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.
He can disagree with me all he wants. The army is trash. Spamming power armor and scouts is it is a miracle that he won a single game. He got so much crap for bringing that list from everyone commenting on his list. Even the guys in this pod cast are starching their heads...saying well - hes a really good player. Then in the game he loses to an army he should have annihilated because it was a foot slogging cultist list with no firepower - he has "the worst game of his life" and forgets how to play 40k which is actually very easy to do.
Also worth noting the DASW and SM gave up the most CP per game. Guess they all should have followed Reeces list advice and spammed the worst units in the game LOL.
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know exactly what they are doing. Sales reflect this.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
We are talking about a company that goes out of stock on half the stuff in their webstore when a new codex comes out. A company that has had shinning spears out of stock for the majority of 8th edition (they are one of the most powerful units in the game). They do a very poor job at a lot of things. If I go into my game store there are probably 3-4 games going on at a time. It's almost always mono armies vs mono armies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 00:45:19
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
So its almost like we should *gasp* address soup and then specific codexes that rise in power..... what a crazy thought
Bharring wrote: Fairly sure Asmodios was being sarcastic. Showing that mono-IG isn't OP by comparing to Tau, which is known to not be OP.
I'm fairly sure he's just throwing out words at this point.
It is entirely possible that some units in the Tau dex need adjustment. Of course they shouldn't be a priority because, as others have stated, they can't soup.
Fair to say IG is better than mono Tau.
Infantry are better than fire warriors.
Russ Commanders are better than hammer heads or commanders. Long strike is awesome but that is only 1 unit.
Tau don't actually have good range. IG's primary shooting is 48+.
Tau have no CC ability. IG have amazing CC ability with catachans and bullgyrns.
It's pretty safe to say people just aren't playing mono IG because why would you when you can get a castellan and throw it into the mix and wreck peoples lives?
Yet we see mono tau do better then mono guard in tournaments..... interesting
That's because Tau can't take allies you walnut. Like, did you completely forget everything that happened the two editions? Like, ALL of it?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know exactly what they are doing. Sales reflect this.
Yeah they know pr. Doesn#t affect rule quality though which is worst it's ever been, especially balance.
Spartacus wrote: For what its worth, the three almost identical Catachan Brigade lists in the OP also happened to take positions 1, 2 and 3 in the final rankings.
That is:
Catachan Brigade
BA min Battalion with Smash Captains
Knight Castellan
The Catachan brigades seem to be the best choice because they make your chaff a legitimate threat; you're going to take them anyways for CP regen, if you can make them S4 3 attack models that can put pressure in the middle of the board with "Move, Move, Move" then you probably should.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
Ice_can wrote: FYI the only one of those cheapest CP lists that wouldn't swap at least one of those choices out for more expensive model is the Guard battalion.
Straken and primaris psykers, the options are limited by changes to the previous guard ally options of conscripts and commissars.
If i'm not mistaken chaos can (via renegades) take a battalion for 170pts. Can't say i've seen much of them since the psyker price hike, it's all cultists and characters/sorcerers/princes - at the end of the day guard have the cheap units that don't give players much of a reason to swap up (compared to the sunk cost of a chaos marine HQ for instance), but at the same time they don't have something like Ahriman to buy up to either especially compared to the efficient return from a regular cp-regen commander.
Smirrors wrote: You and everyone that has math hammered efficiency have been doing so in a vacuum. And you may be right in all your conclusions. I believe that GW should take incremental steps to review the meta rather than make rash decisions based on this as the reason these efficiencies have become an issue is due to soup.
This is an incremental step. IG and Infantry (previously Conscripts) have been undercosted since their codex was released. This isn't a "rash" decision, if anything it's a delayed one. No, I don't want to wait for another CA to be released in another 12 months' time. I don't want to wait until the next big FAQ that might address the glaring issues. I would like them to be fixed now. They've been going on for quite a while.
