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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
No, my soup armies are unxompetive messes as they're based on my model preferences and not on what's OP. Cherrypicking OP units is a problem only because OP units exist! Fix them!

"Cherrypicking OP units" is a problem when you're able to take them with no consequence. There's no penalty for taking a Brigade or Battalion of Guard to flesh out a Custodes Captain Bike SC Detachment with CPs.

When we talk about "cherrypicking units", very rarely are people talking about Harlequin Troupes or other fluffy bits.

Yeah, until a tournament player includes them in their list, and then EVERYONE is talking about those units.

Like Drukhari, who went from an army everyone liked to see, why don't more people play Drukhari? I never see them, they're so great looking, I mean-

*codex drops, five seconds later*

OH MY GOD THESE fething DRUKHARI I HATE THEM THEYRE THE STUPIDEST FACTION EVER UGH EVERYONE PLAYS THEM

Really, there's only two people on the forums who go around complaining about every army (bar space marines) and how OP they are regardless of how many competitive events they actually win. The hate train bandwagon just shows up when a faction shows up frequently in a couple of tournaments. Then theyre the dumbestest thing ever and should never be allowed and all their weapons should cost 50 points and they should be nerfed to BS6+.

I gotta tell you I am super duper pumped for people to start complaining that Orks should really be BS6+ because now they have dakkadakkadakka and only hitting on 6s but then having to roll and then reroll sixteen buckets of dice would be such a fluffy rule, so much fun.

I figure we just gotta wait for two tournaments where orks are anywhere near the top ten to start seeing that pop up in every other proposed rule thread alongside the "marines should be 2ppm" and "thing that beat me in my last game should be nerfed" posts.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

"Cherrypicking OP units" is a problem when you're able to take them with no consequence. There's no penalty for taking a Brigade or Battalion of Guard to flesh out a Custodes Captain Bike SC Detachment with CPs.

There is a penalty, a detachment slot and bunch of points. If that's not enough then the point cost is wrong.

When we talk about "cherrypicking units", vöery rarely are people talking about Harlequin Troupes or other fluffy bits.

Then when designing all these restrictions to the soup better make sure to not throw those people who want to ally a Harlequin Troupe under the buss!

Well you could allow Harlequins and armies like that to not have restrictions, but still have restrictions on what they don't need to help them as an army, like long ranged units etc. but to still not allow them to soup for cheese sake or restrict them somehow in the best way you can so that they aren't put at a disadvantage. I mean that is the only actual way to bring balance to the game without ruining it. GW have to stop thinking black and white with an all encompassing of game rules, they need to be flexible so armies can work. Because its 8 editions and they've never really had balance.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

"Cherrypicking OP units" is a problem when you're able to take them with no consequence. There's no penalty for taking a Brigade or Battalion of Guard to flesh out a Custodes Captain Bike SC Detachment with CPs.

There is a penalty, a detachment slot and bunch of points. If that's not enough then the point cost is wrong.

It's not. The issue, and I can't believe I have to keep fricking saying this, is that you can ally Brigades or Battalions in. It brings in a frigging ton of Command Points for a minimal investiture for the Imperium--and you can bet your ass that if other factions had a similar chance to do it, the tournament goons would be doing it.

Period. End of fething story. There is no debate beyond this.

When we talk about "cherrypicking units", vöery rarely are people talking about Harlequin Troupes or other fluffy bits.

Then when designing all these restrictions to the soup better make sure to not throw those people who want to ally a Harlequin Troupe under the buss!

A Harlequin Troupe can fit in a Patrol. It can fit in a Vanguard, a Spearhead, or an Outrider Detachment as well.

When you're taking a Battalion or Brigade? You're not "allying". You're bringing a second army.

