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.
Would something along the lines of: You cannot exceed the Starting number of CPs be enough of a change?
Im not sure how were ever going to avoid players milking the CP farms. When I started 8th, my lists had maybe 5 CP. Midway through the year, I would have to bring 9 minimum. My last lists played a few months ago had 13 minimum. And thats just with CSM. CP farming is a big part of the list building.
If you limit CPs to the HQ detachment, or a Primary Faction keyword or something, maybe. But then we would just see tax Brigades anyway.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Not "lets ban allies"
but there should be a downside. If there is no downside to allies then mono codex will always struggle and it will be almost impossible to balance xeno books without access to allies
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
Im a guard player and im 100% for getting rid of CP regeneration.... I think the entire game shouldn't have it but im willing to lead the way
Edit: but i do hope you realize that CP regeneration alone will not get rid of the need to soup and also will still leave soup the obvious choice 100% of the time. There needs to be some sort of a downside to souping or some sort of a bonus to playing mono
I agree I think the first step would be battle forged CP is lost when you codex hop.
But Guard get cheap CP and to double dip in the regen pull while bring the most to the party.
Both of the above shouldn't touch mono armies but soup is stil viable.
Removing grand strategist and Kurov's and the battleforged CP takes a Guard CP battery from its current plus 10CP bonus to 2CP extra vrs potentially 5CP from your own faction battalion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 15:37:45
Give mono armies couple of CP more. It doesn't need to be anything more convoluted than that. You can include it in the battleforged CP bonus, mono armies get a bit more.
Honestly, I'd be fine with this: Battalions = 2CPs, Brigades = 5CPs no other detachment grants CPs. Aux stil -1
Battle Forged grants 3 CPs per 500pts of an army. So a 2000pts list starts with 12CPs and only gets additional CPs from Battalions/Brigades.
After that, if you want to make said Battalions/Brigades only generate CPs if they share 3 or more Faction keywords with the WL, that can work. But you should still allow allied factions to use their own Strats/Relic, etc to make them viable. What you've take away is using those subfactons as CP batteries, thus the major incentive for Soup, without removing allies entirely
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 15:38:03
Galef wrote: Honestly, I'd be fine with this:
Battalions = 2CPs, Brigades = 5CPs
no other detachment grants CPs. Aux stil -1
Battle Forged grants 3 CPs per 500pts of an army.
So a 2000pts list starts with 12CPs and only gets additional CPs from Battalions/Brigades.
After that, if you want to make said Battalions/Brigades only generate CPs if they share 3 or more Faction keywords with the WL, that can work.
But you should still allow allied factions to use their own Strats/Relic, etc to make them viable.
What you've take away is using those subfactons as CP batteries, thus the major incentive for Soup, without removing allies entirely
-
It's only incentive for one kind of soup (imperial). Eldar and chaos (and nids soon, I imagine) soup don't have CP regen crazy time but they are still way better than a mono codex simply because you get access to twice the strategems.
Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
Bits box, I ain't got no bits box...I have a bits room...
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
I think those are workable solution for the CP issue. But soup will still be better than mono because you have more options and strats at little to no cost.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Same kinds of lists over and over again... once this kind of thing begins to happen in the world of MTG, Wizards begins to ban cards so that no one deck dominates the meta.
Well, Drukhari, Imperial Guard, and Imperium Soup are completely cominating the meta. Time for GW to get in there and make some changes to weapoins, points, etc... whatever is required so that we don't see the same lists at the top of every tournament every single time.
SG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 16:04:46
40K - T'au Empire
Kill Team - T'au Empire, Death Guard
Warhammer Underworlds - Garrek’s Reavers
*** I only play for fun. I do not play competitively. ***
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
I think those are workable solution for the CP issue. But soup will still be better than mono because you have more options and strats at little to no cost.
Its gonna have to be something very simple if its attached to a FAQ document or in a CA.
We are not going to get a whole new system of CP generation, with some complex way of adding and subracting. Don't we all recognise the type of bandaid fixes that usually come out? 8th has been about stripping out the complexities.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW sold some new expensive Knight kits, and they won a Tourny. That's good. And in the next few months were gonna see more Knight Killer type units (for Imperials and Eldar only) released, and a new Meta game will develop.
Whatever, I got lots of stuff to paint in the meantime.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 16:08:23
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
I think those are workable solution for the CP issue. But soup will still be better than mono because you have more options and strats at little to no cost.
Its gonna have to be something very simple if its attached to a FAQ document or in a CA.