It feels like (I may be wrong in this) those arguing for a balance to soup first are doing so because they want to delay the inevitable Infantry/Custodes Jetbikes/Castellan nerf that, let's be honest, absolutely needs to happen.
Smirrors wrote: Do you think that the results will change if those battalions go up by 30pts? Or 60pts in a brigade?
Absolutely. The amount of times I've been over by 5 or 6 points and had to reshuffle my list. 30/60 pts will have an impact on those lists. Suddenly a player can't fit a Castellan into the list. Suddenly they can't have 2 Slamguinius and 3 Scouts.
In CA I want to see not only a nerf to soup/buff to mono but ALSO a change to Infantry to make them more in line with every other unit at their points' cost. I want to see the meta change and develop rather than stagnate. The results here show stagnation which is cancer to a competitive game.
Ice_can wrote: FYI the only one of those cheapest CP lists that wouldn't swap at least one of those choices out for more expensive model is the Guard battalion.
Straken and primaris psykers, the options are limited by changes to the previous guard ally options of conscripts and commissars.
If i'm not mistaken chaos can (via renegades) take a battalion for 170pts. Can't say i've seen much of them since the psyker price hike, it's all cultists and characters/sorcerers/princes - at the end of the day guard have the cheap units that don't give players much of a reason to swap up (compared to the sunk cost of a chaos marine HQ for instance), but at the same time they don't have something like Ahriman to buy up to either especially compared to the efficient return from a regular cp-regen commander.
The Renegade are paying 37 points per CP to guards 18 points per CP.
While thats less than the chaos codex it's not worth the loss of legion traits, relics and warlord traits.
Even swapping in straken who is cheap for his buffs guard are still only paying 22.5 points per CP. That's still way ahead of everyone else in the game
My standard minimum tau battalion is paying 45.3 points for each CP and thats just the mandatory choices for the battalion.
Thats double the points per CP of Guard.
A points increase will make a slight change but all it will mean is a player having to drop a captain or supplementing it with something else instead. There needs to be a fundamental shift in rules to combat allies and CP regeneration to really have any effect.
MistaGav wrote: A points increase will make a slight change but all it will mean is a player having to drop a captain or supplementing it with something else instead. There needs to be a fundamental shift in rules to combat allies and CP regeneration to really have any effect.
I'd just point out the maths I have just done above it's not CP regen game wide thats broken just Guard double dipping and imperial soup tripple dipping thats broken. 1 source isn't remotely as impacting.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
Some people also buy, create second armies because the army they started with became unfun to play or required esentially a new army at some new codex.
No one is enjoying a game where your opponent has to give you advantages to make up for GW's inability to balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 08:42:56
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
Some people also buy, create second armies because the army they started with became unfun to pkay or required esentially a new army at some new codex. No one is enjoying a game where your opponent has to gice you advantages to make up for GW inability to balance.
Yeah, after 50+ games of DE in 7th ed (tho i did find a nice list, still a very uphill battle), i turned to Corsairs (and if you dont take the formations they are actually very balanced) honestly, i wish i started with corsairs from the start, they were the most fun i have ever had in 40k... to day FW axed them.
My main 2 armies are Nids and DE, 6-7th was a trying time for me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 08:44:29
Karol wrote: Are you sure about GW knowing how their rules work in game? Because when you hear them talk about playing or read articles on their official page it feels as if they had zero idea about the game.
Yeah. I second this. They really don't know the consequence of the rules they write. In a lot of cases. The don't consider the stacking of strats and spells and fighting twice and stuff.
They know exactly what they are doing. Sales reflect this.
Sales always say more about the buyer then the sellers. The sells are doing well, because GW seems to have a whale population high enough to buy everything they put out no matter what. Nothing bad in it by the way. So if they squeeze the equivalent of about 3-4 years of updates in to 12 months, the sales will go up. You can say the same about WFB and AoS. AoS is the "better" game, because it sales better. And it is true for GW it is the better seller. But when you compare it to how many updates WFB got, and compering to AoS those were more or less non existent, the difference in sales will always be there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: You are only talking about people playing their army wrongly...I'm surprised there aren't a few mono IG list in the top 20. Look at that ultra marines army that placed 15th lol.