I think a lot of the imbalance is built into the game with allies, lets be honest, Allies and OP units moves plastic. CP farms being what they are GW sold in US$ $145 in troops ($29x5) and another usually $30-50 in HQ so a cool $200 almost required to compete. combine this with the new knights and you have another almost required purchase so $170 or $370 in before space marine captains (though to be fair these are already in most collections and I think slamguinius was unintended to be that awesome for the points)

Give it a few months and chapter approved will probably deal with cp somehow and nerf guard. not enough huge knights are sold yet and people are saving to buy them so I bet they stay the same for another year. I also expect blood angels captains to be nerfed.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

"Cherrypicking OP units" is a problem when you're able to take them with no consequence. There's no penalty for taking a Brigade or Battalion of Guard to flesh out a Custodes Captain Bike SC Detachment with CPs.

There is a penalty, a detachment slot and bunch of points. If that's not enough then the point cost is wrong.

Or we could acknowledge the fact that something can be fine in one context, but not another, especially when issues not covered by points or slots, such as Stratagems and CP are in play.

Having jetbike captains in an army with a grand total of 8 or 9 CP is one thing, its another when they have access to double that, and meatshields that remove concerns about numbers which the jetbike captains would otherwise have to worry about.

Context is important and matters.

 Kanluwen wrote:

When you're taking a Battalion or Brigade? You're not "allying". You're bringing a second army.

So what? If I want to make a crusade which has roughly equal amount of Black Templars and SoB why should I not be allowed to do that? Or why should an Ynnari army not be allowed to draw equally from Craftwords and Dark Eldar?

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I think a lot of the imbalance is built into the game with allies, lets be honest, Allies and OP units moves plastic. CP farms being what they are GW sold in US$ $145 in troops ($29x5) and another usually $30-50 in HQ so a cool $200 almost required to compete. combine this with the new knights and you have another almost required purchase so $170 or $370 in before space marine captains (though to be fair these are already in most collections and I think slamguinius was unintended to be that awesome for the points)

Give it a few months and chapter approved will probably deal with cp somehow and nerf guard. not enough huge knights are sold yet and people are saving to buy them so I bet they stay the same for another year. I also expect blood angels captains to be nerfed.

The Long War podcast was talking about this last knight. Juice said for every table at nova there was at least 1 castellan knight so gw sold $170 per table in the event of a new model.

On the positive side he said there were GW reps openly talking about a change to CP regeneration and CP farms

 Vaktathi wrote:


Having jetbike captains in an army with a grand total of 8 or 9 CP is one thing, its another when they have access to double that, and meatshields that remove concerns about numbers which the jetbike captains would otherwise have to worry about.

Context is important and matters.

Custodes were specifically designed to work with allies. They have rules which sole purpose is to boost allies. If a Jetbike Captain is OP with allies it is OP, period.

If anything I find it unfair that Orks Necrons and Tau are stuck with only their own units, while others get to cherrypick and min-max to their heart's content. Arguing that giving everyone some way, if it's only ever so slight possibility, to get some allies is somehow too unbalanced is just nuts. As if the current system ain't busted already. That Imperium players should have the possibility to make their army from potentially hundreds of units, but that Orks players shouldn't be allowed to take even a single non-Ork faction unit.

Current faction based ally system ain't that fluffy anyway, as if there are no reason in the lore for fielding inter-faction armies - mercenaries, mind control, a brief ceasefire till the bigger threats gone or using a unit to represent something that doesn't have rules. For example, using daemon rules with some cool converted models to represent imperial ghosts fighting alongside the living.

I'd prefer a refinement of 7th eds system, one where every faction has at least some, if ever so restricted, chance to get units from other factions.

