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.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup.

Sure. Get rid of all CP regen. It should have never been a thing.

I've given ideas. You don't like them.

That's because your ideas are terrible. They are the sort of ideas that disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup.

They're still showing up in soup.

Why?
Because soup is the actual issue.

Soup is literally made up of its ingredients. If there are issues with the soup, then it is due the things put in the soup! Souping the Sisters, the Inquisition and Black Templars sure as hell isn't a problem!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

They "didn't need CP to function and do their thing" because they played to the strength of the edition. Scatterbikes were fast moving units with the ability to get Objective Secured and they were able to be taken as part of a formation that boosted them even further.
Riptides had a formation that made them more powerful and could be taken as a standalone thing. They were also Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles which was a huge difference, as I'm sure you well know.

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.

Oh and it's different game mechanics.

Scatterbikes benefited from Warlocks and Psykers boosting them up--which is still a thing that doesn't require Command Points, right?
Riptides benefited from Stimulant Injectors as wargear and being Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles.

3. Nobody defended Gladius, ever, until we started getting more silly codices (where Eldar once again did their thing). Skyhammer was basically just good.

People defended Gladius from day one. Those same people constantly whined about the Mechanicus Conclave.

4. See we even ignore things like Orders and Infantry still outshoot lots of units.

This is bull. Read any thread where people discuss Infantry Squads. They always talk about Orders.

Regiments are icing on the cake after that

Everyone has a Regiment equivalent at this point, so that icing is on every dessert. Guard might be the only one with a cake, but it's not like nobody else has a dessert.

and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway.

So when do other armies lose their auras?

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

I've been honest. I don't see Infantry Squads as an issue. I see soup being the problem and until I get SOME kind of acknowledgement from anyone else? I'll continue calling people out on the hypocrisy of wanting the Guard CP battery nerfed while painting any idea that touches soup period as "terrible".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

Don't assume, Guard where the codex that got both regeneration of CP on a 5+ and stealing on a 5+.
Nobody else got the acess or level of CP farming Guard did.
Thats why people have a problem with Guard CP its broken stacked on cheap. Guard CP is the broken mess driving Imperial soup.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Either get rid of it for everyone or nerf the soup.

Sure. Get rid of all CP regen. It should have never been a thing.

I've given ideas. You don't like them.

That's because your ideas are terrible. They are the sort of ideas that disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup.

Because "fluffy nonsense soup" can still be done without Brigades or Battalions.

They're still showing up in soup.

Why?
Because soup is the actual issue.

Soup is literally made up of its ingredients. If there are issues with the soup, then it is due the things put in the soup! Souping the Sisters, the Inquisition and Black Templars sure as hell isn't a problem!

Soup is made up of its ingredients, but the final result is considered its own product.

And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.

And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Don't assume, Guard where the codex that got both regeneration of CP on a 5+ and stealing on a 5+.
Nobody else got the acess or level of CP farming Guard did.
Thats why people have a problem with Guard CP its broken stacked on cheap. Guard CP is the broken mess driving Imperial soup.

And I've suggested making it so that Guard can't be the warlord in soup--that's Grand Strategist out of the picture for soup, while making it so that the few Guard builds that might make use of it could keep it as a potential bit.

And let's be honest here: The whining about Guard CP is focused strictly on the Guard element. It never talks about the things being powered up by those CPs.
We'd also get a similar effect from simply making it so that you don't get CPs for anything that isn't in the same Detachment or from the same Faction.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Don't assume, Guard where the codex that got both regeneration of CP on a 5+ and stealing on a 5+.
Nobody else got the acess or level of CP farming Guard did.
Thats why people have a problem with Guard CP its broken stacked on cheap. Guard CP is the broken mess driving Imperial soup.

And I've suggested making it so that Guard can't be the warlord in soup--that's Grand Strategist out of the picture for soup, while making it so that the few Guard builds that might make use of it could keep it as a potential bit.

And let's be honest here: The whining about Guard CP is focused strictly on the Guard element. It never talks about the things being powered up by those CPs.
We'd also get a similar effect from simply making it so that you don't get CPs for anything that isn't in the same Detachment or from the same Faction.

