Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the idea would be that you'd do this 2-4 times a year.

If you did it regularly, things would even out. Although there would be odd points. For instance, if there were an option that just felt... ewww. Like, not necessarily bad, but compleletly unfun. As it'd keep getting that sweet, sweet 10% reduction each quarter, it'd be dirt cheap and OP. It'd eventually go up in popularity and change less, but the game would reach equilibrium where the points costs disincentivised taking units that were cool and fun in favor of units that sucked the joy out of life.

To this end, such a style should be manually curated. And perhaps weights put to different units - after all, I want to see more Marines and Guardsmen than Shining Spears and Vespids.

What we have instead kinda-sorta proxy's this by the way metas evolve, but not well.

Also, it's harder to tighten the feedback loop - and so much else changes each cycle, that the results would be imperfect. An improvement, but not fantastic.

(Another note - I'd only look at units/equipment in the top 25%, not everything - the one guy still trying to make Corsairs work at a tournament shouldn't impact the numbers at all.)

I would also like to see something to the effect of:

All units of T4 or greater with 4+ armor or greater and 2W or less, get +1 wound

(There are a few unit types that would need an exception to this, but in general, I would be ok with this)

 SHUPPET wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Rule of 3 needs to die.

There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Those goals were:

1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.

2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.

3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.

It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.

this post is so disconnected from reality that I was expecting you to end it with a complaint about GK being too OP

Dude, just because you don't pay any attention to anything in the world doesn't mean I'm not correct. We're seeing less overall different units, the same exact (in some cases worse) level of faction balance, more constrained list building than ever and an INCREDIBLY strong incentive towards soup due to most factions being unable to field enough of their powerful units to not get a greater benefit out of the top unit from another faction.

I'm sure that if you had even a modicum of understanding about even the simplest aspects of how the game works, you'd have noticed this on your own. But since you clearly don't I can see how your perception might be this badly warped.

OK please keep in mind Rule Number One around here is Be Polite! No need to get personal. Thanks!

ERJAK wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Rule of 3 needs to die.

There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Those goals were:

1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.

2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.

3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.

It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.

this post is so disconnected from reality that I was expecting you to end it with a complaint about GK being too OP

Dude, just because you don't pay any attention to anything in the world doesn't mean I'm not correct. We're seeing less overall different units, the same exact (in some cases worse) level of faction balance, more constrained list building than ever and an INCREDIBLY strong incentive towards soup due to most factions being unable to field enough of their powerful units to not get a greater benefit out of the top unit from another faction.

I'm sure that if you had even a modicum of understanding about even the simplest aspects of how the game works, you'd have noticed this on your own. But since you clearly don't I can see how your perception might be this badly warped.

I pay attention to everything. I have my finger to the pulse of the competitive scene. I check the results of every single high end tournament, analyse the lists, and listen to multiple competitive podcasts every single week.

This isn't even subjective. You couldn't be more wrong, on every single account. Youve made it clear that you're upset about losing the ability to play with your collection, and that's why you get so ragey like this when someone disagrees with your tirades - it's coming from a place of emotion, not logic. The personal attacks just compound this. You need to take a step back and realise the fact that this is such an extremely rare sentiment means you already failed point 3, and point 1 and 2 are easily examinable and thus supportable, so if you are going to make extraordinary claims you should just support them with something. But you won't because you can't.

I hope they do something about CP sharing.
And that Marines, every flavor, get some survivability boost.

Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.

You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.


This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.

You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.


This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.

People would be upset, but it would be a good direction. Command points should be tied to common factions at some level. Whether that is the (chapter) or adeptus astartes level is a different question, but much like chaos/Imperium/aeldari don't count for battle forged in matched play perhaps those keywords shouldnt count for mingling of command points.

I would go so far to say the three you get for being battleforged go to your warlords detachment.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Would anyone get upset if the CP's your army generates are limited by faction? For example, your Imperial Guard detachment gives you 6 Cp's, you're Custodes detachment gives you 3, and your Blood angles jumppack captain detachment gives you 1.

You could only used the CP's generated by the IG on the IG. Only those generated by Custodes on Custodes. Only those generated by Blood angels on Blood Angels. The 3 you get before detachments are generic and can be used anywhere.