But at the top end there is no problem of IG being good when played mono. It doesn't matter, because in soup it is just better. It is like asking of mr Bolt would outrun most of people around the world running without any shoes. He would, but you would never see him do it at an event.
IG have great point per efficiency ratio, great CP generation. It is normal to use that and combined it with the alfa strike power of a slamguinius or a Ravellan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 10:31:44
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
1) I think Soup is the main issue at the moment. It's possible that IG need some adjustment, but I think fixing Soup first would make it a lot clearer how much of IG actually needs adjusting and how much of their stuff is only broken in Soup. For example:
- Infantry Squads are indeed cheap and efficient when on the defensive. However, you'll notice that all the lists with IG Infantry Squads also had basically whole detachments of aggressive units (BA Captains, Custodes, Imperial Knights). My suspicion is that, if these elements were no longer available, those IG squads would seriously struggle to move up the table and take enemy objectives.
- IG in general can easily generate a ton of CPs via cheap Battalions/Brigades and also CP regeneration abilities. However, all this CP seems to be spent almost exclusively on non-IG stratagems. If IG were forced to operate without allies, I suspect that they'd end up with a ton of CP but very little to actually spend it on. And, of course, other Imperium armies would have to cope with not having huge batteries of CP or cheap IG squads to hold objectives for them.
Now, just to reiterate, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong and that some IG units would prove to be unbalanced even without allies. In this case, fine, we will increase points or whatever as necessary.
I merely think that allies should be the first thing to be toned down. They are ubiquitous at this point and there wasn't a single top list that didn't use them. I simply don't believe that mono-armies should suffer because of stupid interactions with the broken ally mechanics.
2) I notice that DE lists are no longer using Wytches and Venoms. Indeed, they appear to have abandoned transports entirely.
3) The 'Writ of the Living Muse Archon + 3 Ravagers' detachment is something I find deeply depressing. I get the Ravagers, if only because there really isn't anything else in DE that performs their role. Though I do think that the point costs of Dark Lances and Disintegrators should be swapped (since the former cost more and are never taken).
However, what really saddens me is the Archon being relegated to the role of Master of Ordnance. Probably wishful thinking on my part, but I'd really like to see him redesigned so as to be more than a Ravager buffbot.
Yeah, after 50+ games of DE in 7th ed (tho i did find a nice list, still a very uphill battle), i turned to Corsairs (and if you dont take the formations they are actually very balanced) honestly, i wish i started with corsairs from the start, they were the most fun i have ever had in 40k... to day FW axed them.
Just wanted to say that I was in the exact same boat in 7th. I also started Corsairs when they came out because, quite frankly, they seemed like Codex Dark Eldar: Good Version. They were basically everything I wanted from Dark Eldar - fast vehicles, fast troops, glass cannons and, most importantly, fun and flavourful HQs. I absolutely adored the Corsair Prince - who had a ton of flavour and customisation (in both wargear and his amazing First Prince rule), as well as being able to actually take mobility options. Hey, GW, any chance of that for my sodding DEHQs? We have 3 non-vehicle mobility options in our army, is it really too much to ask that our HQs be able to use even one of them?
/Rant
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Most people don't buy units because they are OP or because they can take allies in matched play. Most people buy armies because they look cool and they have fun painting and building them.
I sincerely hope that this is the case, but I don't think it's the whole story. I'm convinced that there is a relatively small fraction of whales who buy exclusively for effectiveness and do so with a lot of spending power, compared to the average customer.
There definitely is. But Xeno said MOST people, which is true. The majority of people pick their army off love. Expanding when they have a deeper knowledge of 40k, because something either looks fun to play, or to paint/collect.
I agree, but the important question would be how much of the total spending power lies with "most of the customers" and how it compares to said whales, because GW will adjust their policies to whomever spends more on their products.
