Switch Theme:

Soup is not the problem - LVO 2019  [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 us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Matlacha, FL

Another year, another CA that didn't address soup or Castellans, another big tournament dominated by soup and Castellans. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Anyone? Didn't think so. There's been a lot of discussion about this lately, but I'm not sure how anyone of sound mind could follow the tournament scene and come to the conclusion that undercosted units are the problem instead of soup. 7 of the top 8 lists are some flavor of soup. Even if we pretend for a second that undercosted units are the problem, the existence of soup alone makes properly balancing units point cost based on their effectiveness is nearly impossible. Let's take a look at the issues soup presents:

1. The soup lists perform much better than lists using the same units but sticking to a single codex.
2. There is literally no drawback to soup, only benefits.
3. GW has a hard enough time getting points right in that context alone. When they have to factor in every possible unit combination in all imperium armies to come up with an appropriate point cost for something, it is literally impossible. Unit point costs are based on the other units in their codex. If you price a squad of guardsmen based on their value in a custodes jetbike list, they become useless in a pure guard army. If you price them based on their value to a pure guard army, you end up with vastly undercosted CP batteries and objective holders for soup lists.
4. The minute you allow an army to cover up all their weaknesses without paying any sort of penalty, you are imbalancing the game. Especially when you allow some armies to cover up all their weaknesses and others have no option to cover any of them. Each army was originally designed with certain strengths and weaknesses in mind. Space Marines are jack of all trades, master of none. Tau are the best at shooting but have no psychic phase and are terrible in close combat. Eldar are glass cannons. Imperial Knights are tough to take down and kill a lot of stuff, but don't have a good way to hold objectives because they are limited in numbers.
5.

While I'm sure GW loves selling 3 different armies and codexes to people just so they can play 1, it is bad for the game and something needs to be done about it. It blows my mind that their solution to soup was to prevent you from using multiple factions in a detachment, while giving MORE cp for souping in the cheapest battalion possible and allowing it to come from a different faction. If they want to eliminate soup, they need to go back to something similar to the old allies system. 2 detachments, 2 factions, CP can only be used by the faction that generated it, and +3 or +5 CP if both detachments come from the same faction. This will never happen, because they only care about game balance if it's so bad it's tanking their sales numbers. They will continue to write gak rules for the purpose of increasing sales and villifying anyone that has the audacity to call them out by saying they're playing the game wrong and they need to forge the narrative harder.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 19:06:16


Roll Tide! Beat everyone!  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I don't think you'll find much disagreement on here at least. I know plenty of people irl who think that the allies system is fine as-is, but they're also not cued-in to the more competitive side of things, so they're not really the best to make such a decision. But yeah, many of us on Dakka Dakka have made the argument that soup needs some big and immediate changes to keep the game in a healthy state. I'm still not willing to say I was right yet, but I think it's obvious that Games Workshop should want to make large changes to the allies system to keep the game interesting and to make it more likely to see every faction performing well at both the top and bottom ends of play.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




GW are never going to nerf soup sufficiently that IG+IK isn't better than mono IG/IK. At the same time most nerfs which would neuter Imperial Soup (say seperate CP pools) often have an almost negligible impact on Eldar Soup.

Castelans clearly need to be nerfed - and imo Knights should have their wings clipped a bit more generally. I realise "but but but my models" - or "I only run mono knights and its tough" and I sympathise a little bit - but the number of knights at competitive tournaments and even casual FLGS tables has become ridiculous. They should not be an auto-take in pretty much every imperial list, and right now they are.
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
GW are never going to nerf soup sufficiently that IG+IK isn't better than mono IG/IK. At the same time most nerfs which would neuter Imperial Soup (say seperate CP pools) often have an almost negligible impact on Eldar Soup.

Castelans clearly need to be nerfed - and imo Knights should have their wings clipped a bit more generally. I realise "but but but my models" - or "I only run mono knights and its tough" and I sympathise a little bit - but the number of knights at competitive tournaments and even casual FLGS tables has become ridiculous. They should not be an auto-take in pretty much every imperial list, and right now they are.


And again problem is the soup. How many PURE knight lists are dominating tournaments? Not that much. Fix the soup(by killing it completely if neccessary) rather than do pointless random inefficient totally off the mark "fixes".