Hell, the current system is even restricting GW sales, since players have no insentive to buy models outside of their collected factions. An Eldar player has no reason to buy to buy an imperial knight, since they can't field it with their current collection.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I think a lot of the imbalance is built into the game with allies, lets be honest, Allies and OP units moves plastic. CP farms being what they are GW sold in US$ $145 in troops ($29x5) and another usually $30-50 in HQ so a cool $200 almost required to compete. combine this with the new knights and you have another almost required purchase so $170 or $370 in before space marine captains (though to be fair these are already in most collections and I think slamguinius was unintended to be that awesome for the points)

Give it a few months and chapter approved will probably deal with cp somehow and nerf guard. not enough huge knights are sold yet and people are saving to buy them so I bet they stay the same for another year. I also expect blood angels captains to be nerfed.

I like the idea of CP's but the game does not need so many, when you can have a command point for practically every decisions its just absurd. There should be a cap for them. I'd have a battalion and an 3 auxiliaries at the most, that way you can encourage armies instead of soup but you really don't need more than 8 or 9 command points, as most armies can't even get brigades other than guard orks etc. Brigades are exclusive and even if they can get a brigade, they won't have auxiliaries and they'll be an army of troops.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
If anything I find it unfair that Orks Necrons and Tau are stuck with only their own units, while others get to cherrypick and min-max to their heart's content. Arguing that giving everyone some way, if it's only ever so slight possibility, to get some allies is somehow too unbalanced is just nuts. As if the current system ain't busted already. That Imperium players should have the possibility to make their army from potentially hundreds of units, but that Orks players shouldn't be allowed to take even a single non-Ork faction unit.

Current faction based ally system ain't that fluffy anyway, as if there are no reason in the lore for fielding inter-faction armies - mercenaries, mind control, a brief ceasefire till the bigger threats gone or using a unit to represent something that doesn't have rules. For example, using daemon rules with some cool converted models to represent imperial ghosts fighting alongside the living.

I'd prefer a refinement of 7th eds system, one where every faction has at least some, if ever so restricted, chance to get units from other factions.

Hell, the current system is even restricting GW sales, since players have no insentive to buy models outside of their collected factions. An Eldar player has no reason to buy to buy an imperial knight, since they can't field it with their current collection.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

I actually think somehow GW knew with 6th and 7th allies people would buy small armies as allies. I wanted an ally for my orks of every faction possible, and made them. When GW took allieas from some factions I actually think it was part of the plan. People who bought small detachments of allies suddenly need to fill out those armies and buy more models if they want to keep being able to play them

*tin foil hat off*

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
If anything I find it unfair that Orks Necrons and Tau are stuck with only their own units, while others get to cherrypick and min-max to their heart's content. Arguing that giving everyone some way, if it's only ever so slight possibility, to get some allies is somehow too unbalanced is just nuts. As if the current system ain't busted already. That Imperium players should have the possibility to make their army from potentially hundreds of units, but that Orks players shouldn't be allowed to take even a single non-Ork faction unit.

Current faction based ally system ain't that fluffy anyway, as if there are no reason in the lore for fielding inter-faction armies - mercenaries, mind control, a brief ceasefire till the bigger threats gone or using a unit to represent something that doesn't have rules. For example, using daemon rules with some cool converted models to represent imperial ghosts fighting alongside the living.

I'd prefer a refinement of 7th eds system, one where every faction has at least some, if ever so restricted, chance to get units from other factions.

Hell, the current system is even restricting GW sales, since players have no insentive to buy models outside of their collected factions. An Eldar player has no reason to buy to buy an imperial knight, since they can't field it with their current collection.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

I actually think somehow GW knew with 6th and 7th allies people would buy small armies as allies. I wanted an ally for my orks of every faction possible, and made them. When GW took allieas from some factions I actually think it was part of the plan. People who bought small detachments of allies suddenly need to fill out those armies and buy more models if they want to keep being able to play them

*tin foil hat off*

That's standard 40k. We've all gone through this. formations saw me buy loads of drop pods, but I don't care about how dear they are as, I collect as well and in the future they might become a must have. You just have to ride the ups and downs of 40k changes. Plus GW have to do this now as they most likely won't be a model company in the future when 3D printing evolves. Also the reason for them focusing so much on being a publishing company.

Smash captain is useless without AM CP farm. The unit by itself is by no means broken.

 skchsan wrote:
Smash captain is useless without AM CP farm. The unit by itself is by no means broken.

Its weird its almost like IG infantry, BA smash captains and the Knight Castellan are all fine when contained to their own codex and only become an issue when combined in soup

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
If anything I find it unfair that Orks Necrons and Tau are stuck with only their own units, while others get to cherrypick and min-max to their heart's content. Arguing that giving everyone some way, if it's only ever so slight possibility, to get some allies is somehow too unbalanced is just nuts. As if the current system ain't busted already. That Imperium players should have the possibility to make their army from potentially hundreds of units, but that Orks players shouldn't be allowed to take even a single non-Ork faction unit.

Current faction based ally system ain't that fluffy anyway, as if there are no reason in the lore for fielding inter-faction armies - mercenaries, mind control, a brief ceasefire till the bigger threats gone or using a unit to represent something that doesn't have rules. For example, using daemon rules with some cool converted models to represent imperial ghosts fighting alongside the living.

I'd prefer a refinement of 7th eds system, one where every faction has at least some, if ever so restricted, chance to get units from other factions.

Hell, the current system is even restricting GW sales, since players have no insentive to buy models outside of their collected factions. An Eldar player has no reason to buy to buy an imperial knight, since they can't field it with their current collection.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

I actually think somehow GW knew with 6th and 7th allies people would buy small armies as allies. I wanted an ally for my orks of every faction possible, and made them. When GW took allieas from some factions I actually think it was part of the plan. People who bought small detachments of allies suddenly need to fill out those armies and buy more models if they want to keep being able to play them

*tin foil hat off*

That's standard 40k. We've all gone through this. formations saw me buy loads of drop pods, but I don't care about how dear they are as, I collect as well and in the future they might become a must have. You just have to ride the ups and downs of 40k changes. Plus GW have to do this now as they most likely won't be a model company in the future when 3D printing evolves. Also the reason for them focusing so much on being a publishing company.

true about units going up and down, but how quickly GW has put out kits and even whole armies recently I am not so sure. As for 3d printing... well I am unconvinced on it based on pricing alone. maybe for large collectors there will be value in it (but not many of thier players fall in that category. I can't really ever see it to be cheaper to buy the printer, plastic etc and being cheaper than just building an army if you just want 1 also the idea of pay over time vs a printer and filament. start with kill teams and a box or 2, scale up to bigger games with time and absorb a $5-600 army over 2 years.

 skchsan wrote:
Smash captain is useless without AM CP farm. The unit by itself is by no means broken.

Right. Guard's endless CP trick is the first thing that needs to be fixed.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Having jetbike captains in an army with a grand total of 8 or 9 CP is one thing, its another when they have access to double that, and meatshields that remove concerns about numbers which the jetbike captains would otherwise have to worry about.

Context is important and matters.

Custodes were specifically designed to work with allies. They have rules which sole purpose is to boost allies.

They have what, one ability that interacts with other factions? Maybe two if I'm forgetting something? Not a whole lot. Even if we accept this however, it doesn't mean that such is functioning as intended and that points costs are the issue.

If a Jetbike Captain is OP with allies it is OP, period.

Curiously, Custodes armies with jetbike captains that lack allies seem to be functional but not anything anyone complains about nor something that dominates top tournament placings.

We could also just replace Jetbike Captain with BA smashface captain and have the same equation and problem.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I was considering how to effect the Guard, without altering points, and I may have discovered an answer. What about:

1. Guard squads now have a ballistic skill of 5+, 4+ if no movement in last turn. Vet squads keep their 3+
2. Guard squads now need to have a commissar for every 3 squads. So you are forcing a point increase, but thematically it makes sense.
3. Scions get no changes, they cost a ton as is.
4. Every squad of Conscripts now requires a commissar, no matter the size.