No thats your suggesting removing player agency to protect IG access to infinite CP.

Becuase in their own armies without infinite CP access (Something uniquely Guard) most of the models are actually nowhere near as powerful. They can also be balanced by an increase in CP cost.

Your Detachment idea screws Assasins, Solo Knights, Sisters of Silence. It also effects choas and Eldar soup who arn't abusing soup for CP as they don't have an infinite CP codex.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Everyone has a Regiment equivalent at this point, so that icing is on every dessert. Guard might be the only one with a cake, but it's not like nobody else has a dessert.
and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway
So when do other armies lose their auras?.

That is not true. GK have a codex, and neither have any auras or regiment equivalent.


Maybe ally should have another separate detachment table ? Make it big so there is no cheap deeping in to a faction, maybe even limit its CP gain comparing to a battalion or Brigade. People that would want to play ally could still do it, but the return would be smaller and the investment in to the ally would be more substential, and would be more in line with the stuff eldar and dark eldar have to do.

Ice_can wrote:

No thats your suggesting removing player agency to protect IG access to infinite CP.

Oh please. "Player agency"?

Player agency would be a thing if so many of the lists weren't the same damn thing.

Becuase in their own armies without infinite CP access (Something uniquely Guard) most of the models are actually nowhere near as powerful. They can also be balanced by an increase in CP cost.

Let's be clear: it's not "infinite CP access".

It's a large amount of CPs from the Detachment and a slightly higher chance to get CPs back when you use a Stratagem. Between a Brigade(+12 CPs) of Guard, a Battalion(+5CPs), a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment(+0 points) and being a Battle-Forged Army(3CPs) you're looking at 20 CPs, with each time you use a Stratagem Grand Strategist can be used(5+) and each time your opponent uses a Stratagem you can potentially get a CP back as long as the bearer is on the field, right from the outset.
20. Bumping it down to a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead means you're looking at 5 or 12 CPs gone. Just gone. That's a huge drop, especially when Patrols grant +0 and Vanguard, Spearhead, or Outrider Detachments only grant +1 CPs.

Your Detachment idea screws Assasins, Solo Knights, Sisters of Silence. It also effects choas and Eldar soup who arn't abusing soup as they don't have an infinite CP codex.

Auxiliary Detachments exist(-1 CP to take a lone Assassin, oh noes!). Superheavy Auxiliary Detachments exist(and don't have a CP penalty because Lords of War aren't regular slots in the other Detachments).

Also, do you not read FAQs?


So yeah. I guess I totally haven't thought things through, eh?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No thats your suggesting removing player agency to protect IG access to infinite CP.

Oh please. "Player agency"?

Player agency would be a thing if so many of the lists weren't the same damn thing.

Becuase in their own armies without infinite CP access (Something uniquely Guard) most of the models are actually nowhere near as powerful. They can also be balanced by an increase in CP cost.

Let's be clear: it's not "infinite CP access".

It's a large amount of CPs from the Detachment and a slightly higher chance to get CPs back when you use a Stratagem. Between a Brigade(+12 CPs) of Guard, a Battalion(+5CPs), a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment(+0 points) and being a Battle-Forged Army(3CPs) you're looking at 20 CPs, with each time you use a Stratagem Grand Strategist can be used(5+) and each time your opponent uses a Stratagem you can potentially get a CP back as long as the bearer is on the field, right from the outset.
20. Bumping it down to a Patrol, Vanguard, Outrider, or Spearhead means you're looking at 5 or 12 CPs gone. Just gone. That's a huge drop, especially when Patrols grant +0 and Vanguard, Spearhead, or Outrider Detachments only grant +1 CPs.

Your Detachment idea screws Assasins, Solo Knights, Sisters of Silence. It also effects choas and Eldar soup who arn't abusing soup as they don't have an infinite CP codex.

Auxiliary Detachments exist(-1 CP to take a lone Assassin, oh noes!). Superheavy Auxiliary Detachments exist(and don't have a CP penalty because Lords of War aren't regular slots in the other Detachments).

Also, do you not read FAQs?

Spoiler:

Index: Imperium 2
Pages 110 a nd 111
– Prosecutors, Vigilators, Witchseekers and Null-Maiden Rhino, Abilities
Add the following ability:

Null Maidens:
So long as your Warlord is from the Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units. However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’

Index: Imperium 2
Pages 114 and 115
– Vindicare Assassin, Callidus Assassin, Eversor Assassin and Culexus
Assassin, Abilities
Add the following ability:

Execution Force:
So long as your Warlord is from the
Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units.
However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command
Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’

So yeah. I guess I totally haven't thought things through, eh?

I read the FAQ you clearly just don't give a about non Guard players.

As neither of those detachments generate any CP. So they can't even use the BRB strategums if as you suggest CP are detachment locked.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

They "didn't need CP to function and do their thing" because they played to the strength of the edition. Scatterbikes were fast moving units with the ability to get Objective Secured and they were able to be taken as part of a formation that boosted them even further.
Riptides had a formation that made them more powerful and could be taken as a standalone thing. They were also Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles which was a huge difference, as I'm sure you well know.

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.

Oh and it's different game mechanics.

Scatterbikes benefited from Warlocks and Psykers boosting them up--which is still a thing that doesn't require Command Points, right?
Riptides benefited from Stimulant Injectors as wargear and being Monstrous Creatures vs Vehicles.

3. Nobody defended Gladius, ever, until we started getting more silly codices (where Eldar once again did their thing). Skyhammer was basically just good.

People defended Gladius from day one. Those same people constantly whined about the Mechanicus Conclave.

4. See we even ignore things like Orders and Infantry still outshoot lots of units.

This is bull. Read any thread where people discuss Infantry Squads. They always talk about Orders.

Regiments are icing on the cake after that

Everyone has a Regiment equivalent at this point, so that icing is on every dessert. Guard might be the only one with a cake, but it's not like nobody else has a dessert.

and Orders are that ice cream you didn't need with that cake but you got it anyway.

So when do other armies lose their auras?

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

I've been honest. I don't see Infantry Squads as an issue. I see soup being the problem and until I get SOME kind of acknowledgement from anyone else? I'll continue calling people out on the hypocrisy of wanting the Guard CP battery nerfed while painting any idea that touches soup period as "terrible".

1. And yet there was no call to actually destroy allies, but rather just adjust the units as necessary. You're not interested in that this edition though. Maybe because it more directly affects your armies? Obviously you have no emotional attachment to Imperial Guard.
2. Scatterbikes didn't need the benefit from Warlocks but it was nice. Kinda like how Infantry don't require Commanders and Regiments to benefit them. Yet it's all different to you simply because you have a vested interest in keeping your Guard army fine and destroying anyone else that treads on your territory.
3. Ugh don't get me started on Conclave either. But no, nobody defended either Gladius or Conclave until later codices made these builds only contenders.
4. That's brought up in several posts by Xenomancers, true, but what about those posts where it isn't brought up?
Also other armies didn't lose their auras. They just don't get them on the cheap.
5. That's because Soup isn't really the issue now, especially with how keywords affect everything. Could you imagine Azrael giving Infantry a 4++ now? That would be overly silly, even though it wasn't a bad thing last edition.

Remember: if the soup is too spicy, maybe the recipe should be had Jalapenos to begin with instead of habaneros. Or something. My food metaphors aren't very good.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.

Ok, let's take the Crusade. BT and SoB battalions 13 CPs. Does this seem like something that needs nerfing? Even if you could shove the contents of on battalion to a patrol, that drops you to 8 CPs, which is pretty crippling. Meanwhile your monoguard can keep their effectively infinite CP. Does this seem fair to you? (Ok, sure, it probably does to you, but not to a reasonable person...)

And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".

Maybe we could just ban Guard from matched play? It would solve many issues, and you could still use your army in open play, so it would be fine, right?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
See we even ignore things like Orders and Infantry still outshoot lots of units.

Infantry outshoot many units when they are increased to 5ppm without orders.... it's an absolute no brainer at this point.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.

Ok, let's take the Crusade. BT and SoB battalions 13 CPs. Does this seem like something that needs nerfing? Even if you could shove the contents of on battalion to a patrol, that drops you to 8 CPs, which is pretty crippling. Meanwhile your monoguard can keep their effectively infinite CP. Does this seem fair to you? (Ok, sure, it probably does to you, but not to a reasonable person...)

And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".

Maybe we could just ban Guard from matched play? It would solve many issues, and you could still use your army in open play, so it would be fine, right?

Nah only certain fluffy lists are okay to use, clearly.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And you still haven't posted a list that couldn't be done using a Brigade or Battalion as the basis and then the other Detachments as additional components. You just whine about some stupid "fluffy nonsense soup" being hurt when it could still be done, it just won't be as plentiful.

Ok, let's take the Crusade. BT and SoB battalions 13 CPs. Does this seem like something that needs nerfing? Even if you could shove the contents of on battalion to a patrol, that drops you to 8 CPs, which is pretty crippling. Meanwhile your monoguard can keep their effectively infinite CP. Does this seem fair to you? (Ok, sure, it probably does to you, but not to a reasonable person...)

So what you're saying is that an army chosen from one book would get benefits that an army chosen from multiple sources wouldn't?

That sounds like a good step towards balancing out soup to me.

And hell the rule could even apply only to Matched Play so Open won't be affected. But you won't agree to that. You'll just keep saying the idea is terrible and it will "disproportionately hurt people who just want to run fluffy nonsense soup".

Maybe we could just ban Guard from matched play? It would solve many issues, and you could still use your army in open play, so it would be fine, right?

You still haven't actually said what's in the list that requires you to do two Battalions but can't be done with Patrols, Vanguards, Outriders, or Spearheads.

Patrols:
1-2 HQs, 1-3 Troops, 0-2 Elite, FA, HS, or Flyers.
Battalions are 2-3 HQ, 3-6 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attacks and Heavy Supports.
The remainder are 1-2 HQs, 0-3 Troops, 3-6 Elites, Fast Attacks, or Heavy Supports and 0-2 of the other depending on the specialties. Spearheads are 3-6 Heavy Supports while only getting 0-2 Elites and Fast Attacks, Vanguard are 3-6 Elites and 0-2 FA and HS, Outriders are 3-6 FA and 0-2 Elite and HS.

So what exactly is so critical to your Battalions that you can't get it in the others?

 Kanluwen wrote:

So what you're saying is that an army chosen from one book would get benefits that an army chosen from multiple sources wouldn't?

But even with their 13 CPs, that BT & SoB army would be way weaker than the monoguard one. So why are we nerfing the weaker army and not the stronger one?

 Kanluwen wrote:

So what exactly is so critical to your Battalions that you can't get it in the others?

What is so critical about having infinite CP and undercosted infantry? You certainly can play your army without them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. And yet there was no call to actually destroy allies, but rather just adjust the units as necessary. You're not interested in that this edition though. Maybe because it more directly affects your armies? Obviously you have no emotional attachment to Imperial Guard.

Are you serious? You're trying to claim that there was "no call to actually destroy allies"? There was plenty of it.

2. Scatterbikes didn't need the benefit from Warlocks but it was nice. Kinda like how Infantry don't require Commanders and Regiments to benefit them. Yet it's all different to you simply because you have a vested interest in keeping your Guard army fine and destroying anyone else that treads on your territory.

And yet you don't see people fielding Auxiliary Support Detachments of Infantry Squads...because they're after the Command Points, not just the Infantry Squads.

3. Ugh don't get me started on Conclave either. But no, nobody defended either Gladius or Conclave until later codices made these builds only contenders.

They absolutely did. From the very outset, Gladius was defended. The arguments shifted from "It requires a massive outlay of points", granted, to "It's the only way to be competitive" once the MSU Gladius became a thing.

Conclave had people completely misrepresenting or understanding it from early on.

4. That's brought up in several posts by Xenomancers, true, but what about those posts where it isn't brought up?

What about them? They're few and far between. Xenomancers and Marmatag are big offenders in constantly bringing it up.

Also other armies didn't lose their auras. They just don't get them on the cheap.

It's hard to argue that people are paying for things like that though. Guard characters are cheap because they're not really bringing a whole lot of stuff to the party. They don't come with a master-crafted boltgun, bolt pistol, power armor, an invulnerable save, frag and krak grenades as standard.

It's a dude with a Laspistol, a Refractor Field, Frag Grenades, T3, 5 Wounds, and a 5+ armor save. You think that's worth more than the current points cost? Because he can issue Orders further than an Aura if he happens to be within 3" of a Vox-Caster and the unit he's issuing it to has a Vox-Caster?

5. That's because Soup isn't really the issue now, especially with how keywords affect everything. Could you imagine Azrael giving Infantry a 4++ now? That would be overly silly, even though it wasn't a bad thing last edition.

Remember: if the soup is too spicy, maybe the recipe should be had Jalapenos to begin with instead of habaneros. Or something. My food metaphors aren't very good.

We might be at an "agree to disagree" point. We don't see Mechanicus batteries for Knights, despite the synergy that could exist there. We're literally just seeing the cheapest stuff being used to buff up Command Point totals for the heavy hitting portions. The Guard are just there to take up space and bring CPs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

So what you're saying is that an army chosen from one book would get benefits that an army chosen from multiple sources wouldn't?

But even with their 13 CPs, that BT & SoB army would be way weaker than the monoguard one. So why are we nerfing the weaker army and not the stronger one?

So because Black Templars are underpowered and people know it and Sisters of Battle are still coming from an Index...we should be nerfing Guard?

Christ, and you said my ideas are terrible.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So what exactly is so critical to your Battalions that you can't get it in the others?

What is so critical about having infinite CP and undercosted infantry? You certainly can play your army without them.

You keep arguing that you can't play the lists without 13 CPs or Battalions/Brigades.

So once again:
WHAT.ARE.THE.LISTS.
You should know the lists by heart if you're so passionate about them.

And what unit choices am I supposed to use in a Guard army if Infantry Squads get points increased? Conscripts? Scions? Because those are the only two Troops alternatives I have--and spoiler alert, Conscripts actually requires a swap in models(everyone has a Lasgun--Infantry Squads don't have this) and Scions can't receive Orders unless you bring along a Tempestor Prime--meaning that an HQ choice has to be brought along, meaning that I might as well just bring a Patrol Detachment of Scions.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

It's cute that you act as though you have some kind of final say here, when in reality you're one of the posters with the most disproportionate ratio of competitive game knowledge to posts made speaking on it, that I've ever seen on here.

We don't care for your "ideas" because they're all focused around avoiding making the changes that need to be made from the perspective of someone who doesn't see the game beyond a need to make their own personal collection as easy to win with as possible. Why you think we are limited to having to agree with one of them is beyond me. Like, no, I'll just agree with all the good players, who unsurprisingly seem to universally disagree with you?

 Kanluwen wrote:

You keep arguing that you can't play the lists without 13 CPs or Battalions/Brigades.

So once again:
WHAT.ARE.THE.LISTS.
You should know the lists by heart if you're so passionate about them.

First, less than ten CP is pretty damn crippling. Second, I am not gonna start posting lists. This is not about my armies specifically, I am not as self centred as you. We can both easily come up dozens of examples of lists that would beceome literally impossible with you restrictions and countless which would become crippled CP wise.

And what unit choices am I supposed to use in a Guard army if Infantry Squads get points increased? Conscripts? Scions? Because those are the only two Troops alternatives I have--and spoiler alert, Conscripts actually requires a swap in models(everyone has a Lasgun--Infantry Squads don't have this) and Scions can't receive Orders unless you bring along a Tempestor Prime--meaning that an HQ choice has to be brought along, meaning that I might as well just bring a Patrol Detachment of Scions.

What ever you want. Infantry squads will still be good for 5 ppm. But that is really a minor detail, ultimately the important part is the CP regen nerf, which you oppose with tooth and nail despite acknowledging Guard doesn't even need it. This show how unreasonable you are.

Karol wrote:
That is not true. GK have a codex, and neither have any auras or regiment equivalent.

Grey Knights have a +1 to their Psychic rolls as their chapter tactic and a lot of their HQ units have auras. Just to name a few- Drago allows rerolls of misses, Voldus/Grand Masters/GMDKs all allow rerolls of "1", Chapter Masters allow smite and mini GK smites to double their range.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You keep arguing that you can't play the lists without 13 CPs or Battalions/Brigades.

So once again:
WHAT.ARE.THE.LISTS.
You should know the lists by heart if you're so passionate about them.

First, less than ten CP is pretty damn crippling. Second, I am not gonna start posting lists. This is not about my armies specifically, I am not as self centred as you. We can both easily come up dozens of examples of lists that would beceome literally impossible with you restrictions and countless which would become crippled CP wise.

So basically you have no examples of the lists. You just wanted to post crap without actually contributing. Got it.

Using Sisters of Battle as part of any argument is downright disingenuous at this point, since it's an Index army and we know they're in the process of getting a book, with us getting previews from Chapter Approved.

And what unit choices am I supposed to use in a Guard army if Infantry Squads get points increased? Conscripts? Scions? Because those are the only two Troops alternatives I have--and spoiler alert, Conscripts actually requires a swap in models(everyone has a Lasgun--Infantry Squads don't have this) and Scions can't receive Orders unless you bring along a Tempestor Prime--meaning that an HQ choice has to be brought along, meaning that I might as well just bring a Patrol Detachment of Scions.

What ever you want. Infantry squads will still be good for 5 ppm.

Arguable. If there were any changes to Officers, wargear, or any number of things Infantry Squads could go the way of Conscripts.

But that is really a minor detail

No, it really isn't. It's a huge detail. Conscripts are garbage thanks to whining like yours. Scions require a specific setup to work.

ultimately the important part is the CP regen nerf, which you oppose with tooth and nail despite acknowledging Guard doesn't even need it. This show how unreasonable you are.

I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.

Eh, they could just limit CP usage to the army that brings them.

This way you have only more CP for the general reroll, or the interrupt or pass morale, and intensive army specific CPS can't be abused. More bookeeping this way (like 15 guard CP, 6 Knight CP... basically you need more coloured d20s to keep track of) but probably the best way to keep the soup while neutering its best effect (READ: rotate iron shield + reroll 1s every turn or the 3d6charge+redeploy/whatever of the slamguinius).

That renders armies like Deathwatch and Custodes obsolete. You know, those pesky armies everyone treats like glorified allies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So basically you have no examples of the lists. You just wanted to post crap without actually contributing. Got it.

FFS. I really don't understand why you want me to waste my time doing this, we both know how the lists are built.


Boy, that was really good use of my time!

These are pretty expensive units. With armies with really cheap stuff like Guard and AM you would run into problems even easier.

I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.

The soup is addressed by nerfing the CP regen, which includes nerfing the Guard.

CapRichard wrote:
Eh, they could just limit CP usage to the army that brings them.

This way you have only more CP for the general reroll, or the interrupt or pass morale, and intensive army specific CPS can't be abused. More bookeeping this way (like 15 guard CP, 6 Knight CP... basically you need more coloured d20s to keep track of) but probably the best way to keep the soup while neutering its best effect (READ: rotate iron shield + reroll 1s every turn or the 3d6charge+redeploy/whatever of the slamguinius).

You sure your not a sock puppet account for Kanluwen.

This idea means any Assasins, SoS and any other unit taken in detachments that don't inherently generate CP, loose acess to even the BRB strategums.

Also those thing your describing are not the effect of Soup thats the effect of Guard getting 1/3 off strategums plus bonus CP from the enemies strategums aswell.
Go look at Choas and Eldar soup how much is their soup dependent upon one faction handing out infinite CP?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That renders armies like Deathwatch and Custodes obsolete. You know, those pesky armies everyone treats like glorified allies.

Custodes I don't think so. I tried them and I seemed like I had enough CP using just them. Their awn eagle captains only use will be nerfed, due to not getting all of the relics and superior creations and victor of the blood games and whatnot superstacking. They still remain potent as a unit though.

Deathwatch... yeah, they are CP hungry.

I guess that you would need a total rebalance of how CP are assigned, but I can see it working as a quick fix. Personally, I would re-introduce formations. They are what actually gives CPs and access to special Stratagems, in my head at least.

Ice_can wrote:
This idea means any Assasins, SoS and any other unit taken in detachments that don't inherently generate CP, loose acess to even the BRB strategums.

Also those thing your describing are not the effect of Soup thats the effect of Guard getting 1/3 off strategums plus bonus CP from the enemies strategums aswell.
Go look at Choas and Eldar soup how much is their soup dependent upon one faction handing out infinite CP?

Well, duh, you'll need to give them something back, of course. It's not like this change is done in a vacuum. Yeah, it's a nerf to guard specifically in the context of Soup, but this keeps the soup as is for all other armies. Guard regenerating CPs for itself is not that invincible. And I said that BRB stratagems are excempt from this.

CapRichard wrote:
Personally, I would re-introduce formations. They are what actually gives CPs and access to special Stratagems, in my head at least.

Hell no! I want to choose myself what models to bring, instead of being forced to use some custom made bundle GW desperately needs to sell!

 Crimson wrote:

Hell no! I want to choose myself what models to bring, instead of being forced to use some custom made bundle GW desperately needs to sell!

Mind that stratagems already have this built in. Like Killshots works on Predators, so you have to take 3 predators in order for it to function, same with the Vindicator Stratagem. If you don't use those models, you can't use the stratagems. I would just organize it better.

Edit example: like, why only Azrael, Guilliman and some other guys give out bonus CPs? This "forces" people to take them (ok, they have other useful abilities, but let's ignore them for now). You can create a "Astartes Command" formation, that makes people get a +1CP if they bring in a Chapter Master (named or custom), +2CP if they have a Chapter Master and a couple of Liutenants to help and other things. This way you can arguably use whatever model you want instead of always looking at the names characters. It's a matter of well designing the system. Still it's GW so, it's not like I have any hopes, I mean, it's my idea not theirs XD. (this is just an example, to make it work I would change a lot around, like the whole army building blocks, don't focus on this alone).

 Kanluwen wrote:

I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.

The good thing is its FAQ first then CA. The issue is there is speculation that CA is already at the printers so whatever changes they've decided on is going to almost be pre-FAQ, which is the wrong way to do it. On that basis I think guard will be tweaked only slightly.

 Smirrors wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I oppose any nerf to Guard until soup is actually addressed. The fact that you continually ignore that my stance is predicated upon soup being addressed first shows you're interested in nothing but whining about CPs.

The good thing is its FAQ first then CA. The issue is there is speculation that CA is already at the printers so whatever changes they've decided on is going to almost be pre-FAQ, which is the wrong way to do it. On that basis I think guard will be tweaked only slightly.

That's not going to make him happy. A small tweak is too much by his measure, that's exactly what he's saying.

If the book is already printed, why doesn't GW say what is going to be in it? This way people could avoid buying nerfed stuff or save money to buy good units, they don't have to go rule by rule or anything like that, but they could at least say what direction they want to take with the changes. There is like zero actual communication from GW. All they do is put up some empty words, and no actual stuff. They design talks are even worse, because they never talk about actual design stuff, how they count stuff cost or how they test stuff. They just go on and on, how "cool" stuff is or about fluff which has nothing to do with rules.

Karol wrote:
If the book is already printed, why doesn't GW say what is going to be in it? This way people could avoid buying nerfed stuff or save money to buy good units, they don't have to go rule by rule or anything like that, but they could at least say what direction they want to take with the changes. There is like zero actual communication from GW. All they do is put up some empty words, and no actual stuff. They design talks are even worse, because they never talk about actual design stuff, how they count stuff cost or how they test stuff. They just go on and on, how "cool" stuff is or about fluff which has nothing to do with rules.

Precisely for that...They want you to buy models NOW. And then when book comes out they want you to buy MORE models. What? You think they care about balance or making sure players get away with as little money as possible? Hah. They want you to spend as much as possible and changes are designed to make sure you buy new models. Whether it's more balanced game is irrelevant. As long as you buy new models to adapt to meta the change is good.