We are not going to get a whole new system of CP generation, with some complex way of adding and subracting. Don't we all recognise the type of bandaid fixes that usually come out? 8th has been about stripping out the complexities.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW sold some new expensive Knight kits, and they won a Tourny. That's good. And in the next few months were gonna see more Knight Killer type units (for Imperials and Eldar only) released, and a new Meta game will develop.
Whatever, I got lots of stuff to paint in the meantime.
Agreed. I think the CP issue is the main problem, and once it's fixed GW can look at how soup is going then. I do think they should give something to mono factions to make them competitively viable, like maybe the ability to use their strategems twice per phase, but I don't think soup itself is ruining the game per se.
Im still a fan of inverting the CP system, and yes I know this wont happen as an update, its to big for that.
But every battleforged army starts with a reasonably big amount of CP's.
Every Detachment costs CP's instead of adds them. The bigger the Detachment the less CP's it costs.
Say everyone starts with 15 CP. Adding a Brigade costs you 2. A battalion 4 or a Patrol would cost you 8 (Numbers completely plucked out of the sky, they are not relevant for demonstration purposes).
This means that a Mono army is likely to be able to field a single big detachment and so has lots of CP's.
Adding is allies costs you CP"s and while you get more stratagems, you will have less CP to spend on them.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It is a sensible suggestion and addresses the actual problem but it doesn't result the soup becoming unplayable so many people are not satisfied.
LunarSol wrote: Should Brigades even be a thing? Are they really even a viable option for anyone other than Guard?
Craftworld Eldar can make relatively cheap Brigades, as strange as that sounds. And Tyranids, I believe. Maybe Orks. So basically they are there for the Horde armies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 16:39:32
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It is a sensible suggestion and addresses the actual problem but it doesn't result the soup becoming unplayable so many people are not satisfied.
There's a difference between making soup fair and making it "unplayable". There are absolutely zero negatives, and only benefits to taking soup. As a player I can pick and choose the best units, I have access to all stratagems for the faction (no matter how few points I spend on these allies) and I have access to all their relics/psychic powers (if a psyker is taken). There is literally no downside.
In a world where some factions are unable to soup, this is completely unfair. I can't decide to sure up my Orks' weakness at range by taking a few Leman Russes or beef up my Stompas by replacing them with the cheaper (and better) IK. It makes no sense on a balance level that some armies have the ability to do this while others do not. This is both fundamentally and technically imbalanced.
In addition it is far, far harder to balance units in an individual codex when souping exists. GW cannot catch all the instances of interactions between codexes and sub factions so we get the situation we're in now where players effectively take exploits of rule interactions with other rule interactions for which they were never intended. Remind you of anything?
The problem isn't just CP generation or regeneration. The problem isn't that certain factions can add more CP for less to a global pool for an otherwise elite army. The problem isn't just the ability to take the most efficient units. The problem isn't that a particular unit costs x when it should cost y. The problemS are all of these things combined.
I understood that the idea of the flexibility for our current detachments and souping was to allow fluffy and narrative play. If a player wants to take an IG battalion with a Grey Knight force he should be able to. He shouldn't be punished for this. I agree with this entirely. However, for competitive play, that strives to be as balanced as possible, wouldn't it make sense that all armies at least started on the same podium? That they can either take allies or they can't? If you want to take a fluffy, narrative list, play a narrative game.
IMO, soup has very little, to no place in competitive 40k. It is a nightmare to balance, it is a nightmare to organise and it will always, by definition, be stronger than a non-soup list of the same faction.
If it must stay, then there should be 2 different tournament levels, one for mono armies and another for soup armies. The discrepancy is too large and difficult to overcome. It literally stops me attending tournaments.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
That's a lot of assumptions. To be sure, though, I never said I thought that soup was the only issue. But sure. Everyone else should suffer instead of making any changes to the current ally system.
Ordana wrote: Im still a fan of inverting the CP system, and yes I know this wont happen as an update, its to big for that.
But every battleforged army starts with a reasonably big amount of CP's.
Every Detachment costs CP's instead of adds them. The bigger the Detachment the less CP's it costs.
Say everyone starts with 15 CP. Adding a Brigade costs you 2. A battalion 4 or a Patrol would cost you 8 (Numbers completely plucked out of the sky, they are not relevant for demonstration purposes).
This means that a Mono army is likely to be able to field a single big detachment and so has lots of CP's.
Adding is allies costs you CP"s and while you get more stratagems, you will have less CP to spend on them.
Yep - that's my favorite approach as well.
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
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
So instead everyone else should suffer just so the game can be played the way YOU want it to be played?
Getting rid of soup would make the game worse, not better.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
That's a lot of assumptions. To be sure, though, I never said I thought that soup was the only issue. But sure. Everyone else should suffer instead of making any changes to the current ally system.
So everyone who likes to use allies should suffer because you don't like soup? How's that fair? Removing the ally system would make the game worse, not better.[
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 17:08:17
LunarSol wrote: Should Brigades even be a thing? Are they really even a viable option for anyone other than Guard?
Craftworld Eldar can make relatively cheap Brigades, as strange as that sounds. And Tyranids, I believe. Maybe Orks. So basically they are there for the Horde armies.
Are they really needed though? This seems like its easily accomplished with just taking multiple detachments out of the remaining options anyway.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Not "lets ban allies"
but there should be a downside. If there is no downside to allies then mono codex will always struggle and it will be almost impossible to balance xeno books without access to allies
Crimson wrote: Yeah, these threads are always full of people coming up with convoluted ways to say 'let's ban allies.'
No, let's not.
Supper annoying when guard could just give up Grand Strategists and Kurov's. But nope allies are the problem.
Im a guard player and im 100% for getting rid of CP regeneration.... I think the entire game shouldn't have it but im willing to lead the way
Edit: but i do hope you realize that CP regeneration alone will not get rid of the need to soup and also will still leave soup the obvious choice 100% of the time. There needs to be some sort of a downside to souping or some sort of a bonus to playing mono
I agree I think the first step would be battle forged CP is lost when you codex hop.
But Guard get cheap CP and to double dip in the regen pull while bring the most to the party.
Both of the above shouldn't touch mono armies but soup is stil viable.
Removing grand strategist and Kurov's and the battleforged CP takes a Guard CP battery from its current plus 10CP bonus to 2CP extra vrs potentially 5CP from your own faction battalion.
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Look, it's basically going to come down to a flowchart.
Are you okay with things such as they are now? Yes/No?
If No, are you okay with implementing and improving upon an imperfect solution? Yes/No?
For this discussion to even function people are going to have to answer No to the first question and Yes to the second question. Otherwise this conversation is never going to work and always revert back to whataboutism. For every solution listed there are going to be some factions hit harder than others, maybe especially the really niche ones like Inquisition. But there could (and should) be some exceptions to every rule but the conversation has to start somewhere. People seemingly enter a defensive shell very easily because any suggested change either nerfs their own army or completely ignores whatever concerns they have.
I feel like the concern regarding the current CP system is almost unanimous however the greater rift seems to be which, if any, implementations should be placed to curb soup. I personally expect there to be some sort of, even if woefully inadequate, change to the way the CP system works in the next big faq. I'm doubtful that's actually going to be enough and would like to see some restrictions or drawbacks implemented with soup. Some people are suggesting simply buffing mono-builds but unless the CP system is overhauled then that's never going to be a functional solution simply due to the sheer number of CP a true IG battery can pump out.
I hope we can achieve a balance where taking soup is still legal and viable, but due to implemented restrictions, not purely the better alternative. Whether that means no stratagems for allies or their stratagems cost an additional CP etc I don't know. I like allies, I don't like how they're implemented in the game currently.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 17:21:29
Doctor-boom wrote: Instead of trying to change the whole edition. What is wrong with limited changes?
1.All cp relics and traits can only generate a max of 1 cp per stratagem used, even if several traits/relic apply.
2.Grand strategist can only be used on astra militarum stratagem. Similar rules for the other similar effects.
3.nerf the aquila
So tell me, what is wrong with variations on this simple idea that has been presented several time?
Won't really hurt mono guard.
Will make so that a guard bataillon is barely more efficient that sisters or admech for generating cp.
Will make slamginius use up a larger fraction of one's cp
Ps I tend to play mono, but see nothing wrong with most soup.
It's futile man, most people hate Soup by "principle" due to having a single-codex list building mentality from old editions. Tyr/Chaos/Eldar soup are not problematic but somehow they have to pay for AM Soup being OP as feth
Not everyone has the option to just run soup if they wanted. Don't know why you think they should have to suffer as a result.
So instead everyone else should suffer just so the game can be played the way YOU want it to be played?
Getting rid of soup would make the game worse, not better.
Ok remove Soup then and wonder what's gonna happen:
Drukhari still Top Tier
AM Still Top Tier
Knights go right into trash can with all Marines Army
Removing Soup thinking to restore balance is delusional
That's a lot of assumptions. To be sure, though, I never said I thought that soup was the only issue. But sure. Everyone else should suffer instead of making any changes to the current ally system.
