain models to remain bad?

Yes. If GW stubbornly insists on giving an army a unit that it shouldn't have then that unit should have weak rules so that you are not encouraged to make it a major part of your army. But having bad rules is only a last resort thing. For example, storm troopers and rough riders can have decent rules because their mobility doesn't really address the IG weakness in question. They can go places fast, sure, but they're also glass cannon units that are easily wiped off the table when your opponent wants to clear an objective. That makes them more equivalent to a Basilisk, delivering firepower anywhere on the table but contributing little to scoring objectives, and not something you take as a reliable way to hold objectives.

So my next question is should these units be toned down the moment they are marked for Khorne?

Yes. You could even make it a thematic thing, that Khorne marked units get +1 WS and -1 BS.

Also you talk about vehicles not being inherently broken, but the editions of them being too good and too powerful say otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between inherent balance issues and individual unit balance issues? Vehicles being too good in the past has been a result of specific vehicles having point costs that were far too low, not something inherent to the concept of vehicles that will be true no matter how well you write the individual unit rules.

You're complaining about external balance when you say you can pick and choose the best units from each codex. That's because those are problem units. They shouldn't be broken when they're used in pure armies in the first place, so why not fix them instead of complaining about allies so you can keep your broken units?

Because, as I keep trying to explain to you (and people like you), even if all units are balanced within their own codex the ability to take units outside the context of their codex makes balance issues almost inevitable. For example, guardsmen have a value of X ppm in an pure IG army as objective holders, screening meatshields, and efficient small arms fire. They have little value as CP farms because pure IG armies can easily fill out detachments even if CP didn't exist at all and have relatively weak stratagems and a low CP per turn need. Obviously that value is not zero, but it's far down the list of why you're taking the unit. In an IK army guardsmen have a higher value per model because, in addition to the things that guardsmen do well in a pure IG army, they provide an extremely efficient CP battery for an army that has powerful stratagems and wants to burn a ton of CP every turn but has very limited ability to generate CP without allies. So what per-model cost do you set for guardsmen that makes them balanced in both armies? No such cost exists. You either make them overpowered as IK support or cripple pure IG armies with overpriced core troops.

And of course it only gets worse when you insist on "fuffy" rules where Imperial players get to choose units from half the game while Tau players are stuck with a single codex. It's virtually impossible to have a balanced game when some factions have so many more options than others.

That has some merit, altough quite drastic imo.

Then we should aso not forget that the FOC had also it's problems and I doubt they would be able to fix them.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Then we should aso not forget that the FOC had also it's problems and I doubt they would be able to fix them.

Problems like what? Inability to spam your favorite overpowered unit? IMO the FOC was great, and I can't think of any meaningful problem with it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Then we should aso not forget that the FOC had also it's problems and I doubt they would be able to fix them.

Problems like what? Inability to spam your favorite overpowered unit? IMO the FOC was great, and I can't think of any meaningful problem with it.

No problems like some armies beeing way better at spamming their best unit......

Or need i remind you of the 9 oblit double dp lists?

You know what would really suck about being forced back into the old FOC is that it punished armies with expensive units and bad troops, and advantages armies with good troopa or cheap troops.

Old 5th FOC is absurd with the price points of units in 8th. Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.

The old FOC was always inferior to Warhammer Fantasy way to build armies in all aspects. The fact the game was full with snowflake exceptions to allow most of the actual fun armies is a proof of that.

The Old FOC was fine.

 Galas wrote:
Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.

This sounds like a feature, not a bug.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.

This sounds like a feature, not a bug.

Also true. Still they didn't manage to fix it before, this would just lead to the same issues as before.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.

This sounds like a feature, not a bug.

If by feature you mean screws over every faction without undercosted troops yeah thats a great feature.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.

This sounds like a feature, not a bug.

If most armies had something like 6-7 different troops maybe but when you have armies that have 1-2 troops choices it becomes bland very fast. And I love spamming troops, they are my favourite type of unit and models, both to build and play.

But at the end of the day the bread and butter of Warhammer, what keeps things exciting for most people are the heroes, the elite units, the big guns. I have 0 problems with a Deathwing or a Ravenwing army or a Spirit Host Eldar army. The old FOC didn't did anything to prevent abusing OP units. It only make the armies with stronger troops (Or special snowflake exceptions to use something like bikers as troops) even more strong.

