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.

Darsath wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I have an idea... lets not nerf anything, lets provide an incentive to playing 'pure'. If your armies key word is not imperium, chaos, or aeldari (and come up with a similar one for nids), then you gain 4CP.

IMO more cp in the game is better than less and makes the game more enjoyable (having some options is fun). This way those that want to soup, can do so, and gain the benefits of a wider selection of units, while those that dont, gain the benefits of some riskless CP.

This is where I am, more or less. Buffing solo faction armies instead of nerfing soup or allied armies is probably a better approach. Still not sure on what would be the best approach, but considering the recent popularity of CP batteries, then granting additional CPs could be a good compromise. It might also make factions who struggle solo (GK, Custodes solo, Necrons) to be more enjoyable to play if not more powerful.

The best approach would have been to make Chapter tactics, relics and stratagems to require faction purity. Alas, that ship has sailed as now that people have those things in soup, it comes across as a nerf to take them away. But I felt at the beginning those things should have been tied to faction purity. I would have liked to see (and I guess they could do this with some "advanced" stratagems/tactics or something) things like IMPERIUM stratagems, that you get for being battleforged Imperium, Then, say ADEPTUS Astartes stratagems and Tactics that you get for being battleforged with all units having the adeptus astartes, Then "chapter" stratagems that you would get for being Chapter pure. That way there is a trade off of flexibility for specialized power.

They nerfed a lot of things with the rule of 3. Nothing stops them going after soup. When Imperial and Eldar soup is so dominant its obvious there is a problem. They need to be nerfed.

Breng77 wrote:


The best approach would have been to make Chapter tactics, relics and stratagems to require faction purity. .

Totally agree.

The stupid thing is.. . that ENTIRE system exists in Age of Sigmar, released before 8th edition.

You can be Allegiance: Grand Alliance Order and get "meh" benefits but have flexibility, or you can be Allegiance: A specific faction like Seraphon, get kickass benefits, but you can only take 20% of your total points as allies.

Weird that they haven't retained that - but it would not be a lot of work to retrofit. Just define three new sets of benefits... IMPERIUM, AELDARI and CHAOS... and say you only get to use the stratagems in your Codex if X% of your army is the same faction as your warlord.

 Silentz wrote:
I'm running a UK tournament in February and have put in some army composition rules to address soup... I am not saying these are perfect and they are liable to be refined or change (particularly if GW make some changes) but here they are:

----------------------

Your army can consist of up to three detachments, and may include duplicate detachments, however:

One detachment in your army must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super-Heavy Detachment and will be marked as your “Primary Detachment”.

Your warlord must be in your Primary Detachment

Your Primary Detachment determines your "Army Keywords" - which will include all Faction and Subfaction Keywords. Some examples of Army Keywords might be: IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, CADIA or CHAOS, HERETIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD

You will only gain Command Points from detachments which exactly match your Army Keywords. You can take as many non-matching detachments as you like, but they will all give you a command benefit of 0 CPs. There are no exceptions to this rule.

If all detachments in your army have the same Army Keywords, you gain +3 CPs for being Battleforged. Otherwise, you do not gain the standard +3 CP for Battleforged. Note that your army must still be Battleforged (i.e. all detachments must share one keyword)

There are a few exceptions to this rule - e.g. to allow Death Guard and Nurgle to fight together, or to allow Drukhari armies to take Cults and Kabals together, or to allow AdMech to take a Questor Mechanicus Knight.

I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.

You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.

 Jidmah wrote:

I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.

You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.

Devil's advocate here...
Questor Mechanicus stuff can also be taken from the Mechanicus book proper. Everything that had been available at the time of its publishing was in the book with the Questor Mechanicus keywords.
Nurgle Daemons/Death Guard are in a similar situation where there's stuff in the Codex and stuff elsewhere too.

 Jidmah wrote:


I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.

You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.

I appreciate the feedback and see where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree with your conclusion.

AM and Questor Imperialis or Blood Angels and AM are using 2 separate codexes entirely.

I think it's really hard to argue that units that are in the same physical codex should be penalised for fighting together e.g. Admech and Questor Mechanicus Knights, or Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus Scions, or Drukhari, with their own weird 3 ways to play Cults/Covens stuff.

