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:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why shouldn't you be able to bring a Brigade of Guard, a battalion of Space Marines, and a Vanguard of Inquisition?

Why should you be able to? If you're playing a Guard or Space Marine army, you shouldn't be having more units on the board from a different army entirely.

Because that's how armies work?

A tank company (~17 tanks) supported by an infantry platoon (~50 dudes) isn't suddenly an infantry company just because it has more of a different thing.

Similarly, a Custodes Supreme Command (3-6 units) supported by a Guard brigade (18 units) isn't suddenly an Imperial Guard army just because it has more of a different thing.

You're trying to conflate two wildly separate things. Talking about things like tank companies with infantry platoons is completely unrelated to 40k itself.

If someone says "I'm playing a Custodes army!" and has an Outrider Detachment consisting of 7 Jetbikes while they have a Guard Brigade chock full of artillery and infantry...I'm calling bullgak. You're running a Guard army at that point by numbers alone.

Now, you might say "but that's how armies work!". Sure, it's how they work--but it's also why we have nonstop whining about the Guard and the Imperium in general.

I'm a little confused-what's your issue here? Is it just a naming issue?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why shouldn't you be able to bring a Brigade of Guard, a battalion of Space Marines, and a Vanguard of Inquisition?

Why should you be able to? If you're playing a Guard or Space Marine army, you shouldn't be having more units on the board from a different army entirely.

Because that's how armies work?

A tank company (~17 tanks) supported by an infantry platoon (~50 dudes) isn't suddenly an infantry company just because it has more of a different thing.

Similarly, a Custodes Supreme Command (3-6 units) supported by a Guard brigade (18 units) isn't suddenly an Imperial Guard army just because it has more of a different thing.

What someone chooses to call their army doesn't matter anymore, at least from a rules perspective.

Why would anyone want more rules about what you are allowed to take? Just so we know what to call your forces?

The flexibility introduced over the last couple editions has gone a long way to making it so people are not stuck playing a terrible faction until the next edition comes out. Overall, it's a much better system that the old one-Codex-one-FOC days. And players already get taxed by having to take HQ options for each detachment, which is fair.

Adding an additional cost to benefit some people who want to paint their models all the same colors doesn't make a lot of sense.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why shouldn't you be able to bring a Brigade of Guard, a battalion of Space Marines, and a Vanguard of Inquisition?

Why should you be able to? If you're playing a Guard or Space Marine army, you shouldn't be having more units on the board from a different army entirely.

Because that's how armies work?

A tank company (~17 tanks) supported by an infantry platoon (~50 dudes) isn't suddenly an infantry company just because it has more of a different thing.

Similarly, a Custodes Supreme Command (3-6 units) supported by a Guard brigade (18 units) isn't suddenly an Imperial Guard army just because it has more of a different thing.

You're trying to conflate two wildly separate things. Talking about things like tank companies with infantry platoons is completely unrelated to 40k itself.

If someone says "I'm playing a Custodes army!" and has an Outrider Detachment consisting of 7 Jetbikes while they have a Guard Brigade chock full of artillery and infantry...I'm calling bullgak. You're running a Guard army at that point by numbers alone.

Now, you might say "but that's how armies work!". Sure, it's how they work--but it's also why we have nonstop whining about the Guard and the Imperium in general.

Wait so you'd be okay with exactly the same army if they had a custodes warlord and called it an Imperial Guard army? Because if that's your issue, then sure, it's an Imperial Guard army with ~1400 points of Custodes (assuming a 600 point Guard brigade, which is about right with upgrades) and a Custodes warlord. That seems bonkers to me.

Like saying my Baneblade army is an Adeptus Mechanicus army because it has 3 Baneblades, while the rest of the ~400 points is Admech, who technically have more models...

Well yep , allies detachments got really messed up i guess we can agree on that.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why shouldn't you be able to bring a Brigade of Guard, a battalion of Space Marines, and a Vanguard of Inquisition?

Why should you be able to? If you're playing a Guard or Space Marine army, you shouldn't be having more units on the board from a different army entirely.

Because that's how armies work?

A tank company (~17 tanks) supported by an infantry platoon (~50 dudes) isn't suddenly an infantry company just because it has more of a different thing.

Similarly, a Custodes Supreme Command (3-6 units) supported by a Guard brigade (18 units) isn't suddenly an Imperial Guard army just because it has more of a different thing.