 Galas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.

This sounds like a feature, not a bug.

If most armies had something like 6-7 different troops maybe but when you have armies that have 1-2 troops choices it becomes bland very fast. And I love spamming troops, they are my favourite type of unit and models, both to build and play.

But at the end of the day the bread and butter of Warhammer, what keeps things exciting for most people are the heroes, the elite units, the big guns. I have 0 problems with a Deathwing or a Ravenwing army or a Spirit Host Eldar army. The old FOC didn't did anything to prevent abusing OP units. It only make the armies with stronger troops (Or special snowflake exceptions to use something like bikers as troops) even more strong.

So much this. Not all Troops are created equal, the current FOC hamstrings too many builds that are fluffy and not overly powerful. This could/should have been addressed in the new detachments. Instead of costing a CP, they should have given CPs if x amount of specific units taken. For example, the RW detachment could have remained as is but required 1 HQ with Ravenwing keyword, plus 3+ Ravenwing Bike sqds, 1+ landpseeder sqd, and awarded +3 CPs for that detachment in lieu of +1 for being Outrider. Instead, you get someone making a Ravenwing detachment and taking 3 non Ravenwing scout sqds to get the +5CP because the army is strat hungry and the detachment already costs you 1CP. It's poor execution.

Asmodios wrote:

1.keeping track of 3 CP pools is no harder than tracking the wounds on 3 tanks. If you can't handle that amount of bookkeeping you are playing the wrong game

Maybe for you, but not for your opponent. How can I be sure you pulled the right CP from the proper pool?

I can tell a tanks wounds from the marker next to it. There is nothing preventing 3 pools of CP from getting abused in a face paced game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those things are only weaknesses as long as the models remain bad. In this sense, are you saying it's good for certain models to remain bad?

Yes. If GW stubbornly insists on giving an army a unit that it shouldn't have then that unit should have weak rules so that you are not encouraged to make it a major part of your army. But having bad rules is only a last resort thing. For example, storm troopers and rough riders can have decent rules because their mobility doesn't really address the IG weakness in question. They can go places fast, sure, but they're also glass cannon units that are easily wiped off the table when your opponent wants to clear an objective. That makes them more equivalent to a Basilisk, delivering firepower anywhere on the table but contributing little to scoring objectives, and not something you take as a reliable way to hold objectives.

So my next question is should these units be toned down the moment they are marked for Khorne?

Yes. You could even make it a thematic thing, that Khorne marked units get +1 WS and -1 BS.

Also you talk about vehicles not being inherently broken, but the editions of them being too good and too powerful say otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between inherent balance issues and individual unit balance issues? Vehicles being too good in the past has been a result of specific vehicles having point costs that were far too low, not something inherent to the concept of vehicles that will be true no matter how well you write the individual unit rules.

You're complaining about external balance when you say you can pick and choose the best units from each codex. That's because those are problem units. They shouldn't be broken when they're used in pure armies in the first place, so why not fix them instead of complaining about allies so you can keep your broken units?

Because, as I keep trying to explain to you (and people like you), even if all units are balanced within their own codex the ability to take units outside the context of their codex makes balance issues almost inevitable. For example, guardsmen have a value of X ppm in an pure IG army as objective holders, screening meatshields, and efficient small arms fire. They have little value as CP farms because pure IG armies can easily fill out detachments even if CP didn't exist at all and have relatively weak stratagems and a low CP per turn need. Obviously that value is not zero, but it's far down the list of why you're taking the unit. In an IK army guardsmen have a higher value per model because, in addition to the things that guardsmen do well in a pure IG army, they provide an extremely efficient CP battery for an army that has powerful stratagems and wants to burn a ton of CP every turn but has very limited ability to generate CP without allies. So what per-model cost do you set for guardsmen that makes them balanced in both armies? No such cost exists. You either make them overpowered as IK support or cripple pure IG armies with overpriced core troops.

And of course it only gets worse when you insist on "fuffy" rules where Imperial players get to choose units from half the game while Tau players are stuck with a single codex. It's virtually impossible to have a balanced game when some factions have so many more options than others.