They are in the same codex, they just have different faction keywords! I don't feel it's fair to classify them as "allies".

Death Guard and Nurgle aren't fully in the same codex, I agree - but it's hard to argue that a mono-god army is "soup", isn't it??

Even then, they are still being punished a bit... for example an army with both of those factions would not get CP for the detachments that don't exactly match their primary. You just keep the +3cp battleforged.


To be clear my aim is to encourage more thematic mono-codex armies and help the tournament be more accepting to more thematically pure armies, not to rebalance 40k.

Ravemastaj wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.

There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.

Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.

They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.

Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?

Just so you know - space marines have the same 5+ regen warlord trait - and some heros that grant you flat CP for being your warlord. Guilliman and Calgar for example. The issue is with IG batallion - you get a batallion for less than the price of friggen calgar and you get all of his command benefit too. That is not even remotely balanced.

Who would win...

One 10 man tactical squad with Combi-plasma, Plasmagun and Missile Launcher... 183pts

or a bare bones Imperial Guard battalion for 180pts?



Anyway - put your "I hate BOLS" feeling aside and read this: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/09/40k-nerfing-units-leads-to-soup-lists.html

 Silentz wrote:
Who would win...

One 10 man tactical squad with Combi-plasma, Plasmagun and Missile Launcher... 183pts

or a bare bones Imperial Guard battalion for 180pts?



Anyway - put your "I hate BOLS" feeling aside and read this: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/09/40k-nerfing-units-leads-to-soup-lists.html

Want to know whats crazy...in this situation...both sides remove the same number of MODELS per turn shooting at each other. One costs 4 points - the other costs 13...how gross is that?

I'll quote from your article and show you where they get it wrong.
"One of the big downsides of the ally system is that it allows players to build soup lists, where players can cherry pick the best units from several Codices to form a very powerful list."
The issue is not being able to pick from multiple codex - the issue is the unit in that codex is so much better than a comparable unit in your codex. There are issues where a unit doesn't exist in your codex so you go to another codex to get it - but I don't see any issue with that as long as that other unit is fairly costed.

"We’ve seem a pretty common form of this evolve lately, with the Loyal 32, backed up by a pair of Blood Angels Captains, 3 Scout squads, and some Knights. Individually these units aren’t necessarily overpowered but used in a crazy soup combo they become powerful enough to have people call for their nerfing."
Every unit involved in that is crazy OP except the scouts. To be fair - it's the BA super combos of relics/and stratagems that make them OP - but they are OP. Scouts are taken because how else are you going to get BA captains + get some CP at the same time? Scouts are actually garbage - BA captain is just that good. Knights? Crazy OP.

This article is obviously written by an IG fanboy. The loyal 32? LOLOLOL.

 Silentz wrote:
Who would win...

One 10 man tactical squad with Combi-plasma, Plasmagun and Missile Launcher... 183pts

or a bare bones Imperial Guard battalion for 180pts?



Anyway - put your "I hate BOLS" feeling aside and read this: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/09/40k-nerfing-units-leads-to-soup-lists.html

That article is still wrong. Saying that without Soup you don't need to nerf those units is plain wrong. "Na, you don't need to nerf BA captain because in a mono-BA army hes fine" yeah thats because BA are very weak. Just like Space Marines are very weak, but they can kinda of compete with Guilliman. Even in the context of a game without Soup those units are overpowered. The solution is to nerf the BA captain and buff the rest of the BA codex. And nerf Infanry Squads and buff the bad AM units (Like Chimeras, etc...).

If people thinks that a pure Adeptus Custodes Force of pure Captains in Jetbikes and Vertus Praetus isn't a problem, even more in the context of no-soup where everybody is weaker, then they are very wrong.
Allies is a problem. I agree. But OP units are OP units. If a unit is OP with allies, unless is OPness comes from some sinergy that can't be achieved without allies, it will be OP without allies.
Take Dark Reapers and Shining Spears from example. By themselves they are OP/Very powerfull. With Ynnary, specially pre Ynnari nerf, they are bonkers OP. Even if they are weaker without Ynnari they are still above what they should be. The same will happen with things like Imperial Knights. You can have a 12-CP pure Imperial Knight army without a problem.