What someone chooses to call their army doesn't matter anymore, at least from a rules perspective.

Why would anyone want more rules about what you are allowed to take? Just so we know what to call your forces?

The flexibility introduced over the last couple editions has gone a long way to making it so people are not stuck playing a terrible faction until the next edition comes out. Overall, it's a much better system that the old one-Codex-one-FOC days. And players already get taxed by having to take HQ options for each detachment, which is fair.

Adding an additional cost to benefit some people who want to paint their models all the same colors doesn't make a lot of sense.

I agree, hence why I don't understand Kanluwen's point.

 sfshilo wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
But Imperial Guard is the problem army. Imperial lists can't be competitive without them, they themselves encourage boring and one-sided styles of play, and are frontloaded with so much firepower that designing factions to deal with them only causes problems with the game's core to escalate.

Do you seriously think Guard are not an overly powerful army?

Sisters would beg to differ.

And the reason people struggle with these armies is peoples idea of "meta" in the tourney scene. (I play in tournies, put away the pitch forks.)

Different weapons and units work different ways. If you only take plasma, and then complain you can't kill vehicles that's your problem not the army.

Why would plasma be bad for killing vehicles?

 JNAProductions wrote:

I'm a little confused-what's your issue here? Is it just a naming issue?

It's one part naming and one part mechanics.

If you're fielding a Guard Brigade as your "allied detachment" for your <Insert Imperium non-Guard Faction Here>--you're why Guard can't have nice things. You're why we are being whined about constantly, despite humdrum showings by pure Guard armies.
If someone says they're playing Custodes but coming with 3-4x the number of Guard units as they are Custodes? Something's wrong. It's why the thing that I had talked about that Unit ignored in his original reply to me was that Brigades and Battalions should not be able to be used for Allied Detachments . Patrols, Spearheads, Vanguards, and Outriders are the only size we should be looking at for Allied Detachments.

Right, but the mechanics would not change.

You'd just run Guard with Custodes Allies, rather than Custodes with Guard Allies.

Same lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wait so you'd be okay with exactly the same army if they had a custodes warlord and called it an Imperial Guard army? Because if that's your issue, then sure, it's an Imperial Guard army with ~1400 points of Custodes (assuming a 600 point Guard brigade, which is about right with upgrades) and a Custodes warlord. That seems bonkers to me.

Like saying my Baneblade army is an Adeptus Mechanicus army because it has 3 Baneblades, while the rest of the ~400 points is Admech, who technically have more models...

Sure, you can pretend that's the case if you want.
Ideally you shouldn't be having a fricking brigade as an option for an allied detachment.

Although more than that, in a perfect world? We'd be seeing the AoS style of things where the "grand faction" Imperium removes some of your army's special traits and your Warlord can only take certain traits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but the mechanics would not change.

You'd just run Guard with Custodes Allies, rather than Custodes with Guard Allies.

Same lists.

The mechanics absolutely would change if you can't field Brigades or Battalions for the cheap CP generation of Guard. If you could only take Patrols(+0 CP) or Spearhead/Vanguard/Outrider(+3CP) for your Allied stuff? You're going to run out of options for those things sooner rather than later with the "rule of 3" that's being demoed up.

Today:
"You shouldn't be able to field a Brigade as allies!"

Tomorrow:
"You shouldn't be able to field 1400 points as allies!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today:
"You shouldn't be able to field a Brigade as allies!"

Tomorrow:
"You shouldn't be able to field 1400 points as allies!"

Today: "Tank companies don't become infantry companies when they have a platoon with them!"
Tomorrow: "My Baneblades aren't Mechanicus but I take Mechanicus with them!"


You can choose to conflate things however you want. I've made a far more useful set of points than you have here, and you know it. You've just attempted to try to paint it as "It doesn't matter what you call it!" when that's literally an issue you've complained about with regards to tournament representation for Guard.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today:
"You shouldn't be able to field a Brigade as allies!"

Tomorrow:
"You shouldn't be able to field 1400 points as allies!"

Today: "Tank companies don't become infantry companies when they have a platoon with them!"
Tomorrow: "My Baneblades aren't Mechanicus but I take Mechanicus with them!"


