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.

I am looking for some ideas how to make mono codex armies more competitive and a level playing field to soup lists. Right now mono faction lists are not viable to win a tournament since they can’t fix their weakness like soup lists can. Here are a few of my ideas of varying power adjustments:

1) Incread the +3 CP to +5 CP if your army is battleforged. You only receive these points if all your detachments share the same keyword.

2) You only receive the benefits from Chapter Traits if all your detachments share the same keyword (you still get relics and warlord traits)

3) If all of your detachments share the same keyword add +1 to your go first roll and seize roll at the beginning of the game.

Ban soup. Problem solved.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ban soup. Problem solved.

and feth up quite a lot of decent army ideas. better to give allies the "Brood Brothers" treatment from the new GSC codex:

no named characters
no obsec
no relics
no warlord
no chapter tactics/regiments/equivalent
detachments only generate half the normal CP value

its a great way to reign in the abuses without killing soup entirely, which would make the game a lesser thing.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ban soup. Problem solved.

won't ever happen, I think thus it'd be best to make mono lists simply more appealing,

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Ban soup. Problem solved.

and feth up quite a lot of decent army ideas. better to give allies the "Brood Brothers" treatment from the new GSC codex:

no named characters
no obsec
no relics
no warlord
no chapter tactics/regiments/equivalent
detachments only generate half the normal CP value

its a great way to reign in the abuses without killing soup entirely, which would make the game a lesser thing.

Troops would still get Obsec, as that is a battleforged rule for armies, and as far as I read, isn't disallowed by Brood Brothers.
Everything else I could see being done.

Could also limit it to one detachment per your main faction detachment, much like GSC and BBAM.

Super easy, barely an inconvenience:

Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.

The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases

That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions

-

 Galef wrote:
Super easy, barely an inconvenience:

Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.

The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (jus using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you are won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc.

That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions

-

One thing to consider, is that the Imperial Knights Warlord Trait and Relic stratagems are designed to be used when the faction is NOT your main faction.

 Galef wrote:
Super easy, barely an inconvenience:

Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.

The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases

That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions

-

Unless your changing the strategum rules to prevent them from non warlord codex's that's how the castellen list currently works, the knight gets warlord trait and relic via strategums.

Keep in mind that I'm a hobbyist, not a gamer. But, I've watched batreps and been lurking on this forum for a long time.

I think if you got rid of Command Points and Strategems, Mono-Codex armies would become much more common.

My $0.02

SG

Darsath wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Super easy, barely an inconvenience:

Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.

The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (jus using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you are won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc.

That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions

-

One thing to consider, is that the Imperial Knights Warlord Trait and Relic stratagems are designed to be used when the faction is NOT your main faction.

Disagree with that, as it specifically calls out that all of the imperial Knight's warlord traits in your army must be different.
The relic strategum has similar callouts to stop you stacking relics etc.

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Super easy, barely an inconvenience:

Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.

The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases

That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions

-

Unless your changing the strategum rules to prevent them from non warlord codex's that's how the castellen list currently works, the knight gets warlord trait and relic via strategums.

Relics, sure, but I thought a Knight had to be WL to gain, ya know, a WL trait. That strat that grants WL traits needs to be FAQ'd to mean "once you choose a KNIGHT WL", then you get the extra Traits.

Other than that one-off oddity, and maybe another exception somewhere else, my suggestion would absolutely work to encourage mono-faction lists above Soup.
Heck, even without the FAQ, my proposal would STILL give more CPs that the Knight would ever need the Loyal 32 for. Because Kngiht detachments would get double CPs if they choose a Knight WL.

-

 ServiceGames wrote:
Keep in mind that I'm a hobbyist, not a gamer. But, I've watched batreps and been lurking on this forum for a long time.

I think if you got rid of Command Points and Strategems, Mono-Codex armies would become much more common.

My $0.02

SG

Well, yes. CP and Stratagems seemed like a good idea but quickly spiraled out of control; if it was just the basic ones in the BRB it would be fine but adding special snowflake rules to everyone was a huge mistake, probably one of the worst (IMHO) of 8th edition. The main issue is faction-specific stratagems. Being able to re-roll a die, or auto pass Morale or interrupt to fight, even some of the mission-specific ones you find (or the narrative ones) was not a problem at all and I doubt anyone would care. It's the OP faction ones as well as unlocking them just by taking a different detachment which allows for some stacking across stratagems that work off of keyword-only that's the problem

However, let's be real this will never happen without a new edition, and unlikely even then.