So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 11:25:18
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
Why do Guard get to keep mental CP regen but soup gets nerfed hard?
If as guard player's keep insisting their strategums are garbage and they can't use all their CP in a game should the keep grandnstrategist and Kurov's. Just FAQ those to be not for matched play. Much simpler fix.
Regarding soup I'd probably like to see a primary faction solution. Meaning one faction has to represent at least 50% of your army's points/PL and your warlord has to come from that faction. This would also be the only faction you can freely use all stratagems from. In addition detachments has to be from this faction for it to generate the CP benefits you'd normally get from those detachments.
Any detachment that does not match all the faction keywords are not counted towards your primary faction. This would mean that Blood Angels and Ultramariines are not the same, even stuff like Raven Guard and Ultramarines are not the same even though they're in the same book.
Regarding the chapter benefits non primary faction detachments would normally recieve, you'll still get them. So no change there, you would also get the stratagems normally associated with that faction except for the chapter specific one. The thought process there is for balance purposes but also that it represents something that's difficult to pull off without your warlords guidance.
And some other general modifications would be to remove the Supreme Command detachment since it's always going to be used to spam very powerful HQs and no faction truly needs that detachment to function.
Also remove CP generation and simply switch out any current relic/trait that grants it with a flat "before the beginning of the first battleround you gain an additional D3 CP"
I'm not sure exactly what to replace it with, but please let's remove the faction wide -1 to hit from the game. It's immensly powerful and will always be taken if possible.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
This isn't a solution in any sense of the word. It still grants disproportionate amount of Command Points to armies that choose to soup, and doesn't incentivise playing mono-book armies. Additionally, it doesn't even fix the commonly spammed Kurov's Aquilla that makes an appearance in a lot of armies that run Imperial Guard anyways, as it is one of the few that is designed to function when either player uses a stratagem. Lower the number of command points granted from battalions would also be a hard nerf to elite armies that don't soup in some easy CP generation such as IG anyways. It just doesn't make much sense.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
Why do Guard get to keep mental CP regen but soup gets nerfed hard?
If as guard player's keep insisting their strategums are garbage and they can't use all their CP in a game should the keep grandnstrategist and Kurov's. Just FAQ those to be not for matched play. Much simpler fix.
If we look at Guard stratagems and Guard CP regen abilities for Guard stratagems alone, are we seriously looking at a problem though? I personally don’t think we are, but I might be mistaken.
Kdash wrote: So, either Reece got incredibly lucky that all the games he won were against extremely terrible lists and players, or his list was designed to work in a certain way and performed as expected vs the current meta and power picks.
I’m more inclined to think the later, rather than the idea of him getting free win games.
Something that hasn’t been taken into account in this thread is that the NOVA missions are different to the ITC and ETC. This of course has an impact on list building and what makes “gimmicky” lists appear and do well when 99% of the community just instantly write the list off cos it contains “x”.
As for CP farming, I agree that it is a problem, however, I’d just make 1 initial change and see how it goes. The change would be –
All abilities and relics that allow you to regain CP may only be used when a stratagem from the same codex is played.
Essentially, this means that Grand Strategist only works on Guard stratagems. Vitae only works on Blood Angels stratagems. Autarchs only work on Craftworld stratagems etc etc.
This would seriously impact on the overall ability of single Knights or “all of nothing” Smash Captains. Suddenly, you can no longer roll for CP regen when you spend 3 CP rotating a Castellans Ion Shield. If you spend 7 CP on a Smash Captain, you’ll only be rolling Vitae dice, and not Grand Strategist as well etc etc. Yes, you still have the problem of having 12+ command points at the start of the game, but, your overall effectiveness will drop a lot quicker than it currently does.
In response to that, I’d consider dropping battalions down to 4CP and brigades down to 9CP.