I love the pathetic defense you created for Rough Riders and Scions being fine by saying you can kill them. Spoiler alert: you can kill something on an objective with them just as well the other way around.
So the units need to be made bad. Speaking of which:

Your next point saying there should be useless models in the rules shows you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I agree with you on a lot of things, but I'm breaking Rule #1 by saying that's the dumbest thing I've ever read, you shouldn't be anywhere near a rules designing team, and you're so out of touch with reality I don't know why you post, even moreso than other people that have left the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Many armies , limited to 2 HQ and 0-3 of everything but troops will end up with things like 1,2k points of troops.

This sounds like a feature, not a bug.

If most armies had something like 6-7 different troops maybe but when you have armies that have 1-2 troops choices it becomes bland very fast. And I love spamming troops, they are my favourite type of unit and models, both to build and play.

But at the end of the day the bread and butter of Warhammer, what keeps things exciting for most people are the heroes, the elite units, the big guns. I have 0 problems with a Deathwing or a Ravenwing army or a Spirit Host Eldar army. The old FOC didn't did anything to prevent abusing OP units. It only make the armies with stronger troops (Or special snowflake exceptions to use something like bikers as troops) even more strong.

Bingo. The bug is always bad internal and external balance.

Read your comment wrong never mind.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I love the pathetic defense you created for Rough Riders and Scions being fine by saying you can kill them. Spoiler alert: you can kill something on an objective with them just as well the other way around.

You're missing the point again. Rough riders and storm troopers can kill something on an objective, just like a Basilisk battery can kill something on an objective. But, just like the Basilisk, they are very poor at holding an objective. Storm troopers are a MSU glass cannon that dies to pretty much anything, and rough riders suck if they have to stand in one place and take a charge. So they help with delivering firepower to a target, but despite their speed they don't do much to address the intended weakness of IG: moving up and claiming objectives.

Your next point saying there should be useless models in the rules shows you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I agree with you on a lot of things, but I'm breaking Rule #1 by saying that's the dumbest thing I've ever read, you shouldn't be anywhere near a rules designing team, and you're so out of touch with reality I don't know why you post, even moreso than other people that have left the game.

In addition to your questionable wisdom in daring a moderator to ban you you're also wrong about this. If GW insists on making models for a faction that don't fit with that faction's intended strengths and weaknesses then those models need to be below average in power so that they don't eliminate the weaknesses and create a faction that is good at everything. It is better to not make those models in the first place, but sometimes the fluff and/or marketing department drives those decisions and you're stuck with them.

Of course if you remove soup then having below-average models isn't nearly as much of a problem. Say, IK get deliberately underpowered cannon fodder troops that are nowhere near as good as guardsmen/cultists/etc. If soup exists then those troops might as well not exist at all because every IK player will just take IG allies. But if you're committed to a single faction then you might use that weak troops unit because it's the only screening unit you've got.

If any of you silly Billys want to nerf Scions just because they are apart of the IG codex, just give us our old codex back instead.

 Apple Peel wrote:
If any of you silly Billys want to nerf Scions just because they are apart of the IG codex, just give us our old codex back instead.

You mean the 5th edition IG codex where they were called storm troopers as god intended and their idiotic torture-school fluff didn't exist? Sounds good.

Getting rid of soup won't make the game balanced. It'll just mean a new set of armies get all the top five placements. Bringing back FoCs will have the same effect. The only way to really combat the meta getting stagnant is constant re-balancing, which is difficult in a physical game where you have to keep track of every individual FAQ that comes out. They can't be putting out a new chapter approved every month, and that's about what it'd take to get any real rebalancing done.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
If any of you silly Billys want to nerf Scions just because they are apart of the IG codex, just give us our old codex back instead.

You mean the 5th edition IG codex where they were called storm troopers as god intended and their idiotic torture-school fluff didn't exist? Sounds good.

No, I mean the Copyrightum Imperialis High Gothicus named special operations soldiers. Not the old Kasrkin Cadia babies, nor the old Inquisitional style. (I’d be fine however if they brought the original stormtroopers back in plastic. Those were pretty cool.)