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
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
Darsath wrote:
Read my post about smite. It already exists in the current rules, with the same issues. You're being disingenuous thinking this issue is solely with 7th edition. Even those who prefer 8th Edition to 7th wouldn't be convinced by your argument.


Read my reply to your post about smite. It's a bad mechanic in the current rules, but at least it's a lot less frequent than wound allocation in 7th.

This also proves how fixed allies are as a concept in 8th. Nobody complained about allies outside Wolfstar, and you had tons of insane shenanagins you could pull off, like Azrael camping indefinitely in Infantry + Conscripts and giving them all a 4++. That or Sanguine Priests giving a bunch of people FNP because reasons.

Notice none of these were really winning and this does go back to certain units just being broken?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Darsath wrote:


7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm.


It really didn't.

Yes, let's have terrible wound allocation rules that would more at home in a skirmish game when we have a game that can use hundreds of models. No.


As for the OT- Thank you! Soup is a blight on this game in both physical appearances of the armies and player perception of how this is a "normal" way to play the game. The sooner it gets dealt with the better. If GW insist on doing soup then the two things that need to happen are as follows: CP can only be used by whatever detachment generated them (Warlord determines what detachment gets the battleforged +3) and, to take a cue from Malifaux with their merc units is they have a minor cost increase if taken outside their parent faction- so those loyal 32 are now more expensive (once again, Warlord determines who parent faction is) when taken with IK.

Allies have existed in all editions except 5th. Get over yourself about thinking you play the right way.


Except they were handled sometimes better before.

Not to mention that with cp there could be a easy balancing rule implemented, but truth be told, soup makes money and gw has firstly interest in money.

You mean the CP giving out those special rules units used to just have by default while more broken allies shenanagins existed?

Also it proves that it was simply certain armies not being worth running. You'd be shocked if you looked at how many Daemonhunters units you could run in an another army, and simply didn't because they sucked.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 00:10:07


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Infinitum ad absurdum is a weak foundation for an argument, Peregrine. No-one expects or bothers to measure distances to an extreme precision other than you.

Why not? I'm not letting your unit fire if they're not in range or charge if they're not in range.


Sure, they should need to be in range, but measuring to the tiniest fraction of distance is ridiculous .
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Darsath wrote:
If you want to make a contest about equidistant models, you can always measure it out with whatever tools you have at hand, and the time it takes for you to measure and contest can be marked on your chess clock. You would only contest in important situations where the model removed matters, making it show up in less games than a player taking a psycher.


Oh, so you mean I can remove whatever model I want (even if it isn't the closest) and if you want to dispute that it's the closest you have to burn chess clock time to correct the measurement? Now the rule is "cheat unless it's significant enough to spend clock time"?

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
Dakka Veteran




 Peregrine wrote:
Darsath wrote:
If you want to make a contest about equidistant models, you can always measure it out with whatever tools you have at hand, and the time it takes for you to measure and contest can be marked on your chess clock. You would only contest in important situations where the model removed matters, making it show up in less games than a player taking a psycher.


Oh, so you mean I can remove whatever model I want (even if it isn't the closest) and if you want to dispute that it's the closest you have to burn chess clock time to correct the measurement? Now the rule is "cheat unless it's significant enough to spend clock time"?


While that would only take a few seconds to measure, you could always show it's not equidistant if 1 is 12 inches away, and other is 14. You wouldn't need finer measurements there, since the measuring tape is enough. You're convincing no one. You're literally trying anything to justify your argument ad hoc and off-the-cuff, and it's not working. But hey, if someone wants to do that, call the Judge and get them disqualified.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





I just got back from LVO and saw a crap ton of knights, 3/6 of my games were vs knights. Due to me having 6 haywire jetbikes, Doom, prisms, and hemlocks I was able to handle 2/3 of the knight lists (3rd player was far better than I and just smashed me in the face!). This was my first tournament and knew that for the most part I could handle a knight, but in fact was able to handle multiple knights. That's simply because of haywire (with the prisms/hemlocks finishing the job)

So you have aeldari soup to get haywire bikes, because they handle knights. And knight players hate it, so you can't nerf knights too much because than haywire aeldari will rise higher. You can't really nerf haywire without nerfing knights or the knight dominance will continue.