In regards to single Knights getting stratagem access. I kinda agree that it should be limited, but, doing so would require a separate set of Freeblade stratagems to be created in order to not completely screw over that particular option – of which only Freeblades can use.
Andrew Gonyo’s list started with 20 CP (probably 13 after relics and stratagems etc). After 1 turn of RIS and Smash Captain messing around with my change I’d expect him to have 7 or so CP remaining – which doesn’t include a base re-roll or using +1 save on a Crusader unit. After turn 2, he’d prob be down to 2-4 CP depending on what happens. This greatly changes the game from that point on – if you’ve been able to survive reasonably well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As such, a lot of the issues with soup then starts to disappear. Sure, you still have different synergies, but the crutch being used by Imperium lists would be severely cut.
However, this doesn’t really impact on the current Chaos or Aeldari soup lists, which would potentially need other things addressing in order to keep them in line.
This isn't a solution in any sense of the word. It still grants disproportionate amount of Command Points to armies that choose to soup, and doesn't incentivise playing mono-book armies. Additionally, it doesn't even fix the commonly spammed Kurov's Aquilla that makes an appearance in a lot of armies that run Imperial Guard anyways, as it is one of the few that is designed to function when either player uses a stratagem. Lower the number of command points granted from battalions would also be a hard nerf to elite armies that don't soup in some easy CP generation such as IG anyways. It just doesn't make much sense.
So, now the issue isn’t actually Guard being cheap, the amount of cheap CP Guard can give you, but, the issue is now with the Aquilla relic.
If this then becomes an issue that is genuinely stacking far too many command points through a game for the user, then, we can change it, and all other similar ones (i.e Thousand Sons Helm relic) to a 6+ instead of a 5+.
On its own, the Aquilla is maybe getting you 1-2 CP back a game, 3 if you’re lucky.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 11:46:57
So, now the issue isn’t actually Guard being cheap, the amount of cheap CP Guard can give you, but, the issue is now with the Aquilla relic.
If this then becomes an issue that is genuinely stacking far too many command points through a game for the user, then, we can change it, and all other similar ones (i.e Thousand Sons Helm relic) to a 6+ instead of a 5+.
On its own, the Aquilla is maybe getting you 1-2 CP back a game, 3 if you’re lucky.
No offence, man, but you never actually responded to anything I said. Your solution actually encourages people to use soup armies more, and pushes them further into power. How could that be considered a solution? If starting CPs are more valuable than they are now with your proposal, why would people not just soup in some easy CPs, and what incentive is there to not do so?
Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
So, now the issue isn’t actually Guard being cheap, the amount of cheap CP Guard can give you, but, the issue is now with the Aquilla relic.
If this then becomes an issue that is genuinely stacking far too many command points through a game for the user, then, we can change it, and all other similar ones (i.e Thousand Sons Helm relic) to a 6+ instead of a 5+.
On its own, the Aquilla is maybe getting you 1-2 CP back a game, 3 if you’re lucky.
No offence, man, but you never actually responded to anything I said. Your solution actually encourages people to use soup armies more, and pushes them further into power. How could that be considered a solution? If starting CPs are more valuable than they are now with your proposal, why would people not just soup in some easy CPs, and what incentive is there to not do so?
My reply covered your point about the Aquilla relic being “commonly taken”. Does the relic have than much of an impact on every game on its own, or is it just a small part of a compounded issue?
What is the problem we are trying to fix here?
Is it armies having too many CP to start with?
Is it armies regaining too many CP during a battle?
Or is it something completely different?
Because right now, everything is going backwards and forwards so much that it is impossible to tell.
Without taking a Guard Battalion, or Brigade, an Imperium Soup list can still start with 13CP, whilst still containing a Castellan and Smash Captains, with about 600-700 points left over for whatever they want. (but not gaining anymore detachments) They can up with to 16CP if they take a couple of Helverins, leaving them with 200-300 points spare.