Fix...the...damn...problem.

“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
GW are never going to nerf soup sufficiently that IG+IK isn't better than mono IG/IK. At the same time most nerfs which would neuter Imperial Soup (say seperate CP pools) often have an almost negligible impact on Eldar Soup.

Castelans clearly need to be nerfed - and imo Knights should have their wings clipped a bit more generally. I realise "but but but my models" - or "I only run mono knights and its tough" and I sympathise a little bit - but the number of knights at competitive tournaments and even casual FLGS tables has become ridiculous. They should not be an auto-take in pretty much every imperial list, and right now they are.


And again problem is the soup. How many PURE knight lists are dominating tournaments? Not that much. Fix the soup(by killing it completely if neccessary) rather than do pointless random inefficient totally off the mark "fixes".

Fix...the...damn...problem.


It's not that simple unfortunately. The game has been aspects (and units) that have been made and designed specifically around the current allies system. Games Workshop use it as a core mechanic for new designs, so they couldn't ever remove it. Really, I think this is a lack of foresight on Games Workshop's part as allies have always been a difficult issue for balance ever since they re-brought it back in in 6th edition.
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

Probably niave but in the live chat with the head of the 40k part of the studio he did say that they had been taking notice of the fact that Castalans were everywhere and were talking to the playtesters at the event about it....

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





WA

Tyel wrote:

Castelans clearly need to be nerfed - and imo Knights should have their wings clipped a bit more generally.


Possibly unpopular opinion from an IK/IG player, but bring on the nerf. I want it. I like playing the army, I like Imperium soup, it feels fluffy and cinematic on the tabletop. I hate the reaction from opponents, even opponents that know I am running IK/IG beforehand.

 
   
Made in gb
Missionary On A Mission






Why is soup a problem, though?

By which I mean - I get that soup lists have access to a wider variety of tools than mono-book lists, but I don't see why that's an issue. Just because mono-dex armies are the historical standard doesn't mean they're the gold standard, and there's far more variety in units and factions hitting the top 21 at LVO than I ever remember seeing in 5th Edition. Or even 7th, for that matter.

Why are people so resistant to this change?

Darsath wrote:
I don't think you'll find much disagreement on here at least. I know plenty of people irl who think that the allies system is fine as-is, but they're also not cued-in to the more competitive side of things, so they're not really the best to make such a decision.


But the "more competetive side of things" is all about soup nowadays, so if your aim is "competetive" then clearly the allies rules generate that more effectively than mono-book builds do. Hence, if your aim is "competetive", then the Allies rules are fine as is.

- - - - - - -
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Matlacha, FL

 BBAP wrote:
Hence, if your aim is "competetive", then the Allies rules are fine as is.


They aren't because you're shoehorned into playing Imperial or Ynnari soup. I should be able to be competitive without playing eldar or loyal 32 and a castellan. I'm not saying every unit in the game should be viable in a top tier army, I'm saying every faction should have at least 1 build that can actually compete. Right now that's true, if your faction is imperium or eldar. Otherwise, have fun pushing models around for 5 games when you already know what the outcome will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Probably niave but in the live chat with the head of the 40k part of the studio he did say that they had been taking notice of the fact that Castalans were everywhere and were talking to the playtesters at the event about it....


This isn't new, though. Castellans and soup were a problem months before CA was released, yet CA did absolutely nothing to address either of those things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 20:00:25


Roll Tide! Beat everyone!  
   
Made in gb
Council of 13 Runner Up






The issue is CP farming to pull off shenanigans that the parent Codex would struggle to, because they can be points intensive. Loyal 32 isn’t so much paying points for models, but a load of CPs and something you might want to dump on an objective. They otherwise play no part in the battle.

Fed up for Scalpers? Why not join us? 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I don’t think there’s a huge problem with the state of the game. Yes imperial soup was the biggest winner, but so many other factions scraped into the top 20. If anything I prefer having a single army taking up a large portion of the top cut, with several other armies taking up small bits, as it makes list building easier - if you prepare for knights you’ve prepared for a good chunk of your matchups in one go
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

 Toofast wrote:
 BBAP wrote:
Hence, if your aim is "competetive", then the Allies rules are fine as is.