- Command points based on game points level.
- Broadly balance units and points. Don't have smash-captains and the like that are just clearly better than the alternatives.
- Stratagem unlock conditions (i.e. common pool, warlord faction only, majority points faction only)
- Consolidate or expand 'minor' factions so that they don't need allies to function.
- Improve codex synergy, anything from specific mixes (i.e. speeders spotting for artillery) to generic rules (i.e. +1 to overwatch while within 3" of another codex infantry squad)

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Super easy, barely an inconvenience:

Take Battalions back to 3CPs and give detachments that share 2+ Faction Keywords with your WL double CPs.
Now a Battalion only gives you 3CPs unless that Battalion has at least 1 non-Chaos/Imperium/Aeldari, etc Keyword in common with your WL.

The Loyal 32 will only give you 3CPs, unless one of the Company Commanders in it is your army WL, in which case it will give 6 CPs.
But if you are taking the Loyal 32 (just using as a example, not picking on it specifically) just to generate CPs, you won't be getting WL traits or Relics from your MAIN Faction, like Knights, etc. That's a big trade-off in most cases

That should be enough of a bonus to stop mixing factions just to generate CPs. You'd still get the bonus of plugging a factions weaknesses with other factions' strengths, but if you truly want the most CPs, you'll have to stick to a single factions

-

Unless your changing the strategum rules to prevent them from non warlord codex's that's how the castellen list currently works, the knight gets warlord trait and relic via strategums.

Relics, sure, but I thought a Knight had to be WL to gain, ya know, a WL trait. That strat that grants WL traits needs to be FAQ'd to mean "once you choose a KNIGHT WL", then you get the extra Traits.

Other than that one-off oddity, and maybe another exception somewhere else, my suggestion would absolutely work to encourage mono-faction lists above Soup.
Heck, even without the FAQ, my proposal would STILL give more CPs that the Knight would ever need the Loyal 32 for. Because Kngiht detachments would get double CPs if they choose a Knight WL.

-

I'd be down for that FAQ, but oh boy would the salt be unreal.

The other issue is thr currently meta guard brigade + Castellen without the strategum change would be rocking an AM warlord a 9CP battalion which is doubled to 18 then add 3CP for battleforged.
Thats 21 CP instead of the current 15, though they can make it to 20 battalion & brigade if they chase CP.

Realy Astra Militarum need the brood brother rule to apply to their detachments period and then we might get somewhere.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Ban soup. Problem solved.

won't ever happen, I think thus it'd be best to make mono lists simply more appealing,

Not with that defeatist attitude it won't. Instead of giving up just ban it. Refuse to play against it, run events that ban it.

Here is an unorthodox, extreme and altogether unrealistic idea: Matched Play only allows for the 3 basic stratagems in the core rulebook and, if applicable, any stratagems allowed by the mission (e.g. some Maelstrom missions give you a stratagem to pick new cards).

No faction stratagems are allowed in Matched Play games, they are the domain of Narrative and Open Play. In theory, this would mean you could still agree with your opponent to use the faction stratagems, or that TOs could adjust their tournament packs to allow them, but given how often anything suggested for Matched Play is taken as gospel, it would remove the major issue. Matched Play is supposed to be balanced after all right? That's always the argument you hear about it compared to other styles of play. Faction stratagems aren't balanced. Ergo, they shouldn't be in Matched Play.

If everyone only had access to the 3 basic stratagems (and any provided by the mission), CP suddenly becomes way less of a huge deal. Nobody will really care about CP farming if you only get to re-roll a single die, auto pass a morale check or interrupt a charge to fight with a unit of your own, or discard/draw some cards from your Tactical Objectives deck in a maelstrom mission. But it would remove a lot of the potentially game-changing stratagems that you see.

A.T. wrote:
- Consolidate or expand 'minor' factions so that they don't need allies to function.

What factions are considered minor? Aren't all codex armies big enough to form their own army?

SG

Mono-faction aren’t broken. Soup as it stands is broken. Therefore you don’t need to fix or boost mono-faction, just rein in Soup.