So everyone who likes to use allies should suffer because you don't like soup? How's that fair? Removing the ally system would make the game worse, not better.[
I never said remove it. Adjust how allies work, such as with CP bonuses for pure armies or a 50% requirement for the primary army would make more sense.
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?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically. You're not going after the correct problem while destroying tons of other armies just because you can't accept Guard are broken. JUST like Eldar players the past two editions.
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.
I personally feel like they need to make it for CP must be spent on the detachment that generated it. This would make "soup" armies less cohesive. Remove CP regeneration entirely and then make specific rules for underpowered armies to gain extra CP for being mono builds.
Now allies still have greater tactical flexibility but lack cohesion and a larger CP pool
Mono lists now have less unit flexibility but a larger more cohesive CP pool
Just my idea but i think it would work well
Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model.
Which detachment does per game CP come from for extra relics?
Your forcing an overly complicated solution when simply making the 3CP battleforged is not available to armies sharing only the imperium, choas or Aldari keywords.
Make Grand Strategists and Kurov's not for matched play.
2 simple fixes no messing about with 4 seperate CP pools etc.
The ideal use for Brigades is to take more Doods in fewer Detatchments. Unfortunately, there's no substantial benefit to running a 1-detatchment army, or one where most of the points are in 1 detatchment with a few smaller ones. So no need.
Ideal fix, as I see it, is the detatchments-cost-CP scheme BCB, Xeno, myself, and others keep suggesting (although the particulars vary). When taking a second Battalion costs CP instead of giving you CP, Allies suddenly have a cost. So if you wanted Eldrad, a bunch of Warlocks, a bunch of Guardians 3 Vypers for some reason, you would have an actual tradeoff to consider:
-1 large Uthwe detatchment with everything and more CP or
-1 Uthwe detatchment plus 1 Saim-Hann detatchment and fewer CP
Suddenly, mono*subfaction* is even worth considering. An actual counterpoint to Soup.
Further, it's a light counterpoint to soup. There is benefit to going mono faction/subfaction, but it's not so expensive to basically remove soup. You can still do IG + Smashfether - you just have fewer CP for doing 2 detatchments instead of more CP like in the current system.
There's no way that'd be in an FAQ or even CA. We're almost talking about a new edition at that point - or a very specific "suppliment".
For FAQ/CA, the best hope is a large nerf to IG's CP regen, and *maybe* points changes across most troops more in line with KT. I'm not expecting this much, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically."
That's not what "proved [claim] mathematically" means. You mean you've shown some mathhammer and it (to your impression) heavily supported the claim that Guard were a problem.
I might not be so pedantic about that, but using literally to mean figuratively is a cardinal sin to me. And people using literally when they are flat out wrong unless they meant figuratively are a large part of why literally is literally a synonym for it's own antonym 'figuratively'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Chears for making Bobby G a 0 Cp detachment so no rerolling the resurrection roll on a 400 point model. "
Don't you have a couple use-anywhere CP from being battleforged?
More relevantly, this is part of why I'd think you'd want to group your CP by detatchment keyword instead of detatchment. Bringing an honor guard for Bobby G, even a small one, would then give you CP to help him out. But he shouldn't have as much tactical (CP) flexibility leading a non-Marine force. Should still be a viable option, but not as viable as when taken in a monofaction list (he's a bad example, because unlike other LOW, he's mostly taken for what he does to his own *subfaction* models).
I still think subdividing CP is an ineligant solution that'll cause more problems than we'd like, and that there are better options. But at least it's an attempt to balance soup vs mono instead of picking one as the winner.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 17:39:22
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?
Thanks for making my point.....
Tau do better than mono guard but get blown out of the water with soup. This brings us to the logical conclusion that we need to address soup. If we continuously nerf units based on their performance in soup all you are doing is forcing more reliance for soup and mono codexes are affected more by nerfs then soup are. The trend we see in ever tournament (including the top 11 form nova in this post) is that mono codex players cannot compete with soup. This screws over all xeno players that cannot soup and any imperial/chaos/space elf players who prefer to play mono.
Now if soup is addressed and mono guard start to dominate the scene, by all means, hit IG with the nerf bat. But considering the easy and obvious -hit counters that are all over the meta I don't think guard will shoot to number 1. IG would still be competitive but i don't think they would be the monster under the bed everyone is making them out to be
We literally PROVED Guard were a problem mathematically. You're not going after the correct problem while destroying tons of other armies just because you can't accept Guard are broken. JUST like Eldar players the past two editions.
You "proved" it mathematically.... too bad your "proof" doesn't actually hold up under in-game statistical outcomes. Once again come back when mono guard lists attending tournaments are constantly topping the lists