They aren't because you're shoehorned into playing Imperial or Ynnari soup. I should be able to be competitive without playing eldar or loyal 32 and a castellan. I'm not saying every unit in the game should be viable in a top tier army, I'm saying every faction should have at least 1 build that can actually compete. Right now that's true, if your faction is imperium or eldar. Otherwise, have fun pushing models around for 5 games when you already know what the outcome will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Probably niave but in the live chat with the head of the 40k part of the studio he did say that they had been taking notice of the fact that Castalans were everywhere and were talking to the playtesters at the event about it....


This isn't new, though. Castellans and soup were a problem months before CA was released, yet CA did absolutely nothing to address either of those things.


Depends when CA was written? I am not convinced that much will happen but it was at least good that it was being noticed and commented on.

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






Here's a crazy idea - perfectly balanced units make soup just as equal as mono.

The only thing that changes this is the advantage multiple factions' stratagems bring.

Soup is only an issue where units are more efficient than others.

Your point 1 is not entirely untrue - mono AM was 11th at LVO.
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

Trollbert wrote:
Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?


Better balance is better for everyone no?

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?


Better balance is better for everyone no?


But are Castellans really the only matter or are they just a gatekeeper for other equally unbalanced lists?
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Here's a crazy idea - perfectly balanced units make soup just as equal as mono.

The only thing that changes this is the advantage multiple factions' stratagems bring.

Soup is only an issue where units are more efficient than others.
Units and abilities synergize in different ways with different things. Soup allows armies to have access to abilities they wouldn't otherwise have and things to interact in ways not possible in a strictly mono-codex format. Units have different values depending on the context of the force they're in, when you change that context, the balance changes. What's fine in one context is not fine in others. That's the inherent fundamental problem with allies/soup in 40k. You're basically allowing armies to pick and choose optimal tools that they may not really be intended to have access to, even if they're otherwise just fine in their original place, and as a result, forces are much more powerful than they otherwise would be. You could have perfect mono-codex balance, and Allies soup will throw it all in the air.

There's a reason most tabletop games don't allow stuff like this or place dramatic restrictions on such stuff.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Here's a crazy idea - perfectly balanced units make soup just as equal as mono.


This is not true at all. Having access to different types of units, bypassing intended limits of a faction, is additional power. Unit costs alone can never balance soup vs. mono-faction lists. Take the loyal 32 for example, they clearly aren't being taken because guardsmen are inherently overpowered or you'd see more than the minimum detachment of them. What they are is the cheapest possible CP battery for the IK faction. Setting their point level at a place where IK armies don't take their battery would mean making them unplayable in pure IG armies that take more than the minimum and depend on their infantry squads to do more than sit in the back providing CP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 20:21:14


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?


Better balance is better for everyone no?


But are Castellans really the only matter or are they just a gatekeeper for other equally unbalanced lists?


Who said they were the only problem - but if they are a problem its better addressed than ignored?

Thats what they didn't do in 6th and 7th when we had Gladius, Riptides, Wave Serpents and Wraith Knights.

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Vaktathi wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Here's a crazy idea - perfectly balanced units make soup just as equal as mono.

The only thing that changes this is the advantage multiple factions' stratagems bring.

Soup is only an issue where units are more efficient than others.
Units and abilities synergize in different ways with different things. Soup allows armies to have access to abilities they wouldn't otherwise have and things to interact in ways not possible in a strictly mono-codex format. Units have different values depending on the context of the force they're in, when you change that context, the balance changes. What's fine in one context is not fine in others. That's the inherent fundamental problem with allies/soup in 40k. You're basically allowing armies to pick and choose optimal tools that they may not really be intended to have access to, even if they're otherwise just fine in their original place, and as a result, forces are much more powerful than they otherwise would be. You could have perfect mono-codex balance, and Allies soup will throw it all in the air.

There's a reason most tabletop games don't allow stuff like this or place dramatic restrictions on such stuff.


This. More or less. More options plus the current command point system allows armies to get access to more units and more stratagems by taking an allied force with their main army. I would advise everyone to take my comments with a pinch of salt, though, as my main faction (Necrons) don't exactly have soup options so I'm obviously going to be biased no matter how much I try not to.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 BBAP wrote:
Why is soup a problem, though?


