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.
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.
Then we just add an opportunity cost:
"Trained commander: commander has easier time getting troops that he has been trained to command to actually follow complex command. If whole army share a keyword (a part from aeldari. Chaos or imperial) then stratagems cost 1 less cp (minimum of 1cp)."
Any other complaints against soup?
Bits box, I ain't got no bits box...I have a bits room...
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.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
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.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 18:09:31
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
So you're saying the only possible indicator of guard being overpowered is them being so good that taking allies with them would be weakening them? Because that's the only way you'll see more than the occasional mono list from any ally-able faction. You don't even see mono DE, Eldar, or knights list. Everything that can soup, does.
There has to be some middle ground between "perfectly balanced" and "so good that pure guard is so OP that its better than guard+" since as we've talked about a ton in here the ally system gives the amazing advantages of getting more stratagems.
The fact that most imperium armies have some element of guard in them seems to point towards an issue, and nearly any kind of comparison between guardsmen and other infantry points towards them being too effecient.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 18:09:45
No. He's saying that hypothetical limited models aren't proof. He's then further suggesting that certain hypothetical limited models aren't worth paying attention to when they differ so blatantly from reality.
In other words, he's refuting that it's been proved mathematically that Guard are OP - he's dismissing a specific model at least in part because reality doesn't align with it's predictions.
His claim, at least in the quoted part, does not necessarily mean that Guard are not OP. Or that Guard can't be considered OP until reality matches such predictions. The claim you quoted only dismisses a specific model due to conflicting evidence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 18:12:39
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.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
Agreed. While it might be a solution, it's perhaps the worst one I can think of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: No. He's saying that hypothetical limited models aren't proof. He's then further suggesting that certain hypothetical limited models aren't worth paying attention to when they differ so blatantly from reality.
I guess I just don't think "Your compiled evidence doesn't account for 100% of everything so you're wrong and I don't even have to try and prove why I'm right" is a very good argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 18:15:28
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.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
JCD,
It's not "Your compiled evidence doesn't account for 100% of everything so you're wrong and I don't when have to prove why I'm right". It's "Your equations show no correlation to observed results, so until you can explain the observed results or they change, your equations are likely wrong."
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.
All of this is actually quite easy. I've explained it more in other threads but CP would be limited by detachment keyword. So example 2 ultramarine detachments could share CP but not ultramarines and IG.
For relics, the CP would come from the pool using it. So if an IG detachment is taking a relic it comes from the IG pool while the UM pool hasn't yet spent one
We already have a keyword system It doesn't really add any complexity using it
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's just needlessly complicated, and very bandaidy as a solution. It seems like it'd be much better to just reduce guard's natural CP advantage in some way, such as increasing the CP gained from battle forge and reducing the CP gained from detachments.
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's another area for people to misplay unintentionally, it's additional book keeping, I don't see it's benifit over the proposal I gave you being worth it. Also it fundamentally goes against the 8th edition approach of simple, simpler simplest.
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
So you're saying the only possible indicator of guard being overpowered is them being so good that taking allies with them would be weakening them? Because that's the only way you'll see more than the occasional mono list from any ally-able faction. You don't even see mono DE, Eldar, or knights list. Everything that can soup, does.
There has to be some middle ground between "perfectly balanced" and "so good that pure guard is so OP that its better than guard+" since as we've talked about a ton in here the ally system gives the amazing advantages of getting more stratagems.
The fact that most imperium armies have some element of guard in them seems to point towards an issue, and nearly any kind of comparison between guardsmen and other infantry points towards them being too effecient.
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Bharring wrote: JCD,
It's not "Your compiled evidence doesn't account for 100% of everything so you're wrong and I don't when have to prove why I'm right". It's "Your equations show no correlation to observed results, so until you can explain the observed results or they change, your equations are likely wrong."
Which is entirely valid.
I'd argee that it's valid if you can show how it has no correlation. Saying IG as a faction are fine because mono IG aren't winning tournements isn't doing that.
What do you think about 200 point cal gar regen on a 5+ and gives 2 CP as your warlord?
Should that be nerfed?