This forces point increases, while maintaining lore and effectiveness. And btw, I rock guard, so these changes effect me. But still, I would be okay with these.

Thoughts?

Fixing Guard really needs to be an exercise in fixing CP. Something like generating 1 per round with a +1 if your Warlord is alive and on the table. Maybe a +1/turn if all your detachments are battle forged. Basically a modified version of Kill Teams' method.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
If anything I find it unfair that Orks Necrons and Tau are stuck with only their own units, while others get to cherrypick and min-max to their heart's content. Arguing that giving everyone some way, if it's only ever so slight possibility, to get some allies is somehow too unbalanced is just nuts. As if the current system ain't busted already. That Imperium players should have the possibility to make their army from potentially hundreds of units, but that Orks players shouldn't be allowed to take even a single non-Ork faction unit.

Current faction based ally system ain't that fluffy anyway, as if there are no reason in the lore for fielding inter-faction armies - mercenaries, mind control, a brief ceasefire till the bigger threats gone or using a unit to represent something that doesn't have rules. For example, using daemon rules with some cool converted models to represent imperial ghosts fighting alongside the living.

I'd prefer a refinement of 7th eds system, one where every faction has at least some, if ever so restricted, chance to get units from other factions.

Hell, the current system is even restricting GW sales, since players have no insentive to buy models outside of their collected factions. An Eldar player has no reason to buy to buy an imperial knight, since they can't field it with their current collection.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

I actually think somehow GW knew with 6th and 7th allies people would buy small armies as allies. I wanted an ally for my orks of every faction possible, and made them. When GW took allieas from some factions I actually think it was part of the plan. People who bought small detachments of allies suddenly need to fill out those armies and buy more models if they want to keep being able to play them

*tin foil hat off*

That's standard 40k. We've all gone through this. formations saw me buy loads of drop pods, but I don't care about how dear they are as, I collect as well and in the future they might become a must have. You just have to ride the ups and downs of 40k changes. Plus GW have to do this now as they most likely won't be a model company in the future when 3D printing evolves. Also the reason for them focusing so much on being a publishing company.

true about units going up and down, but how quickly GW has put out kits and even whole armies recently I am not so sure. As for 3d printing... well I am unconvinced on it based on pricing alone. maybe for large collectors there will be value in it (but not many of thier players fall in that category. I can't really ever see it to be cheaper to buy the printer, plastic etc and being cheaper than just building an army if you just want 1 also the idea of pay over time vs a printer and filament. start with kill teams and a box or 2, scale up to bigger games with time and absorb a $5-600 army over 2 years.

The more people buy the technology the cheaper it will be, remember how expensive mobile phones used to be. Also you don't need to buy one. Someone will buy one and everyone will buy it from people that do, like the Chinese market. It will be as cheap as a normal printer, its not a matter of if, but when.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Having jetbike captains in an army with a grand total of 8 or 9 CP is one thing, its another when they have access to double that, and meatshields that remove concerns about numbers which the jetbike captains would otherwise have to worry about.

Context is important and matters.

Custodes were specifically designed to work with allies. They have rules which sole purpose is to boost allies.

They have what, one ability that interacts with other factions? Maybe two if I'm forgetting something? Not a whole lot. Even if we accept this however, it doesn't mean that such is functioning as intended and that points costs are the issue.

If a Jetbike Captain is OP with allies it is OP, period.

Curiously, Custodes armies with jetbike captains that lack allies seem to be functional but not anything anyone complains about nor something that dominates top tournament placings.

We could also just replace Jetbike Captain with BA smashface captain and have the same equation and problem.

I ally guard with custodes as its lore wise but I never ally my jetbikes with my other armies its just OP and not justified and lame. I might ally a few custodian guard though.

 Crimson wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Smash captain is useless without AM CP farm. The unit by itself is by no means broken.

Right. Guard's endless CP trick is the first thing that needs to be fixed.