The problem I see is then that other lists just have a much harder time taking out the knights (no access to doom, jinx or haywire). So I think there needs to be a major rebalance of the other two.

Nerf knights to make it harder to currently do what they do, I just don't know how to do that outside of not allowing an invuln of better than 4+ and not using strats from other detachments. Likewise, nerf Doom to only allow Craftworld to take advantage of it. Now both knights and haywire drop down, making other armies a little more equal. It would be a good start IMHO.

GW really needs to look at how many armies are using knights.....I don't know if that is really a good thing.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 bullyboy wrote:
I just got back from LVO and saw a crap ton of knights, 3/6 of my games were vs knights. Due to me having 6 haywire jetbikes, Doom, prisms, and hemlocks I was able to handle 2/3 of the knight lists (3rd player was far better than I and just smashed me in the face!). This was my first tournament and knew that for the most part I could handle a knight, but in fact was able to handle multiple knights. That's simply because of haywire (with the prisms/hemlocks finishing the job)

So you have aeldari soup to get haywire bikes, because they handle knights. And knight players hate it, so you can't nerf knights too much because than haywire aeldari will rise higher. You can't really nerf haywire without nerfing knights or the knight dominance will continue.

The problem I see is then that other lists just have a much harder time taking out the knights (no access to doom, jinx or haywire). So I think there needs to be a major rebalance of the other two.

Nerf knights to make it harder to currently do what they do, I just don't know how to do that outside of not allowing an invuln of better than 4+ and not using strats from other detachments. Likewise, nerf Doom to only allow Craftworld to take advantage of it. Now both knights and haywire drop down, making other armies a little more equal. It would be a good start IMHO.

GW really needs to look at how many armies are using knights.....I don't know if that is really a good thing.


There is always the possibility that so many people were using knights because they were so successful and popular before, and they're just riding that wave. But I can't be certain without being there. Either way, what you say is true. The game is in a state where you have to make multiple changes at the same time to re-balance the game (haywire, doom, Knights, CPs etc) without making other stuff OP or useless. I think big models with strong Invulns should always be a big no-no though. If they got good invulns, then they would need to be crazy expensive to justify it.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

The problem is Castellans, Ynnari, and how they receive advantages through cheap CP, cheap units, and the IGOUGO system.

Typically taking super heavies was a liability, because if you lose first turn you risk getting degraded or taken off the table. Knights get around this by taking more knights, being able to stand back up, and ignoring degradation.

Ynnari is an index ability that grants free actions, which breaks IGOUGO on it's own.

By increasing the costs of how easy it is to achieve these things you might address the overall issue.

   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.


Another aspect of allies that no one is discussing is that they have double the number of stratagems to choose from than the opposing mono list. This is a pretty big issue going forward.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Darsath wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.


Another aspect of allies that no one is discussing is that they have double the number of stratagems to choose from than the opposing mono list. This is a pretty big issue going forward.

It's one that I felt GSC handled fairly well with Brood Brothers, and I hope to see become the norm.

Guard Detachments generate half the CPs they normally would.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




You know for all you soup is a new thing and it's killing the game people. In 2nd Edition your army could have up to 20%(IIRC) of its points in allies.

What would you people complain about if GW just reissued the codices as "Imperium" that lists all of the units already in the existing codices? Or how about a new codex called Ynnari that just takes all the CWE and Harlie units? I can see this last one actually happening.