Alternatively, I can run a Mono Marine list and still end up with 2 battalions + 1 other detachment with plenty of points spare for 14CP to start with, and if I’m running BA, well, I can still regain some with the Vitae relic. Sure, the tools that the soup list can get will allow for more flexibility, but, is getting 5 CP from 180 points the problem, or is it pretty irrelevant? Nerf Guard with a points rise, sure, but then people will just play a min Admech battalion for 199 points. Raise Admech points and people will jump to a basic Marine battalion at ~290-300 points. Getting additional starting CP is easy enough for Imperium Soup right now.
Tau, I’m pretty sure can run double battalion and a Riptide wing for plenty of CP. Chaos soup will still run what they are currently doing, same for Aeldari soup – and they both seem to be doing perfectly fine with the amount of CP they get, which is a whole lot less than Imperium soup gets.
Can you explain how you have 600-700 points left in your marines plus castellan list with 13 CP as thats 2 battalion plus a Castellan?
Also with Guard that would be a 20+CP list with another 200 points to spend
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 12:16:04
There are a few things making soup the best choice other than some units being too good or too cheap.
The first is some factions being better at generating CP per points spent. Even without the insane generation abilities, they're isn't a great reason why CP are tied to detachments, when detachments are tied to units, and unit sizes vary as much as they do. Certain factions will always be valuable as long as having them around means more CP whether their units are OP or not. My solution to this would be to tie CP to something other than detachments. I think Xeno's post about reverse CP generation where you start with 16 or so and have to spend them to buy detachments is a pretty good example of a system like that.
The second thing is stratagems. One of the main balancing mechanics of strategems is that you can only use them once a phase, and another is that they only effect one unit. So in a 4-6 knight mono knight army, you have to choose which knight gets the 4++ warlord trait, who gets a relic, and who gets use strategems like rotate ion shields. The power of these abilities is spread out over your army, or if you do give everything to one knight, the other knights don't get to benefit. This is worked around when you only bring one Raven Castellan, because you get to use everything on it. If you were to bring a second Castellan orany other knight, it would not be nearly as effective as the first one, because it wouldn't have a 3++ or be able to reroll ones each turn. Instead, you take just enough from each codex to get the most out of the very powerful strategems. This is why knights by themselves aren't overpowered, and mono blood angels are not overpowered, but together, and with guard feeding them CP and flooding the board with no other worthwhile anti tank targets, they are. It also means that soup will always be more powerful because it has more strategems. To me largest faction = primary faction, warlord having to come from primary faction, and only getting strategems and relics from the warlord is probably the best solution to this. It's definitely limiting compared to what we have now, but seems much easier to balance.
I also think these issues should be visited before nerfing too many units with points changes, outside of perhaps the most obvious offenders, because it's likely hard to say how much of what makes a unit good or bad is the cost and how much is the soup system. I think the Castellan is a good example of this, where a signed allied one is insane, but they aren't that bad in a pure /majority knight list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 12:20:33
Ice_can wrote: Guard paying 18 points per CP is a problem.
They do have some strategums that mono codex vrs Mono codex are very strong.
Jurry rigging, Tallern outflank.
Where has this “18 points per CP” come from? Surely it is 36 points per CP? (180/5=36). This is in line with Admech being at 39.8, Marines at 58.2, T’au at 37.8 etc etc. Sure, Marines could prob do with being a bit more in line, but, I’m not seeing Guard as an outlier here.
Whilst I agree that Guard have some strong stratagems, like the ones you listed, but, Outflank is 3CP and can only be used once. Currently in a Soup list, you could expect it to cost maybe 1CP, with my restriction you’d be doubling its expected cost to 2CP.
Jury Rigging is strong, in a tank based army, but regaining 6D3 wounds on tanks over 6 turns, for the expected cost of 5CP isn’t what I’d call “broken”. Sure, it can come in clutch on a super heavy on one turn to keep you out of a bracket, but, we all know that most lists aim to kill super heavies in one shot, not over 6 turns.
Every codex (well most…) has a couple of stratagems that are way stronger than the rest.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