Ok lets say IG gets nerfed to a point it they are no longer worth taking. Now IG players may not be happy, but I don't care much about them. But what about those people that play BAs? Their whole thing was taking IG and cpts, if the CP farm is not there, they suddenly have no way to play, and it is not like they can make better meq lists, then say normal marines or even DAs.

Also what about factions that can soup without actually doing for the CP. Eldar soups, don't soup for CP, they soup for vect and craftworld stratagems on their Inari units.

Karol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Smash captain is useless without AM CP farm. The unit by itself is by no means broken.

Right. Guard's endless CP trick is the first thing that needs to be fixed.

Ok lets say IG gets nerfed to a point it they are no longer worth taking. Now IG players may not be happy, but I don't care much about them. But what about those people that play BAs? Their whole thing was taking IG and cpts, if the CP farm is not there, they suddenly have no way to play, and it is not like they can make better meq lists, then say normal marines or even DAs.

Also what about factions that can soup without actually doing for the CP. Eldar soups, don't soup for CP, they soup for vect and craftworld stratagems on their Inari units.

If CP farm is the crutch you need to make your army work, it's not a good army.

Which brings us to a whole different problem.

Honest Question: Make everything fair - Limit every list to 10 CP. No regen. Everyone gets 10, how you spend it is your problem.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Curiously, Custodes armies with jetbike captains that lack allies seem to be functional but not anything anyone complains about nor something that dominates top tournament placings.

We could also just replace Jetbike Captain with BA smashface captain and have the same equation and problem.

Because guard being able to generate infinite CP utterly breaks the CP system, so of course anything relying on CP for punch gets insane boost from that. How hard this simple thing can be to understand? The problem is not being able to ally guard in general, it is the carzy CP generation. Get rid of CP generating abilities, and soup issues are like 90% fixed.

This doesn't mean units like Jetbike Captains and Castellans cannot be OP in themselves. I am sure they would perform well in non-infinite CP meta as well, but obviously they cannot compete with the infinite-CP backed versions of themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest Question: Make everything fair - Limit every list to 10 CP. No regen. Everyone gets 10, how you spend it is your problem.

Make it scale with the game size and it sounds fine to me.

 skchsan wrote:
Smash captain is useless without AM CP farm. The unit by itself is by no means broken.

I disagree. Smash captains get work done with or without a AM CP farm. I wouldn't call him "broken" but he's clearly superior to other, similar choices. The AM farm does make him better, but it certainly doesn't take a 'useless' unit and turn it into a 'must take'.

The same can be said for Infantry. Infantry aren't broken. They are very, very efficient. Too efficient I would suggest. They are also not 'fine' in a mono Guard list either because they invalidate Conscripts that were clearly undercosted at 3ppm.

I understand why people get so defensive about the possibility of nerfing things in your army of choice but it is not healthy for the game long term and it is not healthy for your army. If a unit is nerfed, it means all those units it shares a codex with are buffed in relation to it. Wouldn't it be more fun for all you AM players if there was an actual decision to make when selecting a troop? If one troop had certain strengths over another but also had weaknesses? Perhaps an increase to the cost of Infantry could be accompanied by a buff to Commissars so they do something useful again? It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to do - have Commissars give -1 loss from morale or -2 if the unit is Conscripts. Now the negative of Conscripts not always accepting orders and their low LD is balanced by their cheaper cost and effective leadership shenanigans with Commissars in relation to Infantry.

Soup isn't going away. CP and Stratagems aren't going away. If the game was *perfectly* balanced, soup would not be an issue in and of itself. The only way soup armies will change is if the units that make the majority of their composition change too.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest Question: Make everything fair - Limit every list to 10 CP. No regen. Everyone gets 10, how you spend it is your problem.