I don't think the problem is soup per se. I think that it's a lack of viable options for the various soups. If you want to run a mono dex army then that's your choice. But complaining that soup is the problem when you could soup (except Necrons and Tau) and choose not to then you're just bringing a knife to a gun fight. Can you win? It's possible. But the smart money would be on the gun.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know for all you soup is a new thing and it's killing the game people. In 2nd Edition your army could have up to 20%(IIRC) of its points in allies.

Which has what to do with anything?

What would you people complain about if GW just reissued the codices as "Imperium" that lists all of the units already in the existing codices? Or how about a new codex called Ynnari that just takes all the CWE and Harlie units? I can see this last one actually happening.

I don't think the problem is soup per se. I think that it's a lack of viable options for the various soups. If you want to run a mono dex army then that's your choice. But complaining that soup is the problem when you could soup (except Necrons and Tau) and choose not to then you're just bringing a knife to a gun fight. Can you win? It's possible. But the smart money would be on the gun.

We know and have known for some time the issue is soup. There's still pushback with regards to it for whatever silly reason.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know for all you soup is a new thing and it's killing the game people. In 2nd Edition your army could have up to 20%(IIRC) of its points in allies.

What would you people complain about if GW just reissued the codices as "Imperium" that lists all of the units already in the existing codices? Or how about a new codex called Ynnari that just takes all the CWE and Harlie units? I can see this last one actually happening.

I don't think the problem is soup per se. I think that it's a lack of viable options for the various soups. If you want to run a mono dex army then that's your choice. But complaining that soup is the problem when you could soup (except Necrons and Tau) and choose not to then you're just bringing a knife to a gun fight. Can you win? It's possible. But the smart money would be on the gun.


Well, I play Necrons so yeah. I can't soup obv. But even if I could, allies in other editions have had limitations and issues of their own. Command Points and stratagems also didn't exist, which exacerbate the problem further by providing soup lists access to cheap command points and simply more stratagems than their mono-list counterparts (i.e. a Mono-marine list can only use marine stratagems, but a marine and mechanicus list can use marine and mechanicus stratagems as they want).
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Blastaar wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Infinitum ad absurdum is a weak foundation for an argument, Peregrine. No-one expects or bothers to measure distances to an extreme precision other than you.

Why not? I'm not letting your unit fire if they're not in range or charge if they're not in range.


Sure, they should need to be in range, but measuring to the tiniest fraction of distance is ridiculous .

If you're a fraction of an inch off, you don't get to attack. Simple as that.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Infinitum ad absurdum is a weak foundation for an argument, Peregrine. No-one expects or bothers to measure distances to an extreme precision other than you.

Why not? I'm not letting your unit fire if they're not in range or charge if they're not in range.


Sure, they should need to be in range, but measuring to the tiniest fraction of distance is ridiculous .

If you're a fraction of an inch off, you don't get to attack. Simple as that.


I'm not sure I understand your position here. Are you complaining that you have to measure distances?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.

...because the Castellan with Cawls Wrath and the fixings still wouldn't be problematic.

Get real. The issue isn't picking and choosing "to cover weaknesses". The issue is picking and choosing the broken units that don't actually have weaknesses, like those Castellans and Infantry (in before you chime in that 10 man squads is a weakness. LOL)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 02:08:57


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know for all you soup is a new thing and it's killing the game people. In 2nd Edition your army could have up to 20%(IIRC) of its points in allies.
2E was a very different game however in almost every respect, with substantially fewer issues in this regard and played at a dramatically smaller scale.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Not Online!!! wrote:
truth be told, soup makes money and gw has firstly interest in money.


This is exactly why GW hasn't done anything to fix it. Every imperium player has to buy 3 boxes of guard or 2 boxes of admech, 2 HQs, and the codex for those whether they actually want to play that army or not. If it wasn't so profitable, it would've been fixed by now. That's why they created allies and then changed the allies system to allow twice as many allied factions as before even though everyone bitched when it was just one allied detachment allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

The problem is Castellans, Ynnari, and how they receive advantages through cheap CP, cheap units, and the IGOUGO system.

Typically taking super heavies was a liability, because if you lose first turn you risk getting degraded or taken off the table. Knights get around this by taking more knights, being able to stand back up, and ignoring degradation.

Ynnari is an index ability that grants free actions, which breaks IGOUGO on it's own.

By increasing the costs of how easy it is to achieve these things you might address the overall issue.



If soup wasn't a problem, you would see all knight lists with castellans, pure IG with 200 guardsmen, or pure custodes jetbikes doing well in tournaments. The castellan isn't the problem, the fact that it can be bubblewrapped with cheap objective holders while custodes bikes zoom all over the place grabbing far away objectives and tying up enemy units is the problem. The availability of 3-5 extra CP to use knight stratagems is the problem. The fact that you can't accurately adjust the cost of any of the units I mentioned in a way that would be fair both in a mono list and a soup list is the problem.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 02:39:14


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.

...because the Castellan with Cawls Wrath and the fixings still wouldn't be problematic.

Pointed appropriately and not getting CPs that you wouldn't see normally? It might still be a problem--but then we'd know that it was, even in 'ideal' circumstances.

Get real. The issue isn't picking and choosing "to cover weaknesses". The issue is picking and choosing the broken units that don't actually have weaknesses, like those Castellans and Infantry (in before you chime in that 10 man squads is a weakness. LOL)

Again:
Without the CPs from soup and pointed appropriately, the Castellan with Cawl's Wrath(a relic--which is a whole other kettle of fish that needs to be addressed) could be made into a more reasonable item.

And I like that however long into this crazy "infantry squads are the apocalypse" thing we are you're still misrepresenting the argument with regards to Infantry Squads. "10 man squads" is a weakness when one looks at the static point costs and the inflexible nature of the composition of an Infantry Squad(10 models strong no +/-. Composed of 1 Sergeant with a specific weapon loadout, up to 1 model with vox, another with a special, two as a weapons team and the rest are just straight lasguns) compared to other choices which get a sort of 'sliding scale' whether it be more models with a tie-in to more special/heavy options or the ability to start off at a lower model count for a cheaper squad points cost.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 02:46:31


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Guardsmen are an issue with or without soup because they are so undercosted.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Darsath wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know for all you soup is a new thing and it's killing the game people. In 2nd Edition your army could have up to 20%(IIRC) of its points in allies.

What would you people complain about if GW just reissued the codices as "Imperium" that lists all of the units already in the existing codices? Or how about a new codex called Ynnari that just takes all the CWE and Harlie units? I can see this last one actually happening.

I don't think the problem is soup per se. I think that it's a lack of viable options for the various soups. If you want to run a mono dex army then that's your choice. But complaining that soup is the problem when you could soup (except Necrons and Tau) and choose not to then you're just bringing a knife to a gun fight. Can you win? It's possible. But the smart money would be on the gun.


Well, I play Necrons so yeah. I can't soup obv. But even if I could, allies in other editions have had limitations and issues of their own. Command Points and stratagems also didn't exist, which exacerbate the problem further by providing soup lists access to cheap command points and simply more stratagems than their mono-list counterparts (i.e. a Mono-marine list can only use marine stratagems, but a marine and mechanicus list can use marine and mechanicus stratagems as they want).


Even back then (in 2nd) you had special cards that you paid points for. IIRC they were mostly weapons that your model had access to for the entire game. There were some one shot exceptions but in general you had them all game. And if you had allies they could take the special cards for their armies as well.

The big difference between then and now regarding allies is the lack of restraint under the current system. Like I said, back then there was a point limit as a percent of the game level. So a 2000 pt game would allow 400 pts of allies max. I think that limitation would be enough to rein in soup while still allowing a little extra flavor to your army.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.


Remember when Shadowswords were all the rage? Those required no soup. They got replaced by a more reliable analogue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Toofast wrote:


If soup wasn't a problem, you would see all knight lists with castellans, pure IG with 200 guardsmen, or pure custodes jetbikes doing well in tournaments. The castellan isn't the problem, the fact that it can be bubblewrapped with cheap objective holders while custodes bikes zoom all over the place grabbing far away objectives and tying up enemy units is the problem. The availability of 3-5 extra CP to use knight stratagems is the problem. The fact that you can't accurately adjust the cost of any of the units I mentioned in a way that would be fair both in a mono list and a soup list is the problem.


Shadowswords were basically Castellans before Castellans existed. Bubble wrap and all. 200 IG don't get used, because it's unwieldy. Custodes Jetbikes spam was quite popular for quite some time.

CP is the enabler. Not the root cause. Soup is an incredibly broad thing to near when a very narrow set of units poses the problem.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/11 03:37:02


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.

...because the Castellan with Cawls Wrath and the fixings still wouldn't be problematic.

Pointed appropriately and not getting CPs that you wouldn't see normally? It might still be a problem--but then we'd know that it was, even in 'ideal' circumstances.

Get real. The issue isn't picking and choosing "to cover weaknesses". The issue is picking and choosing the broken units that don't actually have weaknesses, like those Castellans and Infantry (in before you chime in that 10 man squads is a weakness. LOL)

Again:
Without the CPs from soup and pointed appropriately, the Castellan with Cawl's Wrath(a relic--which is a whole other kettle of fish that needs to be addressed) could be made into a more reasonable item.

And I like that however long into this crazy "infantry squads are the apocalypse" thing we are you're still misrepresenting the argument with regards to Infantry Squads. "10 man squads" is a weakness when one looks at the static point costs and the inflexible nature of the composition of an Infantry Squad(10 models strong no +/-. Composed of 1 Sergeant with a specific weapon loadout, up to 1 model with vox, another with a special, two as a weapons team and the rest are just straight lasguns) compared to other choices which get a sort of 'sliding scale' whether it be more models with a tie-in to more special/heavy options or the ability to start off at a lower model count for a cheaper squad points cost.

Except banning allies doesn't fix the external problem of the Castellan. So by that, you admit the actual issue is points. When units are costed appropriately, nobody seems to care when they are allied in, as you aren't getting anymore of an advantage than usual.
Ally in only certain units that are broken and we get complaints about the whole system. It's like saying 6th edition Tyranids were broken because they had Flyrants.

Also I knew you would bring up those "static" costs for a unit that has a minimum cost closer to the minimum of most units that have 6-8 point models. Don't make me laugh about your "forced 10 man groups". It's honestly stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Toofast wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
truth be told, soup makes money and gw has firstly interest in money.


This is exactly why GW hasn't done anything to fix it. Every imperium player has to buy 3 boxes of guard or 2 boxes of admech, 2 HQs, and the codex for those whether they actually want to play that army or not. If it wasn't so profitable, it would've been fixed by now. That's why they created allies and then changed the allies system to allow twice as many allied factions as before even though everyone bitched when it was just one allied detachment allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

The problem is Castellans, Ynnari, and how they receive advantages through cheap CP, cheap units, and the IGOUGO system.

Typically taking super heavies was a liability, because if you lose first turn you risk getting degraded or taken off the table. Knights get around this by taking more knights, being able to stand back up, and ignoring degradation.

Ynnari is an index ability that grants free actions, which breaks IGOUGO on it's own.

By increasing the costs of how easy it is to achieve these things you might address the overall issue.



If soup wasn't a problem, you would see all knight lists with castellans, pure IG with 200 guardsmen, or pure custodes jetbikes doing well in tournaments. The castellan isn't the problem, the fact that it can be bubblewrapped with cheap objective holders while custodes bikes zoom all over the place grabbing far away objectives and tying up enemy units is the problem. The availability of 3-5 extra CP to use knight stratagems is the problem. The fact that you can't accurately adjust the cost of any of the units I mentioned in a way that would be fair both in a mono list and a soup list is the problem.

You answer your own premise, actually. Why just take 1-2 broken units if I can make an army with 6 of them?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 03:47:40


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.

...because the Castellan with Cawls Wrath and the fixings still wouldn't be problematic.

Pointed appropriately and not getting CPs that you wouldn't see normally? It might still be a problem--but then we'd know that it was, even in 'ideal' circumstances.

Get real. The issue isn't picking and choosing "to cover weaknesses". The issue is picking and choosing the broken units that don't actually have weaknesses, like those Castellans and Infantry (in before you chime in that 10 man squads is a weakness. LOL)

Again:
Without the CPs from soup and pointed appropriately, the Castellan with Cawl's Wrath(a relic--which is a whole other kettle of fish that needs to be addressed) could be made into a more reasonable item.

And I like that however long into this crazy "infantry squads are the apocalypse" thing we are you're still misrepresenting the argument with regards to Infantry Squads. "10 man squads" is a weakness when one looks at the static point costs and the inflexible nature of the composition of an Infantry Squad(10 models strong no +/-. Composed of 1 Sergeant with a specific weapon loadout, up to 1 model with vox, another with a special, two as a weapons team and the rest are just straight lasguns) compared to other choices which get a sort of 'sliding scale' whether it be more models with a tie-in to more special/heavy options or the ability to start off at a lower model count for a cheaper squad points cost.

Except banning allies doesn't fix the external problem of the Castellan. So by that, you admit the actual issue is points. When units are costed appropriately, nobody seems to care when they are allied in, as you aren't getting anymore of an advantage than usual.
Ally in only certain units that are broken and we get complaints about the whole system. It's like saying 6th edition Tyranids were broken because they had Flyrants.

Also I knew you would bring up those "static" costs for a unit that has a minimum cost closer to the minimum of most units that have 6-8 point models. Don't make me laugh about your "forced 10 man groups". It's honestly stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Toofast wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
truth be told, soup makes money and gw has firstly interest in money.


This is exactly why GW hasn't done anything to fix it. Every imperium player has to buy 3 boxes of guard or 2 boxes of admech, 2 HQs, and the codex for those whether they actually want to play that army or not. If it wasn't so profitable, it would've been fixed by now. That's why they created allies and then changed the allies system to allow twice as many allied factions as before even though everyone bitched when it was just one allied detachment allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

The problem is Castellans, Ynnari, and how they receive advantages through cheap CP, cheap units, and the IGOUGO system.

Typically taking super heavies was a liability, because if you lose first turn you risk getting degraded or taken off the table. Knights get around this by taking more knights, being able to stand back up, and ignoring degradation.

Ynnari is an index ability that grants free actions, which breaks IGOUGO on it's own.

By increasing the costs of how easy it is to achieve these things you might address the overall issue.



If soup wasn't a problem, you would see all knight lists with castellans, pure IG with 200 guardsmen, or pure custodes jetbikes doing well in tournaments. The castellan isn't the problem, the fact that it can be bubblewrapped with cheap objective holders while custodes bikes zoom all over the place grabbing far away objectives and tying up enemy units is the problem. The availability of 3-5 extra CP to use knight stratagems is the problem. The fact that you can't accurately adjust the cost of any of the units I mentioned in a way that would be fair both in a mono list and a soup list is the problem.

You answer your own premise, actually. Why just take 1-2 broken units if I can make an army with 6 of them?


The problem of the castellan is impossible to fix when you're simultaneously trying to figure out an appropriate point cost for it in both pure IK lists and 3 detachments lists with loyal 32 bubblewrap and custodes jetbikes. That is the problem, there's too many variables with soup to give something a proper point cost. It would either be unusable in a non-soup list, or OP in a soup list. I don't know why it's so hard for people to comprehend that. Units are unable to be costed properly because their value greatly changes depending on what kind of list they're used in. You don't think it would be easier to put a proper point cost on guardsmen or a castellan if they couldn't be used together? That is objectively wrong as the more variables you have, the more difficult it is to determine how much something should cost. Either you're pretending you don't understand that simple, logical fact, or you're willfully ignorant for the sake of argument.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You answer your own premise, actually. Why just take 1-2 broken units if I can make an army with 6 of them?


Because if it's just about broken units being overpowered individually then one of those 6 broken units is the most broken one, and you'd just spam that best unit. But instead we see soup lists, which start with the most overpowered thing and then pick the best support units out of multiple codices to let the list do things that the first unit's faction wouldn't normally be able to do. You start with your broken Castellan, and then you add a broken CP battery and a broken melee death star. Take away soup and you have to take multiple Castellans instead, running straight into the IK faction's weaknesses of objective control and CP supply. It's the combination that takes it to next-level broken, even if the individual units are all the same power level.

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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Toofast wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.

...because the Castellan with Cawls Wrath and the fixings still wouldn't be problematic.

Pointed appropriately and not getting CPs that you wouldn't see normally? It might still be a problem--but then we'd know that it was, even in 'ideal' circumstances.

Get real. The issue isn't picking and choosing "to cover weaknesses". The issue is picking and choosing the broken units that don't actually have weaknesses, like those Castellans and Infantry (in before you chime in that 10 man squads is a weakness. LOL)

Again:
Without the CPs from soup and pointed appropriately, the Castellan with Cawl's Wrath(a relic--which is a whole other kettle of fish that needs to be addressed) could be made into a more reasonable item.

And I like that however long into this crazy "infantry squads are the apocalypse" thing we are you're still misrepresenting the argument with regards to Infantry Squads. "10 man squads" is a weakness when one looks at the static point costs and the inflexible nature of the composition of an Infantry Squad(10 models strong no +/-. Composed of 1 Sergeant with a specific weapon loadout, up to 1 model with vox, another with a special, two as a weapons team and the rest are just straight lasguns) compared to other choices which get a sort of 'sliding scale' whether it be more models with a tie-in to more special/heavy options or the ability to start off at a lower model count for a cheaper squad points cost.

Except banning allies doesn't fix the external problem of the Castellan. So by that, you admit the actual issue is points. When units are costed appropriately, nobody seems to care when they are allied in, as you aren't getting anymore of an advantage than usual.
Ally in only certain units that are broken and we get complaints about the whole system. It's like saying 6th edition Tyranids were broken because they had Flyrants.

Also I knew you would bring up those "static" costs for a unit that has a minimum cost closer to the minimum of most units that have 6-8 point models. Don't make me laugh about your "forced 10 man groups". It's honestly stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Toofast wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
truth be told, soup makes money and gw has firstly interest in money.


This is exactly why GW hasn't done anything to fix it. Every imperium player has to buy 3 boxes of guard or 2 boxes of admech, 2 HQs, and the codex for those whether they actually want to play that army or not. If it wasn't so profitable, it would've been fixed by now. That's why they created allies and then changed the allies system to allow twice as many allied factions as before even though everyone bitched when it was just one allied detachment allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

The problem is Castellans, Ynnari, and how they receive advantages through cheap CP, cheap units, and the IGOUGO system.

Typically taking super heavies was a liability, because if you lose first turn you risk getting degraded or taken off the table. Knights get around this by taking more knights, being able to stand back up, and ignoring degradation.

Ynnari is an index ability that grants free actions, which breaks IGOUGO on it's own.

By increasing the costs of how easy it is to achieve these things you might address the overall issue.



If soup wasn't a problem, you would see all knight lists with castellans, pure IG with 200 guardsmen, or pure custodes jetbikes doing well in tournaments. The castellan isn't the problem, the fact that it can be bubblewrapped with cheap objective holders while custodes bikes zoom all over the place grabbing far away objectives and tying up enemy units is the problem. The availability of 3-5 extra CP to use knight stratagems is the problem. The fact that you can't accurately adjust the cost of any of the units I mentioned in a way that would be fair both in a mono list and a soup list is the problem.

You answer your own premise, actually. Why just take 1-2 broken units if I can make an army with 6 of them?


The problem of the castellan is impossible to fix when you're simultaneously trying to figure out an appropriate point cost for it in both pure IK lists and 3 detachments lists with loyal 32 bubblewrap and custodes jetbikes. That is the problem, there's too many variables with soup to give something a proper point cost. It would either be unusable in a non-soup list, or OP in a soup list. I don't know why it's so hard for people to comprehend that. Units are unable to be costed properly because their value greatly changes depending on what kind of list they're used in. You don't think it would be easier to put a proper point cost on guardsmen or a castellan if they couldn't be used together? That is objectively wrong as the more variables you have, the more difficult it is to determine how much something should cost. Either you're pretending you don't understand that simple, logical fact, or you're willfully ignorant for the sake of argument.

If you don't think it's easy to increase the cost for those units that mathematically excel as is, I don't know what to tell you.

And of course units will have differing value depending what list their in, as obviously you could make lack in infantry killing or tank killing upon list construction. However, if a 60 point units was on average blowing up Rhinos and Wave Serpents in a single go with 60" range and not requiring LOS, it doesn't matter what kind of army I can take it in, does it?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Darsath wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Infinitum ad absurdum is a weak foundation for an argument, Peregrine. No-one expects or bothers to measure distances to an extreme precision other than you.

Why not? I'm not letting your unit fire if they're not in range or charge if they're not in range.


Sure, they should need to be in range, but measuring to the tiniest fraction of distance is ridiculous .

If you're a fraction of an inch off, you don't get to attack. Simple as that.


I'm not sure I understand your position here. Are you complaining that you have to measure distances?


If this was directed towards me, not at all. I was pointing out the silliness of Peregrine's position on measuring range down to the .0000000000001mm. That amount of precision is far beyond reasonable for a game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You answer your own premise, actually. Why just take 1-2 broken units if I can make an army with 6 of them?


Because if it's just about broken units being overpowered individually then one of those 6 broken units is the most broken one, and you'd just spam that best unit. But instead we see soup lists, which start with the most overpowered thing and then pick the best support units out of multiple codices to let the list do things that the first unit's faction wouldn't normally be able to do. You start with your broken Castellan, and then you add a broken CP battery and a broken melee death star. Take away soup and you have to take multiple Castellans instead, running straight into the IK faction's weaknesses of objective control and CP supply. It's the combination that takes it to next-level broken, even if the individual units are all the same power level.

Ah, so you already answered part of this via:
1. Rule of 3 existing now
2. You can't take 6 Castellans in a 2000 point list anyway
3. Objective Control not mattering when you can eliminate objective holders in a single round of shooting

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Daedalus81 wrote:
200 IG don't get used, because it's unwieldy.


Yes, and that demonstrates the problem with soup. Guardsmen alone have problems scaling up, even if they're overpowered at 4ppm there's a limit to how much you can abuse them. At some point you're going to have to take other units to fill out the rest of your list. Without soup that means taking more IG units and having to use the second-tier units in the codex. With soup you have no such problem, you just take the most overpowered thing from another codex or two and keep adding top-tier units even though your original codex can no longer supply them.

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 us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Easier =/= better. Soup allows you more options and most people agree more options are better than fewer options. Soup even allows fluffy armies unlike mono dex armies. Soup allows you to field a Knight with it's escorting infantry units and its mechanical support troops. Soup allows you to have a Daemon Prince to be surrounded by chaos troops they used to lead and some cultist and still have plenty of variety of lesser daemons to call upon. What you say you'd like to see how well White Scar bikers work with Ravenwing bikers sorry mono dexers can't be done but soup says enjoy yourself.

It's time to grow up people. The mono army days have come and gone.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: