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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Mortars were taken because they're on the cheap. You take away Mortars the players will just move on to something else or even just keep them bare bones because they function as is.
So please stop pretending Mortars are the REAL issue here.
You keep focusing on Mortars as though I'm saying they're "the real issue". That I haven't acknowledged that the CP regeneration isn't a thing or that I have not pointed out exactly what you're saying, where Mortars being removed will either force people to swap Heavy Weapons or just keep the units barebones.
I'm not. You pretending that I believe Mortars are the big issue is a strawman argument; you're fighting something I've never said.
I'm bringing up Mortars because they're a part of the attractiveness of the Infantry Squad. You get your CP recycling garbage and an expendable unit you can park in cover on an objective that can harass with a weapon that doesn't need LOS and has a 48" range. There was also the issue that kept being brought up from tournament players regarding ITC and an objective there where it dealt with number of models or something like that? I don't know specifics as I don't care for ITC or tournaments in general, I just remember it being a reason why people kept harping on the need for tournament lists to have a HWT in the Infantry Squads.
15 infantry squads in the top 3 of Nova.
Not a single Mortar.
Time to admit you were wrong.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around.
Time for you to get gud.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Suuuuuuuuuure, "not a single mortar". Andrew Gonyo ran a Brigade and swapped his HWT in Infantry Squads for HWS to get the bonus CPs.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around.
Time for you to get gud.
Time for you to take a peek at the lists that were in the running. Mortars are definitely present--the winning list just had them in a different setup.
Suuuuuuuuuure, "not a single mortar". Andrew Gonyo ran a Brigade and swapped his HWT in Infantry Squads for HWS to get the bonus CPs.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around.
Time for you to get gud.
Time for you to take a peek at the lists that were in the running. Mortars are definitely present--the winning list just had them in a different setup.
And if they decided to do Autocannons for those HWS models they'd have done the same thing for the extra CP. I don't understand the argument.
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.
Now that ITC changed reaper I think most infantry mortars will be going away for the most part, unless you happen to have extra points to spend, as it's not a terrible weapon.
I think it's also safe to say that the battillion going to 5CP is a big part of why people take it. The CP regen is also a reason.
Without all those things, I do think the basic 32 is still probably worth taking in many lists for screening and board control, which they are excellent at, but I'm not sure it's an auto take anymore. I'd be willing to wait to nerf guard if CP was fixed and Marines were buffed, as we're hoping for in FAQ / CA, and then let the meta settle some.
Right now they just have everything going for them so it feels pretty insane, but we don't want them so changed they are never taken, either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/08 05:40:28
Suuuuuuuuuure, "not a single mortar". Andrew Gonyo ran a Brigade and swapped his HWT in Infantry Squads for HWS to get the bonus CPs.
If you don't care about the competitive scene you have zero place speaking on what does well competitively. It's officially supported by GW, and it's what they are tweaking their competitive balance around. Time for you to get gud.
Time for you to take a peek at the lists that were in the running. Mortars are definitely present--the winning list just had them in a different setup.
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/08 06:05:03
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
The Illu-mortar-ti sees all
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/08 12:48:42
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
So BAs are finaly dead, with the CP change? I guess this is going to be another FAQ boomerang hit to GKs. Now it is not even worth to ally in stuff in to your GK army.
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.
Karol wrote: So BAs are finaly dead, with the CP change? I guess this is going to be another FAQ boomerang hit to GKs. Now it is not even worth to ally in stuff in to your GK army.
You are really jumping the gun here
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Is that mini-dex a 40K thing, or is it for Kill Team?
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Is that mini-dex a 40K thing, or is it for Kill Team?
It's 40K rules for the models in the box. Basically a mini-detachment you can add to other Imperial armies.
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Excellent news that makes perfect sense.
I hope this is rolled out fully.
What exactly are you hoping is rolled out?
If its things like Guilliman and Calgar's +3,+2CP can only be spent of Adaptes Astartes strategums. It's a mild Third nerf to Bobby G but really effects very little.
It doesn't stop the Grand Strategists and Kurov's mess at all.
If you ment the idea that detachments must use their own CP.
1 Thats IMHO a terrible shotgun instead of a scalpel fix.
2 Then Assasins and Sister of Silence need to be given back ways to make their own CP.
In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/08 15:12:09
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
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
The CP issue seems pretty black and white to me. I'm not sure anyone thinks an army should have 30+ CP.
It's just everything else that's hard to agree on because there are so many factors, and we're all coming at things from different points of view.
I think there are some real issues with the current state of the game surrounding the allies mechanic, the relationship between AP/armor/and invuls, how un-fun stacking negative to hit modifiers are, and the fly keyword being too powerful, in addition to the ever present points costs issues.
These are the things that are much harder to accurately diagnose and agree on solutions for.
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Excellent news that makes perfect sense.
I hope this is rolled out fully.
What exactly are you hoping is rolled out?
If its things like Guilliman and Calgar's +3,+2CP can only be spent of Adaptes Astartes strategums. It's a mild Third nerf to Bobby G but really effects very little.
It doesn't stop the Grand Strategists and Kurov's mess at all.
If you ment the idea that detachments must use their own CP.