You can choose to conflate things however you want. I've made a far more useful set of points than you have here, and you know it. You've just attempted to try to paint it as "It doesn't matter what you call it!" when that's literally an issue you've complained about with regards to tournament representation for Guard.

The problem is that the fix you are proposing does far more harm than good, while there are far far more sensible changes that could be done. You're not trying to make Guard less good as a soup force, you're just trying to kill all soup forever, fluffy or otherwise.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The problem is that the fix you are proposing does far more harm than good, while there are far far more sensible changes that could be done. You're not trying to make Guard less good as a soup force, you're just trying to kill all soup forever, fluffy or otherwise.

Give one sensible change that doesn't wreck the armies and their Detachment perks then.


You're right that I'm "trying to kill all soup" in that I don't believe for one damned second that you should be able to have more of your allies than your declared army. I don't believe that you should be able to take a Brigade of cheap allies to 'power up' your Command Points for your elite army. I don't believe that you should be able to have a cheap screening force for your elite army.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today:
"You shouldn't be able to field a Brigade as allies!"

Tomorrow:
"You shouldn't be able to field 1400 points as allies!"

In AoS the cap is 20% of the army, but AoS is less soupy in design than 40k. Accept it, a brigade of AM, a battalion of SM and a vangard of sisters is well within the design intent of 8th. There is nothing wrong with that. Real problem is that since guard fits really well in these soups, they receive a lot of flak, while the AM as a faction is perfectly balanced.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The problem is that the fix you are proposing does far more harm than good, while there are far far more sensible changes that could be done. You're not trying to make Guard less good as a soup force, you're just trying to kill all soup forever, fluffy or otherwise.

Give one sensible change that doesn't wreck the armies and their Detachment perks then.


You're right that I'm "trying to kill all soup" in that I don't believe for one damned second that you should be able to have more of your allies than your declared army. I don't believe that you should be able to take a Brigade of cheap allies to 'power up' your Command Points for your elite army. I don't believe that you should be able to have a cheap screening force for your elite army.

Saying "Command Points generated by a detachment can only be used by units with that Detachment's faction keyword" is a good start. It's less damaging than your solution.

And what do you mean "more of your allies than your declared army?" My declared Army Faction is Imperium.

CP generated by a detachment can only be spent on strategems from and benefiting units in that detachment.

Still have the powerful weakness covering effects of soup but takes the supercharging elite strategems out of the equation.

 Eldarain wrote:
CP generated by a detachment can only be spent on strategems from and benefiting units in that detachment.

Still have the powerful weakness covering effects of soup but takes the supercharging elite strategems out of the equation.

Better to restrict it by keyword than detachment. Someone with two Tallarn Astra Militarum detachments should be able to spend CP from the battalion to support units in the Spearhead, for example.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
CP generated by a detachment can only be spent on strategems from and benefiting units in that detachment.

Still have the powerful weakness covering effects of soup but takes the supercharging elite strategems out of the equation.

Better to restrict it by keyword than detachment. Someone with two Tallarn Astra Militarum detachments should be able to spend CP from the battalion to support units in the Spearhead, for example.

I agree with that.

Just one voice chiming in here, but I'm happy with the way things work now. Not trying to change any minds, but for the sake of partially balancing the inevitable outcome of threads like this.

I'm glad IG have squadrons for most of their tanks, even the good ones.

Guard mechanically is not a problem. The problem is guard aromored is way too cheap. Basalisks are criminally undercosted at 108 points for board range 2d6 take the highest shots that don't need Los at S9 is stupid. Along with the most easy access to T8 vehicles that can shoot twice. Mechanics of guard are fine but price point is way off.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The problem is that the fix you are proposing does far more harm than good, while there are far far more sensible changes that could be done. You're not trying to make Guard less good as a soup force, you're just trying to kill all soup forever, fluffy or otherwise.

Give one sensible change that doesn't wreck the armies and their Detachment perks then.


You're right that I'm "trying to kill all soup" in that I don't believe for one damned second that you should be able to have more of your allies than your declared army. I don't believe that you should be able to take a Brigade of cheap allies to 'power up' your Command Points for your elite army. I don't believe that you should be able to have a cheap screening force for your elite army.

Saying "Command Points generated by a detachment can only be used by units with that Detachment's faction keyword" is a good start. It's less damaging than your solution.

And what do you mean "more of your allies than your declared army?" My declared Army Faction is Imperium.

Declaring your Army Faction as "Imperium/Aeldari/Tyranids/Chaos" should absolutely remove your ability to use any army specific Stratagems.

Someone brought up AoS earlier. You know why that works there? Your army is all one army, with a set percentage of the army's point values being allowable for Allies without ruining your army's Allegiance abilities. Anything more than that, you're using Grand Alliance specific stuff instead of Army specific stuff because your army is using the Grand Alliance keyword to be put together rather than an army specific keyword.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Guard mechanically is not a problem. The problem is guard aromored is way too cheap. Basalisks are criminally undercosted at 108 points for board range 2d6 take the highest shots that don't need Los at S9 is stupid. Along with the most easy access to T8 vehicles that can shoot twice. Mechanics of guard are fine but price point is way off.

Nope. Get back to me when guard armored companies are winning tournaments, or even being taken to tournaments at all. So far anything anyone's been able to muster argument-wise is "but they feeeel stroooong!" In an environment where objectives and mobility are king, armored companies suffer badly.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Guard mechanically is not a problem. The problem is guard aromored is way too cheap. Basalisks are criminally undercosted at 108 points for board range 2d6 take the highest shots that don't need Los at S9 is stupid. Along with the most easy access to T8 vehicles that can shoot twice. Mechanics of guard are fine but price point is way off.

Nope. Get back to me when guard armored companies are winning tournaments, or even being taken to tournaments at all. So far anything anyone's been able to muster argument-wise is "but they feeeel stroooong!" In an environment where objectives and mobility are king, armored companies suffer badly.

Interesting you'd mention that! There was a giant list-dump of 350-odd army lists for a huge upcoming london GT, and Guard did actually comfortably top the chart in the runnings for the most allied detachments and the most "pure" armies (because soup is such a universal thing, I rated a "pure" army as 1500 points or more of one single faction)

So, people are taking guard, even pure/only guard, to tournaments. How successful they'll be remains to be seen.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:
"Guard are OP!"
"Name one thing they've won since chapter approved."
"<Inane screeching>"

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/n5dtf38m

AM has the only GT win since the FAQ. 70+ person tournament they went undefeated.

"Guard are OP!"
"Name one thing they've won since chapter approved."
"Here is an example post FAQ that they won."
"This conflicts with my bias and therefore i'll talk in circles for 50 pages."

Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The problem is that the fix you are proposing does far more harm than good, while there are far far more sensible changes that could be done. You're not trying to make Guard less good as a soup force, you're just trying to kill all soup forever, fluffy or otherwise.

Give one sensible change that doesn't wreck the armies and their Detachment perks then.


You're right that I'm "trying to kill all soup" in that I don't believe for one damned second that you should be able to have more of your allies than your declared army. I don't believe that you should be able to take a Brigade of cheap allies to 'power up' your Command Points for your elite army. I don't believe that you should be able to have a cheap screening force for your elite army.

Saying "Command Points generated by a detachment can only be used by units with that Detachment's faction keyword" is a good start. It's less damaging than your solution.

And what do you mean "more of your allies than your declared army?" My declared Army Faction is Imperium.

Declaring your Army Faction as "Imperium/Aeldari/Tyranids/Chaos" should absolutely remove your ability to use any army specific Stratagems.

Someone brought up AoS earlier. You know why that works there? Your army is all one army, with a set percentage of the army's point values being allowable for Allies without ruining your army's Allegiance abilities. Anything more than that, you're using Grand Alliance specific stuff instead of Army specific stuff because your army is using the Grand Alliance keyword to be put together rather than an army specific keyword.

Why do you want to kill soup? Soup is a good thing. Your suggestion would absolutely murder so many fluffy lists you'd have to dig them all a mass grave.

the_scotsman wrote:How successful they'll be remains to be seen.

I would be surprised to learn that a "pure" Guard list won. I'd also take issue with the 1500+points of guard but 500 points of other stuff being "pure" as that describes my list, but my list absolutely would not function correctly without the 400-odd points of Mechanicus. I'd lose an invaluable amount of repairs, I'd lose some of my most useful screening elements, and I'd lose the entirety of my psychic defense. Saying that I'm "pure" guard is ignoring the sheer amount of power my list gains from the not-guard portion (who also includes my warlord).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:
"Guard are OP!"
"Name one thing they've won since chapter approved."
"<Inane screeching>"

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/n5dtf38m

AM has the only GT win since the FAQ. 70+ person tournament they went undefeated.

"Guard are OP!"
"Name one thing they've won since chapter approved."
"Here is an example post FAQ that they won."
"This conflicts with my bias and therefore i'll talk in circles for 50 pages."

I can't see the list on the page you linked, but I suspect it's soup. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the value of my most recent Forge World order that it's soup.

Every list that is IMPERIUM, CHAOS, or ELDAR will have soup.

You're inconsistent though here.

When Guard are a part of winning lists declared as another faction, you say "hey look other factions are winning, the fact that they soup doesn't matter!"

When Guard win, and there is no evidence of soup, you say "hey Guard won but there's probably soup, and that matters."

Pick a stance...

Because I would bet that every Imperium list that won a major event since the raven nerf had Guard in it.

In any case, you asked for if Guard won anything. They're the only army that won a GT after the FAQ so far. Does that change your opinion? Of course not. You asked for data that might, and you're ignoring it. Dakka is a place where people argue their bias, nothing more.

 Marmatag wrote:
Every list that is IMPERIUM, CHAOS, or ELDAR will have soup.

You're inconsistent though here.

When Guard are a part of winning lists declared as another faction, you say "hey look other factions are winning, the fact that they soup doesn't matter!"

When Guard win, and there is no evidence of soup, you say "hey Guard won but there's probably soup, and that matters."

Pick a stance.

What? No, I never said the fact that they're soup doesn't matter. The claim is that "pure guard are not OP, and guard are only OP in soup. This is an indication that the problem is not Imperial Guard or its units or its points costs, but rather than the problem is the souping mechanics somehow."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why do you want to kill soup? Soup is a good thing. Your suggestion would absolutely murder so many fluffy lists you'd have to dig them all a mass grave.

Soup is absolutely not a good thing. Do you know why people make soup? Because it's easy and you're just heating water and throwing crap into it.

Soup isn't necessary to have "fluffy lists". We have Auxiliary Support Detachments for making fluffy lists. We have the ability to make Detachments using faction keywords like "Imperium" or "Chaos".

Nobody uses any of those options for a reason as well; why would they penalize themselves when they can just make soup?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why do you want to kill soup? Soup is a good thing. Your suggestion would absolutely murder so many fluffy lists you'd have to dig them all a mass grave.

Soup is absolutely not a good thing. Do you know why people make soup? Because it's easy and you're just heating water and throwing crap into it.

Soup isn't necessary to have "fluffy lists". We have Auxiliary Support Detachments for making fluffy lists. We have the ability to make Detachments using faction keywords like "Imperium" or "Chaos".

Nobody uses any of those options for a reason as well; why would they penalize themselves when they can just make soup?

A better question is, why would you expect anyone to penalize themselves at all?

It sounds like you are making the argument for going back to a Single Codex / One FOC for all armies.

Pardon me if this sounds off, but the problem with a unit is often not that it's bad, but that it's bad in that situation. In 5th, there were a lot of shooty armies being forced to take melee-oriented units because they needed to fill a slot and that's all the points would allow.

How is this better? Why would anyone want to even think about going back in time like that, what is actually gained?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why do you want to kill soup? Soup is a good thing. Your suggestion would absolutely murder so many fluffy lists you'd have to dig them all a mass grave.

Soup is absolutely not a good thing. Do you know why people make soup? Because it's easy and you're just heating water and throwing crap into it.

Soup isn't necessary to have "fluffy lists". We have Auxiliary Support Detachments for making fluffy lists. We have the ability to make Detachments using faction keywords like "Imperium" or "Chaos".

Nobody uses any of those options for a reason as well; why would they penalize themselves when they can just make soup?

Auxiliary support detachments don't make for fluffy lists. You can't bring an Inquisitor, an Interrogator (2nd Inquisitor), and his acolytes in an Inquisitorial Land Raider Prometheus just through Auxiliary detachments. You'd have -1CP and have exceeded your detachment limit at 2k by 1, having spent ~500-600 points. That's not a good thing.

You also can't make Detachments using faction keywords like "Imperium" or "Chaos" anymore. That's explicitly forbidden by the new FAQ.

Both your points on how you could continue to make fluffy lists are delusional.