This would still allow elite armies to have horde bullet catchers while not letting the little guys spam abilities for the elite armies.

upset or not, it's more bookkeeping, requiring like 3 separate CP counters and awareness of which one is which, and difficult to keep an eye on both your own and your opponents. It's basically counter productive to their entire design goal this edition, so they won't do it.

I highly doubt CP sharing will be changed in any meaningful way, so don't get y'all's hopes up.

What if CP can ONLY be used for your warlords faction? Sure, you could still make CP farms, but it would limit abuse without overdoing bookkeeping.

 cuda1179 wrote:
What if CP can ONLY be used for your warlords faction? Sure, you could still make CP farms, but it would limit abuse without overdoing bookkeeping.

Seems ideal imo

Won't solve a thing.
CP farms would still farm CP.

I can't believe deep strike & rule of 3 won't be here to stay. Its made the game a lot better. There might be some refinement to clarify things like being able to take lots of daemon princes - but this seems more of an ideological issue rather than an in game one.

The thing is FAQ tends to mean blanket game changes, rather than detailed points fixes they want to sell in CA.

Unfortunately I can't see any neat fixes on CPs via a one line rule. Limiting them to the detachment that generated them is administratively clunky. Binding them to warlord etc the same. It all requires reclassifying what an army is and how its formed from the relatively fluid system today.

Really I'd prefer to kill all CP farms and start again. I think its a blight on the game, that is essentially mandatory for any competitive list. There are almost no circumstances where a non-CP farm warlord trait/artefact is of comparable power.

So I'd make it so all the options, in every single codex, are changed from "on an X you get a CP" to "you get 2 extra CP" (potentially even just 1) and that would be that.

You want to go Grand Strategist, Kurov's Aquila, and Veritas Vitae? Okay, you get 6 extra CP and that's it. Full stop, the end.

I suspect this isn't a big enough nerf to alter the guard formation being basically mandatory in imperial lists - but it would be a start. If its still obnoxious you could then drop it down to 1CP.

Really this is a 2 step process. If you kill CP spam, and it becomes clear certain armies don't work without lots of CPs, you can then look at boosting their access to CPs organically. Right now though its a joke - and I don't know if its just me, but its probably the thing that pisses me off the most about the game.

"Oh I'm using a stratagem, oh do I get it back, oh I do and that was free. Oh are you using a stratagem? Well let me roll a dice, oh more CP for me. Lol lol lol." Just sod off.

If you wanted to go radical I would completely scrap the CP/stratagem system to be something more like Kill Team, where it was all re-balanced around the fact you are gaining a fixed number per turn (amended by certain things like your leader being dead) rather than this big pool which may or may not double over the game. Have the system designed - across all factions - to be roughly equal rather than the current system of making up how it works as they go along.

But that's an edition change sort of alteration.

Rules of 3 Will stay, just need to be refined For issues Like the 9 dp's For example, ds For me too shoul stay, maybe with some exceptions

 BoomWolf wrote:
Won't solve a thing.
CP farms would still farm CP.

Get rid of the IG CP generators and the majority of CP farming is gone. Maybe DE too?

All in all the whole ally thing was a stupid thing. It makes good armies OP, makes weaker armies invalid. They should make it narrative game only, same with Inari etc. This would, at least in theory, give an entice for GW to fix bad armies. Just play IG and custodes in your GK army would no longer be an argument how to fix stuff.

God I would love it if they somehow nerfed CP batteries, souping and reinforced the rule of three.

Or even if they just forbade souping all together. How the community would squeal. How the meta would turn on it's head. It would be glorious.

All factions should be able to stand and fall alone by design. Give those factions without it a cheap chaff unit something to use and limit souping.

Of course GW will never do this because the current model encourages sales.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
God I would love it if they somehow nerfed CP batteries, souping and reinforced the rule of three.

Or even if they just forbade souping all together. How the community would squeal. How the meta would turn on it's head. It would be glorious.

All factions should be able to stand and fall alone by design. Give those factions without it a cheap chaff unit something to use and limit souping.

Of course GW will never do this because the current model encourages sales.