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
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.
And that's why this is the first thing that needs to be addressed. Get rid of the CP regen. Then you can boost the monobuilds by giving them more CP than soup builds.
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's another area for people to misplay unintentionally, it's additional book keeping, I don't see it's benifit over the proposal I gave you being worth it. Also it fundamentally goes against the 8th edition approach of simple, simpler simplest.
If keeping track of 3/5/2 vs 10 is too much then tabletop gaming is probably wrong for people. Im not even saying this will end up being the best way to balance soup but i think the "too complicated" tag is a lame way of arguing against its merits
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.
And that's why this is the first thing that needs to be addressed. Get rid of the CP regen. Then you can boost the monobuilds by giving them more CP than soup builds.
^
exactly
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 18:25:35
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Not to say that your wrong as really it's almost impossible to make hard facrs from data with so many variables, but how do you correct for the player skill imbalance in the results when compairing Imperial soup to Mono Guard?
I'm genuinely interested as given the top 10 or so players that I know the names of are all playing soup they will skew the results.
Well, there are a couple selection biases that are going to make that happen:
1. You know their name because they've placed well before
2. They've placed well before because they're good at the game
3. People who've placed well before are likely to be placing in the future
4. People who place are more likely to be fielding stronger armies/lists
Thus, the top 10 names you know all playing Soup would be less a skew and more likely representative of the true balance.
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Not to say that your wrong as really it's almost impossible to make hard facrs from data with so many variables, but how do you correct for the player skill imbalance in the results when compairing Imperial soup to Mono Guard?
I'm genuinely interested as given the top 10 or so players that I know the names of are all playing soup they will skew the results.
You wouldn't be able to because nobody has that data so we must draw data from what we have available.
When we do see mono guard lists they are outperformed by lists that are forced to build mono
this indicates to me that these codexes are relatively balanced when going head to head and what is pushing IG over the top is its ability to soup
If soup is nerfed and it turns out that mono IG was simply underperforming do to a brain drain of top players to soup then i am 100% for nerfing guard
What im not for is nerfing guard in an attempt to nerf soup, that will have a massive effect on mono guard but hardly hurt soup builds
So you still have 4 CP pools to manage have to manage what regen etc for which pool
Thats way more complicated that what I suggested.
Also why do Guard need to be the only faction woth double CP regen?
You have to read all my posts in the thread. I think Guard CP regeneration needs to make like squats and.... well get squated
Also im sorry but saying Detachment 1 has x CP Detachment 2 has y and Detachment 3 has z is simply not too complicated. Using that as the benchmark we have to make ever model in the game 1 wound because it must be impossible to keep track of the different number of wounds during the game
It's another area for people to misplay unintentionally, it's additional book keeping, I don't see it's benifit over the proposal I gave you being worth it. Also it fundamentally goes against the 8th edition approach of simple, simpler simplest.
If keeping track of 3/5/2 vs 10 is too much then tabletop gaming is probably wrong for people. Im not even saying this will end up being the best way to balance soup but i think the "too complicated" tag is a lame way of arguing against its merits
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.
And that's why this is the first thing that needs to be addressed. Get rid of the CP regen. Then you can boost the monobuilds by giving them more CP than soup builds.
^
exactly
I don't get why people are acting like keeping track of cp for different detachments is some Herculean task. If that's to complicated or difficult then making a list that adds up to the correct point cost or remembering what units do what are likely also to complicated.
I remain on my initial standpoint after all those pages of yikyak.
Guard are not the issue.
Custodes, Castellan and Blood Angels are not the issue.
Being able to cheaply build masses of CP to from the former to spend on the latter IS the issue.
Limiting CP spend to the detachment faction that earned them is not only a non-solution but is actively anti-fun. The vast majority of detachments earn 1cp. Even just ignoring all the smash captain stuff - having a detachment with 1cp to spend all game is boring as turnips.
The solution is...
CP regen relics and traits only work on stratagems from the same book
you only get detachment cp bonuses and the 3cp for battleforged if your detachment keywords match your warlord.
Lots of CP for mono faction
Soup is viable and still fun but CP starved
Try that for 6 months then see what else you whinging gits come up with.
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
It goes beyond just keeping track of your own but, as other threads have crudely said, you are have to keep track of your enemies pools as well...
It's just too much. Go with the additional detachments reduce your CP and call it a day. Kill the battery in the FAQ and go to the new detachment system in CA (although that's probably already printed yet.)
I just don't know how people come to the conclusions that undercosted units are okay? They are basically the source of all problems. Including unlimited CP.
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
I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
Limiting CP to the detachment that generated it just doesn't seem like a good idea, because it limits players in so many ways. Anything less than a battalion is useless because 1-3 CP isn't enough, so that detachment might as well not even use their stratagems.
Just give everyone fairly equal amounts of CP and then give mono-faction some bonuses.
No im saying that your "proof" that IG are broken does not match the statistical evidence presented at tournaments like the BAO
Using the BAO as an example the Win percentage and points earned per round fell as guard became your "primary army"
If guard was in fact broken mathematically then adding more would raise your win percentage. Not only this but adding in other armies would be a detriment and we would see pure IG (which you claim is broken) finishing statistically higher than other mono armies like tau (which nobody is arguing is broken)
If you are going to argue that something has mathematically been proven to be "superior" or "op" and then it doesn't outperform things that aren't "op" then clearly you haven't "proven" anything as reality does not match what you have found. The only time that IG become the monster every on dakka claims they are is when they are used to super boost another army. If they are statistically broken then they should outpreform balanced codexes like Tau without the addition of soup
Not to say that your wrong as really it's almost impossible to make hard facrs from data with so many variables, but how do you correct for the player skill imbalance in the results when compairing Imperial soup to Mono Guard?
I'm genuinely interested as given the top 10 or so players that I know the names of are all playing soup they will skew the results.
You wouldn't be able to because nobody has that data so we must draw data from what we have available.
When we do see mono guard lists they are outperformed by lists that are forced to build mono
this indicates to me that these codexes are relatively balanced when going head to head and what is pushing IG over the top is its ability to soup
If soup is nerfed and it turns out that mono IG was simply underperforming do to a brain drain of top players to soup then i am 100% for nerfing guard
What im not for is nerfing guard in an attempt to nerf soup, that will have a massive effect on mono guard but hardly hurt soup builds
That fair. I do think addressing soup first and then looking at what factions are outperforming is a good order of operations.
Primortus wrote: I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
Limiting CP to the detachment that generated it just doesn't seem like a good idea, because it limits players in so many ways. Anything less than a battalion is useless because 1-3 CP isn't enough, so that detachment might as well not even use their stratagems.
Just give everyone fairly equal amounts of CP and then give mono-faction some bonuses.
All reasonable there would just have to be playtesting to see what the proper amount is. My fear is that you would still get something like a laughable 2-3CP for mono where its still such an obvious no-brainer to bring cheep CP battalions. I like limiting CP to detachments because it not only helps balance soup but also fits thematically. The more of army x you have allows you to pull of more of army x tactics. Not sure why having more guardsmen somehow unlocks you super BA tactics.
This said though anything that actually gives people a tactical reason to play mono is a step in the right direction IMO
Primortus wrote: I think people are making things a lot more difficult than they need to be.
1) Murder CP regen mechanics so it was like they never existed.
2) Give a CP bonus to armies that are entirely one faction
This! This is the way to fix the soup!
And in the future you can fine tune it by adjusting the exact amount of the mono bonus.
My only fear is that there isn't really an amount of CP that makes up for the advantages of having access to multiple faction's strategems, without limiting the ally armies CP to a point where they are barely viable.
As I mentioned earlier, being able to only take 1 knight and use all the super cool strategems on it is always going to be better than having to split them across 5 knights. Knight are the most extreme example of this, but it happens with other factions too.
I dont understand the issue with CP regen. The issue is armies that can easily gain 3 batallions or brigade + plus battalion. Plus have regen (because it scales with base CP) Fix base exp and you fix CP regen.
That is literally 1 army. It's Imperial guard lol.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/05 19:09:22
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