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Karol wrote:

Ok lets say IG gets nerfed to a point it they are no longer worth taking. Now IG players may not be happy, but I don't care much about them. But what about those people that play BAs? Their whole thing was taking IG and cpts, if the CP farm is not there, they suddenly have no way to play, and it is not like they can make better meq lists, then say normal marines or even DAs.

Marines in general are bad and need boosting, and sooner couple of anomalously powerful things like Guilliman or Smash Captains stop inflating their tournament results sooner this can happen.

Also what about factions that can soup without actually doing for the CP. Eldar soups, don't soup for CP, they soup for vect and craftworld stratagems on their Inari units.

I'm not sure this is a huge problem though. If some stratagems are too good they can be nerfed. Ynnari of course need a total redesing, so that it is actually worth to field a full fluffy Ynnari army instead of just mini detachment for boosting one unit (They need to give weak buffs to many units instead of crazy powerful buff to one unit.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


I disagree. Smash captains get work done with or without a AM CP farm. I wouldn't call him "broken" but he's clearly superior to other, similar choices. The AM farm does make him better, but it certainly doesn't take a 'useless' unit and turn it into a 'must take'.

Yep. Even in a pure BA army he has easily the CP needed to oneshot a many times more expensive units. Seems kinda crazy to me. And of course this build is miles better than any other BA captain build, so it is poor internal balance.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Curiously, Custodes armies with jetbike captains that lack allies seem to be functional but not anything anyone complains about nor something that dominates top tournament placings.

We could also just replace Jetbike Captain with BA smashface captain and have the same equation and problem.

Because guard being able to generate infinite CP utterly breaks the CP system, so of course anything relying on CP for punch gets insane boost from that. How hard this simple thing can be to understand?

I get that it's an issue. I'm all for Kurov and GS being changed or even going away. However, it's not the only problem with allies, it's just one way they can be broken. We've had major sustained ongoing issues with allies going back to when they reintroduced them six years and three editions ago. The way GW is going about allies, as a mechanic to let people play with anything they want to slap on a table together, and not for balanced integration of distinct forces, encounters problems in many different respects.

The problem is not being able to ally guard in general, it is the carzy CP generation. Get rid of CP generating abilities, and soup issues are like 90% fixed.

It would solve some problems, absolutely, but its attacking a symptom not the underlying cause, and we would still have many issues. Guard CP farms aren't the core of all allies issues, one need only look at the Eldar soup armies present on top tables to see that.

Asmodios wrote:

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Soup has exactly the similar 'advantage' over mono army than Astra Militarum has over, say Harlequins. More stuff, more choices. This is how the game has always been. So until all factions have exactly equal amount of options crying about this sort of 'advantage' is foolish. You have limited points. Disadvantage of taking one thing is that now you have no points to take another thing.

Asmodios wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest Question: Make everything fair - Limit every list to 10 CP. No regen. Everyone gets 10, how you spend it is your problem.

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Additionally you'd see even more of the factions that have the really good stratagems, like doubleshooting, etc.
So long the stratagems are not balanced that would only somewhat solve the problem.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Soup has exactly the similar 'advantage' over mono army than Astra Militarum has over, say Harlequins. More stuff, more choices. This is how the game has always been. So until all factions have exactly equal amount of options crying about this sort of 'advantage' is foolish. You have limited points. Disadvantage of taking one thing is that now you have no points to take another thing.

No soup has a far greater advantage.
Every codex has built-in fluff weaknesses

Take for example tau which have lots of dakka but crappy CC capabilities. They might get an in-faction support such as kroot but these will never be able to match the CC efficiency as a CC designed codex like BA
^
This is the inherent imbalance. When you can soup armies with completely different roles and strategems for those roles you will always be able to make a more diverse and robust army list than any individual codex in the game. It also develops another issue in balance and this comes with points adjustment. Any attempt to balance the soup by changing the points disproportionately hurts the mono dex as compared to soup. What you get left with is a bunch of codexes that are useless except for 1-2 ingredients that are only effective in soup