Adopt the ‘half CP’ rule from GSC for all armies. And introduce a Parent Faction type rule. Something along the lines that X% of your points needs to spent on units with that Keyword. That then prevents Loyal 32 shenanigans from continuing.

Whilst not an expert by any stretch, that seems to resolve many of the most common complaints about 8th Ed.

I personally am a fan of both removing any CP from your non-warlord faction and denying any stratagems from your non-warlord faction.

Also, let's not beat around the bush, the problem is Knights+Infinite CP and Knights Stratagems.

Meh...

Just make it so stratagems cannot effect super heavy auxillary units, and remove the Supreme Command detachment.

So if you want that Castellan, you're paying at minimum 350+ points for the Armigers instead of maxing out on Guard units.

Maybe make the Knight's Super Heavy Detachment give +0 CP unless 2 Titanic units are taken instead of just 1 as well, so if you want CP from your Castellan's detachment you're taking at minimum 1100 points of Knights.

I'd also be OK with a rule saying all stratagems used by your army must be from the codex of your Warlord, that would seem fair.

Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.

7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army

If you're going to limit matched play to the boring core rulebook stratagems then just remove CP and stratagems entirely. It's a pointless mechanic if you cut out 95% of it.

Step 1: Listen to absolutely no one on Dakka.

I’m not sure changing stuff just to nix a particularly abusive combo is really solving anything. After all, you’re not discouraging Soup, or giving it a drawback. You’re just changing what the worst you can do with Soup looks like.

And I firmly believe Soup, as a concept, is actually fine overall as a thematic thing. It just the current execution is lacking.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.

7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army

Soup is only "fine" if you're GW's marketing department and want to sell the latest space marine release to everyone regardless of what faction they actually play.

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.

7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army

So just feth factions that can't do soup, right? All those Tau/Necron/Ork players should just feth off and switch to Imperium or Chaos, right?

Removed - BrookM

Wayniac wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.

7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army

So just feth factions that can't do soup, right? All those Tau/Necron/Ork players should just feth off and switch to Imperium or Chaos, right?

"Yes." - GW Marketing.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.

7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army

So just feth factions that can't do soup, right? All those Tau/Necron/Ork players should just feth off and switch to Imperium or Chaos, right?

"Yes." - GW Marketing.

Well duh, but we know GW marketing is stupid and not relevant to the discussion BCB

My preference would be:

-Remove the +3CP from battleforged. Your army only gains those +3CP if all Detachments are of the same subfaction.
-Subfactions can only use the CP generated by detachments of that subfaction.
-Change the Command Benefits of Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachment from +1 CP to +2CP.

Wayniac wrote:Here is an unorthodox, extreme and altogether unrealistic idea: Matched Play only allows for the 3 basic stratagems in the core rulebook and, if applicable, any stratagems allowed by the mission (e.g. some Maelstrom missions give you a stratagem to pick new cards).

No faction stratagems are allowed in Matched Play games, they are the domain of Narrative and Open Play. In theory, this would mean you could still agree with your opponent to use the faction stratagems, or that TOs could adjust their tournament packs to allow them, but given how often anything suggested for Matched Play is taken as gospel, it would remove the major issue. Matched Play is supposed to be balanced after all right? That's always the argument you hear about it compared to other styles of play. Faction stratagems aren't balanced. Ergo, they shouldn't be in Matched Play.

If everyone only had access to the 3 basic stratagems (and any provided by the mission), CP suddenly becomes way less of a huge deal. Nobody will really care about CP farming if you only get to re-roll a single die, auto pass a morale check or interrupt a charge to fight with a unit of your own, or discard/draw some cards from your Tactical Objectives deck in a maelstrom mission. But it would remove a lot of the potentially game-changing stratagems that you see.

That sounds like an incredibly bland game. No thanks.

KurtAngle2 wrote:Honestly I've had enough of these topics, it's always ends as a cointainer of worst ideas ever suggested by non gamers and casuals alike. Soup is fine and if you want to keep playing limiting yourself to mono codices it's YOUR PROBLEM, so don't force others to limit themselves like you do.

7TH was completely free in terms of Alliances yet 90% of lists never relied on them because units were so broken by themselves that not spamming them and instead bringing on things from other armies always resulted in lowering the strenght of your army

So if we aren't playing Imperial or Eldar, we're playing the game the wrong way? You're aware that some Xenos factions (like Necrons and Orks) have zero options for allies.