Also, the "Nerfing units makes people play Soup" could be true, but his example is just absurd. "People stopped playing Dark Reapers because now they play Ravagers, because Dark Reapers where nerfed". No. People play Ravagers because they are OP and the Dark Eldar codex is relatively new.

The only thing that is right in that article is he fact that the Deep strike change killed mono-BA builds in the ultra-competitive meta.

Anyone know Reece's full list from NOVA? He played a pure Ultramarine list and got 15th, however on BCP the entire list isn't there.

The problems seem to be more about specific units than anything. The difference in power between the Castellian and the Valiant despite marginal price differences. The way Grand Strategist works better than its peers for no real reason. A single model with enough power to be worth bringing an entire battalion for. The brigade detachment itself really having no business being in 2000 pt games given there's really only one faction capable of using it. Also, Eldar stuff.

Large scale structural changes feel like they're going to do more harm than good, IMO. There are some obvious targets I'd go after first and see how the game responds.

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...

Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?.

Literally in the OP.....

Okay rechecked. Loooots of bare minimum. 1 had 1 over minimum. Okay one had 2! Whoo!

Still most(including the winner...) had just minimum amount he needed for detachment. Don't see hordes of troopers dominating.


text removed.
Reds8n

You're moving the goalposts. Your argument was 'if Infantry are so strong, why are only the minimum numbers taken to fill a detachment?' The lists in this very topic prove this not to be the case.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.

There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.

Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.

When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.

We're not just talking about 2 brigades though. We're talking about 7 out of 11 of the top lists at a highly competitive event all having between 3 and 8 squads of infantry. That's a pretty high percentile.

Prepare for (justified) nerfs.

 Silentz wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


The best approach would have been to make Chapter tactics, relics and stratagems to require faction purity. .

Totally agree.

The stupid thing is.. . that ENTIRE system exists in Age of Sigmar, released before 8th edition.

You can be Allegiance: Grand Alliance Order and get "meh" benefits but have flexibility, or you can be Allegiance: A specific faction like Seraphon, get kickass benefits, but you can only take 20% of your total points as allies.

Weird that they haven't retained that - but it would not be a lot of work to retrofit. Just define three new sets of benefits... IMPERIUM, AELDARI and CHAOS... and say you only get to use the stratagems in your Codex if X% of your army is the same faction as your warlord.

That is more than likely what is going to happen. Those of us that play AoS and 40k have noticed of late that they are testing things in AoS, and then rolling them to 40k in different variations, but very much in the spirit of the same rule.

Serioysly, from all OP things some of you complain about mortars?

Leave them alone, they were useless in 7ed and now are cheap and fluffy - people take them beacause they are cheap and add some pressure but its mostly psychological effect. Same with snipers - i always take them with 2pts, opponents often focus snipers and mortars beacause of that pressure. How much bolter costs? 1pts - its 2 shots S4 AP0. Mortar have average of 3.5shots with same stats for 5pts.

It have higher range and ignore LoS - okay, but its still ~2 bolter shots on 4+ BS platform. vs MEQ it.s ~0.3 casaulties and vs guardsman (on cover) its ~0.6. Of course people take them for cheap addition and sometimes to mitigate dmg/morale (2W in one model for morale test) - but they are not dealing any significant damage.

I totaly agree that battery is broken - simple fix Grand Strategist with "when you spend CP on <Astra MIlitarum> strategem..." and it's done. What is broken are Smashcapitans (and in less degree golden bikes). For some strange reason they given very strict restiction to Tau Commanders and imperial "commanders" can be spammed depsite multiple choices from <imperium>. They could recieve tau treatment and it's done.

Castellan's 3++ is just a joke and should be nerfed or limited 1/game. This is the thing that breaks game - you have LoW that you cannot hurt even with a *** Shadowsword and horde to deal. Castellan makes all other vechicles in game useless as he pops them and can't be hurt.

There were more PA Marines than there were Aspect Warriors in the top 11.

That's interesting.

Bharring wrote:
There were more PA Marines than there were Aspect Warriors in the top 11.

That's interesting.

That is interesting. Only 1 of these lists has spears (the only aspect warrior worth taking atm). I'd like to see the top 25 lists if possible. Does anyone have that?

Also, no Reapers or Crimson Hunters at all.

The rest of the aspects are considered midling or bad, so they're not a surprise.

Craftworlders were taken the same way BA were taken - a way to take their HQs, and a cheap non-Craftworlder/Marine unit (Rangers or Scouts) taken for board space.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You're moving the goalposts. Your argument was 'if Infantry are so strong, why are only the minimum numbers taken to fill a detachment?' The lists in this very topic prove this not to be the case.

Hypocrite much? You made this statement to me:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.

There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.

Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.

When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.

We're not just talking about 2 brigades though. We're talking about 7 out of 11 of the top lists at a highly competitive event all having between 3 and 8 squads of infantry. That's a pretty high percentile.

Alan Blakerbough's list is a "Brigade" of Guard, with 3 Infantry Squads listed and a single Heavy Weapons Squad with Mortars. I'm assuming he's just bad at writing lists and there's supposed to be notations of the quantities of the squads.
Shane Watt's list is a DKoK Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads. Battalions have 3 squads as mins.
Alex Ing's list is Cadian Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads.
Erik Illegible's list is Catachan Brigade with 7 Infantry Squads. That's a whopping one squad more than the minimum.
No Name Given's list is just Astra Militarum Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads.
Andrew Gonyo's list is a Catachan Brigade with 6 Infantry Squads.
Unprinted Name's list is another Catachan Brigade with 8 Infantry Squads.

So TWO of the 7 lists featuring Guard that are completely available to us had more than the bare minimum units to fill out the Brigades. One of those lists has a single unit more than the minimums, the other had two units more.

Remind me again how "Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament"...?

Prepare for (justified) nerfs.

Funny how the Catachan Brigades are stuffed with Mortars on the Infantry Squads, eh?

I'd be interested to see how many times the "Vicious Traps" Stratagems saw use. Mortars parked in cover that force people to charge them giving D3 Mortal Wounds on charging units on a 4+ is a no-brainer stratagem for 1CP.

Wait, so if "taking" the minimun of one unit is proof that is fine... then single Knights and BA captains are fine, no? They are taken at the mininum number availible on the detachment.

Bharring wrote:
Also, no Reapers or Crimson Hunters at all.

The rest of the aspects are considered midling or bad, so they're not a surprise.

Craftworlders were taken the same way BA were taken - a way to take their HQs, and a cheap non-Craftworlder/Marine unit (Rangers or Scouts) taken for board space.

Well there is a reason people say DE is the best army in the game. Because it's even preferable to eldar. Hard to say what is better really. A crimson or a night fighter. I'd almost always take a crimson over the nightfighter - vector dancer is worth the additional points - plus you get better guns - not to mention the aliotac trait. I guess they just couldn't find the points.

Like I said - I'd like to see the top 25 results. I have a feeling a lot of eldar lists are in there. Or who knows - maybe it's just more of the same.

 Silentz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


I somehow fail to see how Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons or Questor Mechanicus and AdMech are any different from AM and Questor Imperialis or AM and BloodAngels.

You have basically just re-implemented the ally matrix to favor certain factions over others.

I appreciate the feedback and see where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree with your conclusion.

AM and Questor Imperialis or Blood Angels and AM are using 2 separate codexes entirely.

I think it's really hard to argue that units that are in the same physical codex should be penalised for fighting together e.g. Admech and Questor Mechanicus Knights, or Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus Scions, or Drukhari, with their own weird 3 ways to play Cults/Covens stuff.

They are in the same codex, they just have different faction keywords! I don't feel it's fair to classify them as "allies".

I see your reasoning. So why not call the duck a duck? Just tell everyone that their armies must come from one codex, done.

Death Guard and Nurgle aren't fully in the same codex, I agree - but it's hard to argue that a mono-god army is "soup", isn't it??

No matter what you are calling it, it's mostly cherry-picking superior troops, shooting units or Lords Of War from another codex.
Nurgle Daemons want Mortarion, PBC and blight drones because they lack fast and shooting units. Death Guard want Plague Bearers because they are simply pox walkers +1. You have similar issues when mixing TS and Tzeench daemons. They basically just cherry-picking from each other.
Note that neither the DG nor the TS codex can actually field a daemons deatchment without the help from an index or a codex, since neither contains a chaos daemons HQ. These daemons are meant to be summoned and not fielded in detachments - sadly summoning isn't worth anything.

The winner of that tournament is playing dark eldar and harlequins, something your rules are trying to discourage - in the past they used to share a codex, so hardly a "soup" either.

Even then, they are still being punished a bit... for example an army with both of those factions would not get CP for the detachments that don't exactly match their primary. You just keep the +3cp battleforged.

Tzeench daemons would probably not mourn the CP lost for their Ahriman+2DP+Magnus detachment though - or for the Mortarion Auxiliary in the nurgle dameons list

To be clear my aim is to encourage more thematic mono-codex armies and help the tournament be more accepting to more thematically pure armies, not to rebalance 40k.

If you want mono-codex armies, simply limit everyone to use just one codex. "Thematically pure armies" is something that is heavily influenced by personal bias.
The only army with a questionable theme in that top 10 is the one with Mortarion and Magnus, since they would probably kill each other on sight.
Guardmen holding the line with huge almost-titans firing from behind them and Blood Angel captains sacrificing themselves for the emprah is about as iconic as a mixed imperial army can be.

That said, you are by no means guaranteed to have more thematic lists by limiting choices. CSM could still bring Alpha Legion with Slanesh Oblits/Cultists plus Ahriman, and TS DPs and have Mortarion in an auxiliary detachment.

In the end, the only thing you can hope to archive is to shake up the meta. Every comp has some loophole, and competitive players will strive to find it.
If that's your goal, go for it.
If it's not, maybe just limit everyone to one codex and lock out soup for everyone. That one at least won't blow up in your face like some heavy-handed algorithm that might or might not fix the soup problem. Remember how GW tried to encourage thematically pure armies with Decurions? Yeah, that went well.

Look at this amazing 8th edition balance!!!!

Such list writing!

But only one of the two lists with Craftworlders was (probably) Alaitoc - the other was a Ynnari detatchement of Uthwe models. The probably-Alaitoc was barebones + Wraithfighter.

Pancakey wrote:
Look at this amazing 8th edition balance!!!!

Such list writing!

Still better than 7th edition.

Getting rid of CP Regen altogether is not a solution under the current system of detachments giving CPs. If you keep that system, you have to balance CP Regen against an army's starting CP capability. That's what skews IG so much is they can easily put together multiple battalions or brigades to start with a ton of CPs and have fantastic CP Regen. Getting rid of CP Regen altogether hurts them a little but really penalizes armies that struggle to start with more than 8-9 CP but are still CP hungry so rely on regen to function beyond the first turn.

In short, balance Regen to the armie's needs and capabilities then limit the ability to Regen CPs spent for detachments with differing root keywords.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You're moving the goalposts. Your argument was 'if Infantry are so strong, why are only the minimum numbers taken to fill a detachment?' The lists in this very topic prove this not to be the case.

Hypocrite much? You made this statement to me:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.

Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.

There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.

Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.

When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.

We're not just talking about 2 brigades though. We're talking about 7 out of 11 of the top lists at a highly competitive event all having between 3 and 8 squads of infantry. That's a pretty high percentile.

Alan Blakerbough's list is a "Brigade" of Guard, with 3 Infantry Squads listed and a single Heavy Weapons Squad with Mortars. I'm assuming he's just bad at writing lists and there's supposed to be notations of the quantities of the squads.
Shane Watt's list is a DKoK Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads. Battalions have 3 squads as mins.
Alex Ing's list is Cadian Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads.
Erik Illegible's list is Catachan Brigade with 7 Infantry Squads. That's a whopping one squad more than the minimum.
No Name Given's list is just Astra Militarum Battalion with 3 Infantry Squads.
Andrew Gonyo's list is a Catachan Brigade with 6 Infantry Squads.
Unprinted Name's list is another Catachan Brigade with 8 Infantry Squads.

So TWO of the 7 lists featuring Guard that are completely available to us had more than the bare minimum units to fill out the Brigades. One of those lists has a single unit more than the minimums, the other had two units more.

Remind me again how "Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament"...?

Prepare for (justified) nerfs.