Because it kills faction diversity. Remove soup and you have IK, IG, melee space marines, etc, all with their various strengths and weaknesses. But with soup you just have a single Imperial faction that takes 1-2 units out of each book and discards the rest.

But the "more competetive side of things" is all about soup nowadays, so if your aim is "competetive" then clearly the allies rules generate that more effectively than mono-book builds do. Hence, if your aim is "competetive", then the Allies rules are fine as is.


Winning games by exploiting a bad rule doesn't make it a good rule.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





If soup is a problem, it's a problem within the factions that really benefit from soup;

Aeldari
Imperium
Chaos

Chaos has about 2 main "big" builds; Bash Bros, and Cultist Spam. Imperium has 3 main builds; Castellan+Guard, Castellan+AdMech Robots, and Castellan+Space Marines. Aeldari have the most number of main builds; Ynnari with Dark Reapers and Shining Spears, Craftworlds with Rangers and Flyers, and Dark Eldar can be built in a few ways too.

If variety is what we're going for, then these are the problems:

#1 - Chaos needs more different ways of playing.
#2 - Castellan needs to be nerfed. Specifically it. No other unit seems to find its way into winning lists in quite the same way. The previous nerfs have caused the list overall to not be as good, but the fact that the Castellan is still taken so often is a problem.
#4 - Aeldari as a super-faction is likely doing fine. There is variation. Why is that? Probably because both Craftworld Eldar and Dark Eldar are really, really strong codexes all on their own, with multiple builds on their own, but both also function off some combos that don't generally work well with each other. As such, while they are a super faction, they're one that doesn't generally show up like that.


Tyranids are doing okay, with multiple builds, even if they're not super top-tier. Necrons only seem to work with triple Doomsday Ark; so changes to Necrons shouldn't focus on the Doomsday Ark. Orks I don't know well enough to judge.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in gb
Missionary On A Mission






 Toofast wrote:
They aren't because you're shoehorned into playing Imperial or Ynnari soup.


Those particular soups are sweeping the top 5, sure, but even when mono-book armies were the standard you had 2-3 army builds holding court while everyone else struggled. The problem isn't with the Allies rules, or with soup - it's that some lists and unit combinations are just more effective on the table than others. As long as GW refuses to set a central standard by which the power of models and rules can be judged then this issue will persist - and they won't do that because it'd mess with their efforts to heap special rules and expansion books on the Space Marines throughout the Edition.

- - - - - - -
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?


Better balance is better for everyone no?


But are Castellans really the only matter or are they just a gatekeeper for other equally unbalanced lists?


Who said they were the only problem - but if they are a problem its better addressed than ignored?

Thats what they didn't do in 6th and 7th when we had Gladius, Riptides, Wave Serpents and Wraith Knights.


I just want people to be careful with their wishes, I don't think it is possible for GW and its way of working to make the game fundamentally better.
Even if Knights were fixed people would still be disappointed in the long run.

The game needs another reset for that.
8th edition was just a lazy rework (which is also the reason for why the rules are so dumped down, it is just cheaper to produce) to raise people's hopes of 40k changing fundamentally and make fresh cash. If you're honest, nothing substantually changed from mid 7th (when I quit) to now, were are basically at the same point again.
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






 Vaktathi wrote:
Units and abilities synergize in different ways with different things. Soup allows armies to have access to abilities they wouldn't otherwise have and things to interact in ways not possible in a strictly mono-codex format. Units have different values depending on the context of the force they're in, when you change that context, the balance changes. What's fine in one context is not fine in others. That's the inherent fundamental problem with allies/soup in 40k. You're basically allowing armies to pick and choose optimal tools that they may not really be intended to have access to, even if they're otherwise just fine in their original place, and as a result, forces are much more powerful than they otherwise would be. You could have perfect mono-codex balance, and Allies soup will throw it all in the air.

There's a reason most tabletop games don't allow stuff like this or place dramatic restrictions on such stuff.


Again, if all units were properly and accurately balanced against each other, it wouldn't make a difference. An army should have a selection of playstyles. If they are unable to provide their own I see no problem them drawing from other factions to try a new style. The problem is the existence of "optimal tools". Optimal tools is another way of saying overpowered units.

I'm not saying I think soup is absolutely fine as is and requires no changes, but I'm quite certain that fixing problematic units will definitely help with the current imbalance of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is not true at all. Having access to different types of units, bypassing intended limits of a faction, is additional power. Unit costs alone can never balance soup vs. mono-faction lists. Take the loyal 32 for example, they clearly aren't being taken because guardsmen are inherently overpowered or you'd see more than the minimum detachment of them. What they are is the cheapest possible CP battery for the IK faction. Setting their point level at a place where IK armies don't take their battery would mean making them unplayable in pure IG armies that take more than the minimum and depend on their infantry squads to do more than sit in the back providing CP.

What do you mean by "intended limits of a faction"? All factions should have a variety of playstyles.

Guardsmen are absolutely taken because they are inherently overpowered. They are also taken in larger groups than the minimums to fill brigades or battalions. They are not the cheapest possible CP battery for the IK faction, that honour now belongs with Ad Mech. Setting their point level at a proper and fair place should absolutely be one of the key aims of GW at this moment in time. How they escaped not rising to at least 5 ppm as Cultists is incredible. They would certainly not become unplayable in mono IG because mono IG is incredibly strong (11th place finish at LVO anyone?). You cannot justify overpowered units with the existence of soup. Overpowered units are overpowered, whether taken in mono or soup lists.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Castellans and guardsmen both need nerfs. The guardsmen are just as guilty, if not more.
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?


Better balance is better for everyone no?


But are Castellans really the only matter or are they just a gatekeeper for other equally unbalanced lists?


Who said they were the only problem - but if they are a problem its better addressed than ignored?

Thats what they didn't do in 6th and 7th when we had Gladius, Riptides, Wave Serpents and Wraith Knights.


I just want people to be careful with their wishes, I don't think it is possible for GW and its way of working to make the game fundamentally better.
Even if Knights were fixed people would still be disappointed in the long run.

The game needs another reset for that.
8th edition was just a lazy rework (which is also the reason for why the rules are so dumped down, it is just cheaper to produce) to raise people's hopes of 40k changing fundamentally and make fresh cash. If you're honest, nothing substantually changed from mid 7th (when I quit) to now, were are basically at the same point again.


Disagree - for me the rules are MUCh better this edition, 6th and 7th were a disaster - the blance, rubbish like the Riptides etc being Creatures, the rules for vehicles, formations etc.

They are interacting with the audience and doing so much more interesting elements.

Could some stuff be better - yep, Could it be worse - much - just look at the 6th and 7th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 20:40:38


"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





USA

just get rid of the base 3 CP for a battleforged army if all your detachments are not the same faction.

It doesn't penalize overly much but still significant. It lessons the benefits of CP batteries a bit.

Not much change to any codex or how we play the game.

It may be enough to give an edge to solo faction forces.

 koooaei wrote:
We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Toofast wrote:
I'm not sure how anyone of sound mind could follow the tournament scene


I kinda think this nails it...

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Trollbert wrote:
Will the game be better as a whole when Castellans are killed?
Or will it say the same with something else being the current Castellan?


Better balance is better for everyone no?


But are Castellans really the only matter or are they just a gatekeeper for other equally unbalanced lists?


Who said they were the only problem - but if they are a problem its better addressed than ignored?

Thats what they didn't do in 6th and 7th when we had Gladius, Riptides, Wave Serpents and Wraith Knights.


I just want people to be careful with their wishes, I don't think it is possible for GW and its way of working to make the game fundamentally better.
Even if Knights were fixed people would still be disappointed in the long run.

The game needs another reset for that.
8th edition was just a lazy rework (which is also the reason for why the rules are so dumped down, it is just cheaper to produce) to raise people's hopes of 40k changing fundamentally and make fresh cash. If you're honest, nothing substantually changed from mid 7th (when I quit) to now, were are basically at the same point again.


Disagree - for me the rules are MUCh better this edition, 6th and 7th were a disaster - the blance, rubbish like the Riptides etc being Creatures, the rules for vehicles, formations etc.

They are interacting with the audience and doing so much more interesting elements.

Could some stuff be better - yep, Could it be worse - much - just look at the 6th and 7th.


Partly disagree - the codices are better in 8th but the rules are just so bland. The game is currently 90% dice rolling since the missions I have access to (I didn't buy any CA) are gak.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: