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.

"You gain no CP for Detachments that are not of the same faction as your warlord."

e.g. Alaitoc warlord gets no CP from ynarri detachment. Or something to deincentivize soup without removing choice.

I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.

Daedalus81 wrote:
"You gain no CP for Detachments that are not of the same faction as your warlord."

e.g. Alaitoc warlord gets no CP from ynarri detachment. Or something to deincentivize soup without removing choice.

oh no, You lose out of the 1 CP from a Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead detachment...
It doesn't change anything.

Imperial armies wouldn't be effected either. Guard warlord, 2 batallions + Soup, missing out on 1 CP.

Ordana wrote:
Limiting armies to 1 codex in the current state of the game does nothing to stop the topic of 'Guard keeps getting nerfed'.

Every Imperial army is running Something + Guard because guard is simply the most cost effective codex even at low point investments.
If you limit armies to 1 codex this simply changes to everyone running guard, because they are the most cost effective codex.

Single codex armies start working at the same time as soup armies stop always taking IG.
Namely when there is better balance and Guard are not always the defacto answer for everything except melee combat.

Yeah, that's true. My take is that it's easier to balance every army against every other army than it is to balance every individual unit than every other unit. And because of the way GW built the detachment/army rules in this edition, they have to do the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.

I'm becoming less and less certain you actually play this game regularly.

Martel732 wrote:
I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.

Assault armies are getting better and better at getting past your screen and lots of stuff charges the turn it comes into play so you don't get to soften it up.
Having some form of unit capable of tying up a unit while you shoot the rest is valuable.

Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.

Assault armies are getting better and better at getting past your screen and lots of stuff charges the turn it comes into play so you don't get to soften it up.
Having some form of unit capable of tying up a unit while you shoot the rest is valuable.

Yep. They complement each other.

9" charges suck and tau overwatch is brutal. Seems like a loser to me.

Martel732 wrote:
9" charges suck and tau overwatch is brutal. Seems like a loser to me.

Bad assault armies gamble on a 9" charge

good ones have re-rolls or longer charge distances.

Yow, lots of people getting well eggy in here. 5ppm for a Guardsman doesn’t seem unreasonable to me at all. But then i’m a filthy non-competitive player so i’d be more interested in their PL taking a bump. Seems to me that a lot of changes to the mechanics between 7th and 8th, combined with stats remaining mostly the same as they were, has benefitted Guardsmen fairly significantly.

Absolutely on my arse laughing at the guy earlier on in the thread claiming that the LR Punisher is basically the same as a handful of Tactical Marines, mind.

Ordana wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
"You gain no CP for Detachments that are not of the same faction as your warlord."

e.g. Alaitoc warlord gets no CP from ynarri detachment. Or something to deincentivize soup without removing choice.

oh no, You lose out of the 1 CP from a Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead detachment...
It doesn't change anything.

Imperial armies wouldn't be effected either. Guard warlord, 2 batallions + Soup, missing out on 1 CP.

To be fair I don't see IG soup being as big a problem as some others, but that could change when Custodes are explored more. You could knock it up to -1CP so 2CP deficit.

I'm not trying to solve the problem right this moment, but instead propose a less hard line view.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to find a single post where I say that Marines need to run soup to be good.

I'm still hunting for a reason to dig through your posting history when a bunch of people have said that already, and you're making this entirely about you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ordana wrote:
Limiting armies to 1 codex in the current state of the game does nothing to stop the topic of 'Guard keeps getting nerfed'.

Every Imperial army is running Something + Guard because guard is simply the most cost effective codex even at low point investments.
If you limit armies to 1 codex this simply changes to everyone running guard, because they are the most cost effective codex.

Single codex armies start working at the same time as soup armies stop always taking IG.
Namely when there is better balance and Guard are not always the defacto answer for everything except melee combat.

Here is your thread winner, right here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.

Melee is good, it just can't be your only thing.

You can have an army that is purely focused on shooting.
You cannot have an army that is purely focused on melee.

Doesn't mean melee is not good.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.

"Partly"?

It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.

One side of mouth: "Let's fix the problems with souping."
Other side of mouth: "Space Marines are weak but that's intended & because they can soup in Guard."

You specifically tried to call me out as being hypocritical.
So yeah, I am "making this about me".

Not totally disagreeing with 5ppm as guardsmen are very points efficient, but at that price point guardsmen are getting awfully close to heavy chaff troops like skitarii rangers. An extra 2ppm would bag you a better gun, better BS, better armour (and invul), optional smaller unit size, swapping orders for canticles and getting access to op traits like stygies VIII.

Is imperial soup the only brand that people have a problem with? chaos still has multiple options for cheaper screens, with easy access to fearless, and no signs of being inflated any time soon.

Honestly I see the problem as two fold (Mind you I don't have much XP in the IG matchup).

- Infantry are really good in codexes that don't have reliable bubblewrap and / or cheap troops.
- Imperial Guard lists are buff centric, and by nerfing the core unit in their lists you are also *essentially* reducing the power of commissars and the like.

Be aware that Guard players are viewing this as a penalty for being used * Outside * their codex, this penalty means nothing to the non-guard lists, but a lot to their own.
Once these 'problematic' units have been reduced in strength, power gamers will just move on to the next cheapest chaff unit (ie, MSU Scout units) - leaving the original codex feeling like its being punished for a neighbour stealing their toys.

For example if Imperial armies could take Ork Boyz instead of infantry I'm sure that they'd be taken. Does that mean Boyz are strong? Or does that mean Boyz are strong when taken out of the context of a Codex.

That leads us onto the step of fixing the problem. How do we reduce the strength of a unit outside of their own codex aside from removing their use (Which I see as bad game design)?
I feel like Daedalus81's suggestion of removing CP received from mixed detachments is on the right path, but as pointed out there are ways to game around it.

What if soup users were penalised -1 CP per 'unit' that does not match the faction your Warlord was in?
Or instead received a fairly substantial leadership reduction?

 Marmatag wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.

Melee is good, it just can't be your only thing.

You can have an army that is purely focused on shooting.
You cannot have an army that is purely focused on melee.

Doesn't mean melee is not good.

Orks say "Shottin Waz dat?" In this edition.

The game doesn't have enough granularity down at the low cost price point. The unfortunate fact is that we don't have fractional costs and it's much better for the game for something to be slightly too expensive than too cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
9" charges suck and tau overwatch is brutal. Seems like a loser to me.

Bad assault armies gamble on a 9" charge

good ones have re-rolls or longer charge distances.

Rerolled 9" charges are still less than 50%. As I said, loser. Especially when they have to assault what your opponent wants them to.

Martel732 wrote:
I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.

I play a 80% melee Khorne CSM/Daemons list. I haven't lost a game in a few months now. Against a variety of play styles, and opponents. It's not even the same list every time, either. I usually switch things up.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Eldar still have Dark Reapers. Your whining is irrelevant.

But you see I'm not complaining about my army except for fluff wise...but that's been an issue since 3rd ed.

No on your hand....it is constant irrelevant whining if we want to be real.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)

You pay 73/150 points for those buffs--but you also get a 4+ chance to shunt wounds over onto your GEQ models in 3".

Those "single target buffs" are also caveated. FRFSRF only applies to Lasguns and Hellguns, Take Aim only does reroll hit rolls of 1(unless you're Cadians--in which case if you get Take Aim AND have stayed still that turn, it's reroll all Hits), and Bring It Down is reroll Wound rolls of 1.

How in the feth is that "increasing the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
I'm waiting for mortar team nerfs, I see every TOURNAMENT GK list taking a smattering of them and I know I'm not insane in recognizing their point efficiency and range.

I'd just like to see Mortars get shuffled into being a Heavy Weapons Team only option. I'd be 100% okay with that. There'd be no ablative Guardsmen for that.

Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?

Today I learned that not only do snipers not exist but also that maneuvering to target enemy characters is also impossible. And that rules which can apply against snipers and clever tactical maneuvering actually only work in CC.

weird.

LOL Snipers don't exist.

Well they do, but they're garbage.

I dunno, the longer this thread goes on, the happier I am that GW is writing the rules and not the players on this forum. Many to most of the suggested changes just don’t appeal to me at all.

Perhaps competitive players should just design their own rule set. Or before we resort to that, how happy are competitive players with the state of the game? I know it’s continually mentioned that forums don’t represent the casual gaming populace at large, but I have no connection with the competitive scene. Is that the same case? Were players at LVO whining the entire time, or were they trying to make the best of their own as broken/powerful as possible (or whatever) lists?

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I dunno, the longer this thread goes on, the happier I am that GW is writing the rules and not the players on this forum. Many to most of the suggested changes just don’t appeal to me at all.

Perhaps competitive players should just design their own rule set. Or before we resort to that, how happy are competitive players with the state of the game? I know it’s continually mentioned that forums don’t represent the casual gaming populace at large, but I have no connection with the competitive scene. Is that the same case? Were players at LVO whining the entire time, or were they trying to make the best of their own as broken/powerful as possible (or whatever) lists?

It'd never get off the ground out of fear and mistrust all of the players would have for each of the almost but-not-quite identical rulesets they'd all create for each other.

What I find kind of frustrating about this thread is that a lot of the arguments around the idea that soup needs to be removed for some reason come from this need for codex purity that I really don't understand. I don't see why pure demons and pure chaos marines makes any sense compared to a mix of the two. I don't get why genestealers opening rebellion as their 4 armed gods appear above is someone less "pure". The same holds true for me for guard and eldar.

I get that people see "soup" performing well and view it as a balance problem, but that really doesn't appear to be the case. Right now there's 3-4 strong core codexes that support a wide variety of of variants, but if you fragment them out in the name of purity you don't get more options; you get 3-4 viable codexes and a huge swath of armies that are more or less unplayable at a competitive level.

The game has had way too many codexes to make them all viable for.... probably half of its editions now; and there's never been more than a handful of them viable at any given time; generally something like 1-3. 8th has given us a means to make so many more things playable in armies that at least from my perspective, feel way more fluffy than they've ever been. I don't get the hate and this need for purity just feels like a backwards step towards something never really worked in the first place.

Insularum wrote:
Is imperial soup the only brand that people have a problem with? chaos still has multiple options for cheaper screens, with easy access to fearless, and no signs of being inflated any time soon.

This is an interesting question and I've been thinking about it today. Some Chaos soups, like World Eaters with Khorne daemons' make perfect sense to me. I don't particularly mind them. But other soups, like Mortarion joining Alpha Legion, seem quite strange. The most powerful Chaos soup lists got nerfhammered already (Malefic Lords).

I think Chaos soup is inherently less problematic than Imperial soup just because there are fewer Chaos armies to balance with regards to how they mix together, but it's interesting to think about.

Tyranid soup - which is to say Tyranids with Brood Bros - is also interesting to think about. Although tournament results for that haven't been overwhelming so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I dunno, the longer this thread goes on, the happier I am that GW is writing the rules and not the players on this forum. Many to most of the suggested changes just don’t appeal to me at all

Yeah, that's why I just play and observe how the rules influence design choices, more than try to design the game myself. I'm quite happy not being a game designer.

Can people who don't play Guard stop handwaving this like it's a small change for mono guard armies? I ran EIGHTY Guardsmen at LVO. In only one of those games did I have more than thirty by turn three, and that was against a guy who had his army stolen before LVO and just brought a random mix of bad knight variants and nurgle demon models.

It's not a simple matter of just dropping two squads and you're back to where you were. I clearly needed those eighty models to survive the initial charges/alpha and to even think about contesting objectives past turn three. Which means those points have to come out of the offensive side of the list. Eighty points is pretty much cutting a whole Basilisk from my list, which is an unacceptable drop in firepower for a list that was struggling to focus fire a single -1/-2 to hit vehicle/unit off the board per turn.