1 Thats IMHO a terrible shotgun instead of a scalpel fix.
2 Then Assasins and Sister of Silence need to be given back ways to make their own CP.
If they put a rule like that out without fixing Guard CP. I will take it as a personal attack against Ultramarines and just quit the game. I will literally quit.
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
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
Kdash wrote: Interesting development in the new Rogue Trader mini codex for 40k and CP!!
The Rouge Trader warlord trait gives your army +3 CP, BUT, they can only be spent on Rouge Trader stratagems. Edit to say - the Nurgle "codex" has the same rule.
This could herald the change to CP some people are asking for, where you can only spend a detachments CP on that detachment.
Well - this will mean mono army only for the most part or maybe allies where both can fit a batallion. It will be good for competitive play - it will be bad for people who just like allies cause it's cool. It's too bad GW is so bad at pleasing everyone.
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
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
The CP issue seems pretty black and white to me. I'm not sure anyone thinks an army should have 30+ CP.
It's just everything else that's hard to agree on because there are so many factors, and we're all coming at things from different points of view.
I think there are some real issues with the current state of the game surrounding the allies mechanic, the relationship between AP/armor/and invuls, how un-fun stacking negative to hit modifiers are, and the fly keyword being too powerful, in addition to the ever present points costs issues.
These are the things that are much harder to accurately diagnose and agree on solutions for.
I agree its very hard to agree with what is OP as many things are fine on their own and don't become an issue until you add in unlimited CP and allies. I think the first step is addressing how broken CP regeneration is as well as adding in some type of drawback to allies and then you will actually be able to nail down what is op
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
No I don't think that. Smash captain is the only unit that I think power level is more of an issue of stratagems than base cost.
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
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
No I don't think that. Smash captain is the only unit that I think power level is more of an issue of stratagems than base cost.
Yop must only be the captain thats why we see mono knight builds running rampant.... because they dont need unlimited CP to become OP
The argument is that Infantry Squads are undercosted. I have no idea what you think a completely different unit taking Mortars proves, but what it does prove is that the top 3 lists taking 15 units of Infantry without a single mortar between them, did not do it because the infantry squads could take Mortars. It literally wasn't a factor in any way shape or form in their inclusion.
The game would be totally fine and perfectly balanced, if it wasn't for those pesky mortars ! Have you ever noticed, as Slamguinius is punching your face off, how there's always a mortar in the background?! Coincidence?! I think not.
What do the weapons on a Castellan remind you of? You guessed it. Big Mortars.
I can't believe no one has cracked the da mortar code until now. The mortinati is real guys!
This is an excellent post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: In both the weekly Long War podcast as well as FLG Signals from the front line both Resse and Juice have stated that most players at the GT found the issue of CP regeneration be the number 1 issue and that they feel GW will address it. Both acknowledged that no single part of the winning list was an issue alone and that it was funneling mass CP generated by guard into BA/Knights that is the issue.
Both these players are very skilled and connected to the major tournament scene so its probably safe to say that CP regeneration is not only the issue and is going to get hit hard with the nerf bat
Gung-ho Tournament players are totally okay with units being OP. So yeah the next issue is CP regeneration. Like quite literally. I will paraphrase what those people are saying. "OP units are fine - endless CP is the real issue" like...these guys sound like politicians.
You ever think that maybe those units are only OP with unlimited CP?
No I don't think that. Smash captain is the only unit that I think power level is more of an issue of stratagems than base cost.
I think it depends on the unit.
I really don't think we can know if the Castellan is OP without the 3++ and enough CP to rotate + missile + Raven each turn. I'd much rather they cap rotate to 4++ and remove the ability for SHAux detachments to unlock strategems than I would just make it 700 points.
Infantry squads probably do need to be 5 points. They are just so good at everything they do. A lot of other guard stuff needs buffs, but negatives to hit is what really hurts them.
Dark eldar stuff is probably just too cheap.
Marines just don't fit into this edition. They need special rules more than they need points costs. But they also need some points cost changes.
Custodes need points costs up and down for different units, but their army is generally good.
Eldar need changes to negatives to hit and soulbust more than anything else.
For the CP issue why not just say instead of regenerating points that the item/trait just generates 1 CP each turn after the first turn as long as the item/trait is in play (meaning not having been removed from play via an enemy action or a failed psychic test)? That way you still can gain CP throughout the game but not an outrageous amount of them.
Nah it's OP. If a 130 point unit averages a kill against 28 wound mega tanks that are undercosted and cost 600 points. It's OP. Even if a BA player spent all his points to 1 shot a knight that cost 600 - he can easily win the game with 0 CP after that.
It is true that solo knights are MORE op than multiple additional knights though. Because they can make sure that knight is always a 3++ - I think we already found a soultion to fix the 3++ issue - make ether the stratagem or WL trait say "to a maxiumum of 4++"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/08 15:52:16
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
Leo_the_Rat wrote: For the CP issue why not just say instead of regenerating points that the item/trait just generates 1 CP each turn after the first turn as long as the item/trait is in play (meaning not having been removed from play via an enemy action or a failed psychic test)? That way you still can gain CP throughout the game but not an outrageous amount of them.
I think its easier to just remove CP regeneration from the game altogether. Let items/heroes add CP at the beginning and that's it. The issue again is that armies with the ability to soup will take said +1 per turn item from multiple factions while races that cant soup will be stuck to 1. Having a starting CP is much easier to balance then gaining them in game