Souping actually gave us gakload of list variety that we NEVER saw under the influence of older editions. If you remove Soup, Competitive 40k immediately dies as 3/4 armies become unplayable

 blackmage wrote:
Rules of 3 Will stay, just need to be refined For issues Like the 9 dp's For example, ds For me too shoul stay, maybe with some exceptions

I actually hope they'd make rule of 3 a "full" matched-play rule and not just an event recommendation.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
God I would love it if they somehow nerfed CP batteries, souping and reinforced the rule of three.

Or even if they just forbade souping all together. How the community would squeal. How the meta would turn on it's head. It would be glorious.

All factions should be able to stand and fall alone by design. Give those factions without it a cheap chaff unit something to use and limit souping.

Of course GW will never do this because the current model encourages sales.

Souping actually gave us gakload of list variety that we NEVER saw under the influence of older editions. If you remove Soup, Competitive 40k immediately dies as 3/4 armies become unplayable

I don't think Soup is the reason for a ton of list variety. Older editions were broken, we now know this thanks to the new edition. That is why they had little list variety - brokenly good things stayed broken for years. I completely disagree that if you remove soup 3/4 armies become unplayable too. Quite the opposite in fact. Currently the worst armies are those that can't soup.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
Rules of 3 Will stay, just need to be refined For issues Like the 9 dp's For example, ds For me too shoul stay, maybe with some exceptions

I actually hope they'd make rule of 3 a "full" matched-play rule and not just an event recommendation.

All the "beta rules" are de facto fully official.

An Actual Englishman wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
God I would love it if they somehow nerfed CP batteries, souping and reinforced the rule of three.

Or even if they just forbade souping all together. How the community would squeal. How the meta would turn on it's head. It would be glorious.

All factions should be able to stand and fall alone by design. Give those factions without it a cheap chaff unit something to use and limit souping.

Of course GW will never do this because the current model encourages sales.

Souping actually gave us gakload of list variety that we NEVER saw under the influence of older editions. If you remove Soup, Competitive 40k immediately dies as 3/4 armies become unplayable

I don't think Soup is the reason for a ton of list variety. Older editions were broken, we now know this thanks to the new edition. That is why they had little list variety - brokenly good things stayed broken for years. I completely disagree that if you remove soup 3/4 armies become unplayable too. Quite the opposite in fact. Currently the worst armies are those that can't soup.

Soup is not bad per se. It is something that we always had since the old editions but started really spreading with 6th and 7th edition. Those editions were broken by this (and by other things), because they didn't have a keyword system, so a DA could deathstar with wolves.

8th edition handled this much better, at least now 1+1 equals around 2 in most case, if it returns more than that is because you were skilled in handling the limitations, taxes and such to transplant a unit that is worth X in a list where it can perform for more than X.

That is fine. Those kind of sinergies are good and not rewarding enough to generate balance issues.

Problem is that with the CP sharing, you know no longer have 1+1=2, because some factions are better at genetaring CPs and some are better at spending them.

If CP were locked in some form, then soups would be back to being an healthy part of the game.

Spoletta wrote:
Side Up]Soup is not bad per se. It is something that we always had since the old editions but started really spreading with 6th and 7th edition. Those editions were broken by this (and by other things), because they didn't have a keyword system, so a DA could deathstar with wolves.

8th edition handled this much better, at least now 1+1 equals around 2 in most case, if it returns more than that is because you were skilled in handling the limitations, taxes and such to transplant a unit that is worth X in a list where it can perform for more than X.

That is fine. Those kind of sinergies are good and not rewarding enough to generate balance issues.

Problem is that with the CP sharing, you know no longer have 1+1=2, because some factions are better at genetaring CPs and some are better at spending them.

If CP were locked in some form, then soups would be back to being an healthy part of the game.

As a player of a "mono" faction, that has no option to soup with anything, I have to disagree. I don't think the problem is as extreme as with 6th and 7th (obviously) but I still think it's a problem. When a faction can pick and choose the best units from a suite of factions they are inherently stronger than a faction that cannot or chooses not to. As we can see, top players choose the best units from various factions and mix them.

It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.

Spoletta wrote:
All the "beta rules" are de facto fully official.

The rule of 3 is not a beta rule. PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.

Then armies that simply cannot stand alone like Harlequins and Custodes become unusable in matched play.

I'd like something that assists melee armies. The current meta is super harsh on them. Every army I play against is either a gunline or 90% gunline with a squad or 2 of melee stuff.

For those of you who think soup is a recent thing- it was allowed in 2nd edition. In fact up to 25% of your army could be made up of allies back then.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
All the "beta rules" are de facto fully official.

The rule of 3 is not a beta rule. PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.

Then armies that simply cannot stand alone like Harlequins and Custodes become unusable in matched play.

Custodes might not be top table competitive mono, but they are far from unuseable. They might be limited in list variations but they can be played mono, same with harlequins though they probably suffer from rule of 3 a bit.

I don't think soup will go away.

But limiting CP/Stratagems to the main/warlord-faction only and/or CP/CP-farming to the faction they originate from (with the 3 "free CP" getting the warlord's faction, for example) would certainly give each army more focus and a clearer distinction between "main force" and "allies".

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Side Up]Soup is not bad per se. It is something that we always had since the old editions but started really spreading with 6th and 7th edition. Those editions were broken by this (and by other things), because they didn't have a keyword system, so a DA could deathstar with wolves.

8th edition handled this much better, at least now 1+1 equals around 2 in most case, if it returns more than that is because you were skilled in handling the limitations, taxes and such to transplant a unit that is worth X in a list where it can perform for more than X.

That is fine. Those kind of sinergies are good and not rewarding enough to generate balance issues.

Problem is that with the CP sharing, you know no longer have 1+1=2, because some factions are better at genetaring CPs and some are better at spending them.

If CP were locked in some form, then soups would be back to being an healthy part of the game.

As a player of a "mono" faction, that has no option to soup with anything, I have to disagree. I don't think the problem is as extreme as with 6th and 7th (obviously) but I still think it's a problem. When a faction can pick and choose the best units from a suite of factions they are inherently stronger than a faction that cannot or chooses not to. As we can see, top players choose the best units from various factions and mix them.

It is my belief, that for competitive 40k it would be much, much easier to balance if souping was not an option. Keep it for narrative and open play. There it makes sense. But I can't justify it for competitive, where factions exist that are unable to.

A faction cannot pick and choose whatever it wants from multiple factions, there are detachments to consider. If you want something from a faction then you need to invest significantly in it, i cannot simply say "Oh ok, i'll add a dunecrawler to my GK", you would need to take 3 and an HQ, or 2 HQ and 3 troops. It isn't like it is a single faction with all datasheets available. Sure there are some factions, like guards, who are easier to add to your army, mainly because the HQs are really cheap. That is kind of intended though, guards are in almost every conflict.

Sure, even with limitations it is still a nice option to have, but it isn't nearly as powerful (without CP sharing) as people make it out to be.
Or at least as long as there aren't OP things around that you want to grab, but there aren't many OP models left in the game. Problems right now come from the combinations of models and stratagems, if i had to make a list of models that are clearly performing too well, it wouldn't reach the 10 entries. Those things have been heavily hammered down by CA and FAQs (sometimes too heavily). Ravagers, fire raptors, castellan knights, shadowswords, shield captains and probably a few more are the ones left. All the other ones like shining spears, dark reapers, grotesques, hive guards, hemlocks, other knights and similar models are perfectly fine, they are only a problem due to some unfortunate combination of powers/traits/stratagems.

A rule that says "Only the detachment with your warlord can use stratagems and benefit from factions traits", would kill 95% of current souping.

Oh and i say this as someone that doesn't soup.

Spoletta wrote:
A faction cannot pick and choose whatever it wants from multiple factions, there are detachments to consider. If you want something from a faction then you need to invest significantly in it, i cannot simply say "Oh ok, i'll add a dunecrawler to my GK", you would need to take 3 and an HQ, or 2 HQ and 3 troops. It isn't like it is a single faction with all datasheets available. Sure there are some factions, like guards, who are easier to add to your army, mainly because the HQs are really cheap. That is kind of intended though, guards are in almost every conflict.

If you want to add just 1 model/unit to your army you certainly can do so (twice) by using the Aux Detachment option. Sure it cost 1 CP per use but the option is there.