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.

Asmodios wrote:

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

I'd be okay with that but we are talking about abilities that are entrenched in almost every codex. It's unrealistic to think that will be the measure they take. Regeneration scales with the more CP you start with - so ultimately reducing starting CP number is a nerf to CP regen.

 Xenomancers wrote:
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++"

List that isn't winning is OP because xenomancers says it is.... Once again when mono knights are running around slapping down everything we can have a discussion about how they are op without unlimited CP

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 they could just limit them to only apply when you use <faction> stratagems and that would solve a lot of it without having to change too many rules.

That coupled with a general CP reduction to detachments and an increase in battleforged CP could be enough.

The Castellan list with only 17 starting CP, a 5+ to regen CP spent on IG stratagems, a 5+ to get 1 CP anytime you use BA strats, and a 5+ to get a CP when the enemy uses a stratagem is actually MUCH weaker than the current system.

If they only changed that, capped rotate at a 4++, and removed strategems from the SHaux, the Castellan list would be fairly manageable.

Xenomancers wrote: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.

I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Xenomancers wrote: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.

I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.

I think they possibly do need to be toned down, but I also think one of the only reasons they are so good right now is there is no other good way to kill knights or eldar fliers. If there were other ways to do it, people might not choose to lose an HQ unit and 8 CP to kill them. It's good, but its not great when you don't have unlimited CP, and there are certain matchups were they are pretty useless.

jcd386 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Xenomancers wrote: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.

I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.

I think they possibly do need to be toned down, but I also think one of the only reasons they are so good right now is there is no other good way to kill knights or eldar fliers. If there were other ways to do it, people might not choose to lose an HQ unit and 8 CP to kill them. It's good, but its not great when you don't have unlimited CP, and there are certain matchups were they are pretty useless.

But as Reliqs and CP's are chosen/used before the battle begin, if you don't have a nice target for your Captain Smashfester, then you don't make him, and gave another reliq to another hero and you just don't use all those CP.

 Galas wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Xenomancers wrote: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.

I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.

I think they possibly do need to be toned down, but I also think one of the only reasons they are so good right now is there is no other good way to kill knights or eldar fliers. If there were other ways to do it, people might not choose to lose an HQ unit and 8 CP to kill them. It's good, but its not great when you don't have unlimited CP, and there are certain matchups were they are pretty useless.

But as Reliqs and CP's are chosen/used before the battle begin, if you don't have a nice target for your Captain Smashfester, then you don't make him, and gave another reliq to another hero and you just don't use all those CP.

Sure, but it's still less than optimal part of your list, since that's pretty much all the BA battillion is for. If orks get popular we're gonna be a lot less use for these guys, just like there wasn't preknights in the horde meta. If knights get easier to kill with shooting, and fliers aren't as hard to hit, I think maybe the smashboy will just not be as useful.

I could see changing something like not letting him both redeploy and 3d6 charge on the same turn, etc. But I don't think smash captains are "the problem" right now.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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++"

List that isn't winning is OP because xenomancers says it is.... Once again when mono knights are running around slapping down everything we can have a discussion about how they are op without unlimited CP

Both smash fether and castellans are winning...I don't understand where you are coming from?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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++"

List that isn't winning is OP because xenomancers says it is.... Once again when mono knights are running around slapping down everything we can have a discussion about how they are op without unlimited CP

Both smash fether and castellans are winning...I don't understand where you are coming from?

Yeah I have no idea what he’s talking about but then again I rarely do. Wouldn’t dwell on it.

What about a further limitation on using codex stratagems.


What happens if you make it so that a single unit can only benefit from one stratagem per phase?

So I've read through just about the whole thread and one thing I've noticed is everyone seems to have the Nerf bat out. What if we focused on buffing instead?

Originally, CP was meant to balance troop-heavy horde Arnie's against mega elite armies, but some factions seem able to have their cake and eat it too. Having tried one of these armies out though, it is really FUN to have lots of CP and use lots of stratagems. So what if instead of taking that option away, we gave it to everyone?

Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead/Supreme-Command give you 2 CP, Battalion gives 4, Knight Lance 6 and Brigade gives 8, but being Battleforged now gives you 10. A general Warlord Trait is added to the main rulebook giving any Warlord a 5+ CP regen.

Now you can either take your base 12 or whatever CP and use that with a regen or go real heavy on Troops and detachments (getting you 18 with two Battalions) thus negating a need for regen and freeing you up to take a more useful Warlord Trait.

Audustum wrote:
So I've read through just about the whole thread and one thing I've noticed is everyone seems to have the Nerf bat out. What if we focused on buffing instead?

Originally, CP was meant to balance troop-heavy horde Arnie's against mega elite armies, but some factions seem able to have their cake and eat it too. Having tried one of these armies out though, it is really FUN to have lots of CP and use lots of stratagems. So what if instead of taking that option away, we gave it to everyone?

Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead/Supreme-Command give you 2 CP, Battalion gives 4, Knight Lance 6 and Brigade gives 8, but being Battleforged now gives you 10. A general Warlord Trait is added to the main rulebook giving any Warlord a 5+ CP regen.

Now you can either take your base 12 or whatever CP and use that with a regen or go real heavy on Troops and detachments (getting you 18 with two Battalions) thus negating a need for regen and freeing you up to take a more useful Warlord Trait.

I understand why you'd rather buff than nerf but you realise the suggestion above would only make soup lists stronger and does nothing to fix them?

One of the strengths of the soup list is that they have access to 3 codexes' worth of stratagems at no cost. With your suggestion above this isn't addressed, instead all you've done is give lists other than Guard the ability to regen CP (something that is considered a major issue currently). Since IK and Smash Captains get so much extra utility out of stratagems they would continue to be chosen in the meta. Having the ability to drop a load of strats is fun but there should be a decision there. Allowing players to use all the best combos with impunity is foolish for balance.

I think the suggestions here are generally to nerf an aspect of the strongest list while buffing the weaker units so they see play. Oh and of course, mortars.

Audustum wrote:
So I've read through just about the whole thread and one thing I've noticed is everyone seems to have the Nerf bat out. What if we focused on buffing instead?

Originally, CP was meant to balance troop-heavy horde Arnie's against mega elite armies, but some factions seem able to have their cake and eat it too. Having tried one of these armies out though, it is really FUN to have lots of CP and use lots of stratagems. So what if instead of taking that option away, we gave it to everyone?

Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead/Supreme-Command give you 2 CP, Battalion gives 4, Knight Lance 6 and Brigade gives 8, but being Battleforged now gives you 10. A general Warlord Trait is added to the main rulebook giving any Warlord a 5+ CP regen.

Now you can either take your base 12 or whatever CP and use that with a regen or go real heavy on Troops and detachments (getting you 18 with two Battalions) thus negating a need for regen and freeing you up to take a more useful Warlord Trait.

When the game is in it's most balanced state yet, with a couple of crazy extremes, you focus on reeling in the outliers. You don't buff 20 factions because 3 other ones will be upset that they got weaker if you tune them down.

I'd like to keep the game plain and simple.

Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.

Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.

 wuestenfux wrote:
I'd like to keep the game plain and simple.

Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.

Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.

That's not going to happen, people need to accept soup isn't going to be going anywhere as it's a business driven decision.

Not to mention GW has enough PR issues right now, adding another layer of player backlash against them is something they will want to avoid.

Soup needs a downside, it doesn't need to be rendered useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Xenomancers wrote: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.

I gotta agree to some extent. Saying "oh you only get to kill a 3rd of your opponents points with these stratagems ONCE per a game" is a crazy cash out for all your CP and can swing a fight immensely. The option to do this just isn't available for most armies. Certain units need to be toned down.

But if you remove infinite CP farm's adjusting the CP cost of some of those strategums to balance them is then a viable balance tool.

If that doesn't work thrn maybe limit the interactions between soem of the strategums etc.

Ice_can wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
I'd like to keep the game plain and simple.

Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.

Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.

That's not going to happen, people need to accept soup isn't going to be going anywhere as it's a business driven decision.

Not to mention GW has enough PR issues right now, adding another layer of player backlash against them is something they will want to avoid.

Soup needs a downside, it doesn't need to be rendered useless.

They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
I'd like to keep the game plain and simple.

Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.

Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.

That's not going to happen, people need to accept soup isn't going to be going anywhere as it's a business driven decision.

Not to mention GW has enough PR issues right now, adding another layer of player backlash against them is something they will want to avoid.

Soup needs a downside, it doesn't need to be rendered useless.

They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.

No even the tournament scene is sick of guard CP shenanigans.

I'm not deffending GW's price rises and other stuff they have done, I'm just trying to point out that is people expect soup to be removed from the game, they are probably going to be in for a disappointment.

Ice_can wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
I'd like to keep the game plain and simple.

Handing out more and more CPs as suggested is a step in the wrong direction. CPs would then introduce another level of the game.

Instead, the handout and usage of CPs should be restricted rendering soup lists almost useless.

That's not going to happen, people need to accept soup isn't going to be going anywhere as it's a business driven decision.

Not to mention GW has enough PR issues right now, adding another layer of player backlash against them is something they will want to avoid.

Soup needs a downside, it doesn't need to be rendered useless.

They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.

No even the tournament scene is sick of guard CP shenanigans.

I'm not deffending GW's price rises and other stuff they have done, I'm just trying to point out that is people expect soup to be removed from the game, they are probably going to be in for a disappointment.

The tournament scene is especially fed up with CP farms. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to giving each detachment an individual CP tally.

 SHUPPET wrote:

They weren't forced into raising prices, and weren't forced to keep them as such. That "backlash" is entirely calculated and conscious decision. Tournament players are a fraction of the playerbase, everyone is a customer however. By your own logic, the worst thing they could do is add another stupid level of unnecessary complexity that will just piss most people off and even annoy a large portion of the tournament scene.

But the changes they make do not just hit the top tournament players. When they nerfed razorbacks and Stormravens, it hit GK hard, and GK were neither good tournament or casual lists. In fact the way they nerf stuff makes no sense. They "nerf" eldar or IG units, but IG and eldar stay top armies, casual or not. At the same time the same changes that hit the weaker armies just kill them. BA do not exist, in a tournament or casual setting as anything else then the scouts+cpts.

This is the thing outa8de of access to the CO insanity of Guard, Aeldari and Choas soup arn't doing soup to abuse CP. They are souping for either Psychic powers or units. Currently their is no downside to soup and that needs to change.

Limiting CP by detachments is a clunky fix that removes Allied Knights, SoS, Assasins etc just to protect IG. that noise.

Ice_can wrote:

Limiting CP by detachments is a clunky fix that removes Allied Knights, SoS, Assasins etc just to protect IG. that noise.

Ding ding we found a winner!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Limiting CP by detachments is a clunky fix that removes Allied Knights, SoS, Assasins etc just to protect IG. that noise.

Ding ding we found a winner!

We really didn't.

As has been stated multiple times, IG don't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.

There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Limiting CP by detachments is a clunky fix that removes Allied Knights, SoS, Assasins etc just to protect IG. that noise.

Ding ding we found a winner!

We really didn't.

As has been stated multiple times, IG don't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.

There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.

Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.

We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.

We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?

Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.

The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.

Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.

We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?

Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.

The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.

Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.

And Infantry and Imperial Knights just aren't powerful on their own? We proved mathematically before how great Scatterbikes and Riptides were last edition after all, and yet the single moment we do that for Infantry we aren't getting a "big picture" according to you.

Just admit you want to keep Infantry the same because you were tired of them being bad for a few editions. Would that really hurt you?

 Kanluwen wrote:


As has been stated multiple times, IG don't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.

Right. So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, pure Guard doesn't need them.

There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.

So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, they make the soup OP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.

We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?

Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.

The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.

Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.

And Infantry and Imperial Knights just aren't powerful on their own?

Remind me again of all the mono-Guard lists in the OP?

Knights are powerful.
Infantry are plentiful.
Together they become an issue, thanks to Command Points being shared and Stratagems being usable with those shared CPs.

We proved mathematically before how great Scatterbikes and Riptides were last edition after all, and yet the single moment we do that for Infantry we aren't getting a "big picture" according to you.