Against that shitshow Alaitoc/Ynnari nonsense, I had ten Guardsmen left at turn three, and only because he was leaving them alive to reduce the points gap/stop getting points so he could get paired with a weaker opponent the next round.

Fielding 80 of anything should be expensive. The field coverage is insane. It doesn't matter what the models actually DO. They just have to BE. Realize your 80 dudes autowins vs BA or most any other assault army by turning their assaults off. If I can't get to your guns in 2 turns, my army is dead/crippled. Get real here.

Guard indirect fire weapons are way too cheap as it is. Maybe the infantry increase balances that out a bit.

Guard have the dice to power through -1/-2. I've seen it happen over and over. Especially when your foe can't effectively cut into your own firepower.

Your army will continue to be nerfed until you give up on it and switch to marines. After all, that is what you were supposed to play in the first place!

No, just until it's no longer spammed at major events.

Martel732 wrote:
Fielding 80 of anything should be expensive. Realize your 80 dudes autowins vs BA or most any other assault army by turning their assaults off. If I can't get to your guns in 2 turns, my army is dead/crippled. Get real here.

Guard indirect fire weapons are way too cheap as it is. Maybe the infantry increase balances that out a bit.

Here is a summary of my six LVO games

Game one
Orks. I won by two points, 2/3 of the Basilisks were tied up in CC, 5/8 infantry squads were dead.

Game two
Alaitoc/Ynnari. Basically tabled on three, but he let a squad live so I could get some points and he moved off of his objectives to get 0 points for the last three rounds. Literally killed zero units.

Game three
Ravenguard. Lost by 15 points. Aggressors infiltrated in the pocket made by his scouts and murdered my entire frontline. Three squads left at round 3/4. By the time I shot the Aggressors off the center of the board, I couldn't get to any objectives in time to get

Game four
Dark Mechanicum. Won pretty handily, but the dude basically had a mishmash of models since his actual army got stolen. I think I might have lost like two squads?

Game five
Dark Angels. Lost by two points. -1 to hit bubble on most of his mainline absorbed a lot of firepower. Return shooting mulched my infantry that moved onto objectives. Had three squads left at the end.

Game six
Alpha Legion/Iron Warriors. Won by four or five points, but the guy was playing AL berserkers without nurglings, so I basically pushed him into his deployment zone with Ratlings/Sentinels. Even still, he mulched five or six squads and had tagged two of the tanks in CC. If he had actually brought Nurglings, my backline would have been easily tied up.

I don't care that eighty dudes 'auto win' against a assault based list. I care that my eighty dudes are barely enough, or as in 3 out of my 6 games at LVO, not enough against people that bring balanced or shooting resistant lists and having 60 dudes will mean I may as well not even bother showing up without soup.

What are you going to soup in that's better than IG? Not a marine unit, that's for sure. Maybe Skitarri at 7ppm?

"Shooting resistant". Haven't seen that yet vs IG.

You could try more. I've played against 100+ several times. That's still only 500 pts base, even after the rumored nerf. It's actually quite hard to kill guardsmen with bolters and the like in a reasonable time frame. WIth 10 man squads, you can even get cover and blow a CP to get 3+.

I also play Guard, and I think the infantry squads should be 5ppm. It has nothing to do with soup or tournaments. It's just an observation I've made over several games as well as tests comparing basic infantry options in other codexes.

But this is just one of many issues that needs to be looked at. It would be lame to nerf Guard again without helping Commissars, or fixing Vanquishers. Not to mention looking at other factions' OP units. If we really want balance we have to accept small incremental nerfs and buffs to zero in on it.

Vanquishers need fixed, as do Hammerheads. For sure. And dark reapers should die in a fire. IG really shouldn't be losing to marines very frequently the way 8th ed is set up. Marines are paying for a lot of wasted stats.