Funny how the Catachan Brigades are stuffed with Mortars on the Infantry Squads, eh?

I'd be interested to see how many times the "Vicious Traps" Stratagems saw use. Mortars parked in cover that force people to charge them giving D3 Mortal Wounds on charging units on a 4+ is a no-brainer stratagem for 1CP.

I don't see any hypocrisy and to be honest any discussion with you is pointless because you are so biased you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit in your twisted view of what is broken and what isn't.

There is a reason your tag is a meme kanluwen. It's something you continue to propagate with your insane arguments and mental gymnastics.

We have proven that mathematically 4 ppm Infantry units are the most efficient infantry in the game.

We have seen countless evidence that top players believe Infantry units to be incredibly efficient.

We have seen an insurmountable amount of evidence to suggest that even amateur players believe this to be the case.

Everything, and I mean everything points to Infantry units being undercosted.

But you refuse to accept it, blaming the results of the unit instead on soup or, of all things, mortar squads.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Infantry units, mortars and certain stratagems and relics that IG have access to are all to blame? That the combination of these things makes them too efficient for their cost?

Forfiter wrote:
Serioysly, from all OP things some of you complain about mortars?

Leave them alone, they were useless in 7ed and now are cheap and fluffy - people take them beacause they are cheap and add some pressure but its mostly psychological effect. Same with snipers - i always take them with 2pts, opponents often focus snipers and mortars beacause of that pressure. How much bolter costs? 1pts - its 2 shots S4 AP0. Mortar have average of 3.5shots with same stats for 5pts.

It have higher range and ignore LoS - okay, but its still ~2 bolter shots on 4+ BS platform. vs MEQ it.s ~0.3 casaulties and vs guardsman (on cover) its ~0.6. Of course people take them for cheap addition and sometimes to mitigate dmg/morale (2W in one model for morale test) - but they are not dealing any significant damage.

I totaly agree that battery is broken - simple fix Grand Strategist with "when you spend CP on <Astra MIlitarum> strategem..." and it's done. What is broken are Smashcapitans (and in less degree golden bikes). For some strange reason they given very strict restiction to Tau Commanders and imperial "commanders" can be spammed depsite multiple choices from <imperium>. They could recieve tau treatment and it's done.

Castellan's 3++ is just a joke and should be nerfed or limited 1/game. This is the thing that breaks game - you have LoW that you cannot hurt even with a *** Shadowsword and horde to deal. Castellan makes all other vechicles in game useless as he pops them and can't be hurt.

You know what you cannot do without seriously compromising yourself in a pure IK list play unlimited rotate ion to give a castellan a 3++. Its purely the Grand Strategists and Kurov's combo that gives the amount of CP to be able to spend 5+CP per turn to superpower the castellan.
I genuinely believe just requiring a Knight lance for strategums would fix the knight's codex.

The stupid thing is non BA smash captains are good and look broken next to the standard marine dex, but without the 7-8 CP pregame and for 3d6 charges etc aren't able to stack the strategums to be as broken and definataly not twice.
Scouts are wierd they have a strong ability, however as a unit they kinda suck.

Dawneagles are over powered but nerf them without improving the rest of codex golden boys and they will vanish.

The only part that qould probably stay even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's is the infantry squads and HWS as they are just so cheap for chaff clearing.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Getting rid of CP Regen altogether is not a solution under the current system of detachments giving CPs. If you keep that system, you have to balance CP Regen against an army's starting CP capability. That's what skews IG so much is they can easily put together multiple battalions or brigades to start with a ton of CPs and have fantastic CP Regen. Getting rid of CP Regen altogether hurts them a little but really penalizes armies that struggle to start with more than 8-9 CP but are still CP hungry so rely on regen to function beyond the first turn.

In short, balance Regen to the armie's needs and capabilities then limit the ability to Regen CPs spent for detachments with differing root keywords.

CP is a lazy mechanic. GW cannot balance CP.

This just shows again the power of soup and CP batteries. There needs to be a downside of soup. IMO the easiest fix is CP is limited to the detachment that produces it. This way allies give you more unit flexibility but less army cohesion. Do this and remove CP regeneration from the game and you are going to see a lot more list diversity