You're trying to argue two different situations.

You understand that right? It's like arguing that because Marine players were on the defensive about Gladius and Skyhammer, any issues with their book now are null and void.

Just admit you want to keep Infantry the same because you were tired of them being bad for a few editions. Would that really hurt you?

I'm still waiting to hear why Infantry are super broken. You keep putting math out and ignoring the rest of the armies while talking about the Guard getting Orders or having Psykers or all their support elements while for whatever reason the things they're shooting at are lone units standing around with their hands in their pockets or nobody's focus firing the Infantry squads while Infantry squads are piling on all their fire at one unit.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
What about a further limitation on using codex stratagems.


What happens if you make it so that a single unit can only benefit from one stratagem per phase?

I would definitely like to see this

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


As has been stated multiple times, IG don't generally need the massive amounts of CPs that Brigades generate for them, excepting for rerolls and maybe immunity to morale(since Commissars are trash). Let alone the repeating crap from Kurov's and Grand Strategist, barring again a few weird builds that we don't actually see ever.

Right. So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, pure Guard doesn't need them.

So let's get rid of the same things from every other book too. If it's an issue with an army that doesn't need them, it should be more of an issue with armies that do.

There's a reason that garbage shows up in soup lists. There's a reason it is referred to as a "CP battery". It's there to hold objectives and generate CPs. Remove the ability for it to power the soup and go from there.

So get rid of Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist, they make the soup OP.

Then the Blood Angels Relic is still there. I'm assuming they have a Warlord Trait for it as well.

Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup. The fact that people seem so ridiculously unwilling to nerf soup before the Guard is flabberghasting.
I've given ideas. You don't like them. That's tough crap, because Guard have actually been nerfed already. They're still showing up in soup.

Why?
Because soup is the actual issue.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Same defense Eldar players have given for their Scatterbikes and deflected to the allies like Riptide Wing and Daemon summoning batteries.

We didn't buy it from them last edition. Why do you assume we buy it from Guard players this edition?

Did I miss Command Points in the past two editions? Hrmh. Must have.

The situations aren't the same things. You didn't get the mechanisms to make the Scatterbikes work by taking a Riptide Wing or vice versa. Riptide Wings were plenty powerful on their own and so were Scatterbikes.

Your continual harping on this just shows that you either don't understand the issue or you're more interested in just nerfing something rather than making a better game.

And Infantry and Imperial Knights just aren't powerful on their own?

Remind me again of all the mono-Guard lists in the OP?

Knights are powerful.
Infantry are plentiful.
Together they become an issue, thanks to Command Points being shared and Stratagems being usable with those shared CPs.

We proved mathematically before how great Scatterbikes and Riptides were last edition after all, and yet the single moment we do that for Infantry we aren't getting a "big picture" according to you.

You're trying to argue two different situations.

You understand that right? It's like arguing that because Marine players were on the defensive about Gladius and Skyhammer, any issues with their book now are null and void.

Just admit you want to keep Infantry the same because you were tired of them being bad for a few editions. Would that really hurt you?

I'm still waiting to hear why Infantry are super broken. You keep putting math out and ignoring the rest of the armies while talking about the Guard getting Orders or having Psykers or all their support elements while for whatever reason the things they're shooting at are lone units standing around with their hands in their pockets or nobody's focus firing the Infantry squads while Infantry squads are piling on all their fire at one unit.

1. If you remove CP it would still be an issue. Infantry are already top durability for the price, and Knights have excellent offense for the price. That's kinda like how Scatterbikes and Riptides didn't need CP to function and do their thing.
2. The only thing different about the situations is that it's two separate editions. We can still apply the same logic as the base of the game is still the same. Oh and it's different armies, but that's not significant.
3. Nobody defended Gladius, ever, until we started getting more silly codices (where Eldar once again did their thing). Skyhammer was basically just good.
4. See we even ignore things like Orders and Infantry still outshoot lots of units. Regiments are icing on the cake after that, and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway.

At least Master Of Ordnance admitted their feelings when they were posting. The least you could do is be honest as well.