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.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah, it should be ok but there also needs to be a downside to taking that BA melle into your list or you end up with...... well what we have now. As of right now imperium chas and eldar have huge advantages by being able to plug up codex weaknesses with soup while armies like Tau do not have this option

The downside should be that by using those points for melee, you thus have less points for shooting. If the end results are not balanced, then the point costs are wrong.

No, the end result is you have something to handle literally everything in the game which is why you see soup and nothing else dominate the competitive scene. Every one of these options is not broken in their own book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah, it should be ok but there also needs to be a downside to taking that BA melle into your list or you end up with...... well what we have now. As of right now imperium chas and eldar have huge advantages by being able to plug up codex weaknesses with soup while armies like Tau do not have this option

The downside should be that by using those points for melee, you thus have less points for shooting. If the end results are not balanced, then the point costs are wrong.

The issue is one of context. If I have access to a ton of powerful shooting, thats one thing. If I have access to a ton of powerful CC or resiliency buffs, that's one thing. I have access to both, then I can leverage that to create something more powerful than either in their original context, building on synergy that otherwise may not exist. These things are not always straight conversions, and there is a reason different armies often pay different points for often very similar or identical things. Points costs do not, and cannot be expected to, cover that by themselves.

^
Exactly

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is one of context. If I have access to a ton of powerful shooting, thats one thing. If I have access to a ton of powerful CC or resiliency buffs, that's one thing. I have access to both, then I can leverage that to create something more powerful than either in their original context, building on synergy that otherwise may not exist. These things are not always straight conversions, and there is a reason different armies often pay different points for often very similar or identical things. Points costs do not, and cannot be expected to, cover that by themselves.

I'm not buying that. Space Marines for example have access to both powerful melee and shooting units, and staggering selection of different units in general, so certainly they should be able to leverage this versatility and dominate? But that's not the case.

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah sorry but if the IG codex had anything similar to smash captains or Castellan knights you would see mono guard crushing tournaments.

Jesus on a pogo stick! It is because those units are OP and CP regeneration is OP. If Knights are flat out better than equal points worth of Astra Militarum superheavy tanks, then there is an issue with point somewhere!

No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything. Things like knights only become OP with the edition of soup. Just like BA need captains with better options then anything guard can bring or they will never win a game

BA should be better than IG in CC
Knights should be bigger and meaner than anything IG can bring

What needs balancing is soup there needs to be a drawback of cherrypicking each codex

Scatterbikes weren't broken guys. It was those pesky Riptide Wings that made them LOOK overpowered.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is one of context. If I have access to a ton of powerful shooting, thats one thing. If I have access to a ton of powerful CC or resiliency buffs, that's one thing. I have access to both, then I can leverage that to create something more powerful than either in their original context, building on synergy that otherwise may not exist. These things are not always straight conversions, and there is a reason different armies often pay different points for often very similar or identical things. Points costs do not, and cannot be expected to, cover that by themselves.

I'm not buying that. Space Marines for example have access to both powerful melee and shooting units, and staggering selection of different units in general, so certainly they should be able to leverage this versatility and dominate? But that's not the case.

There's all sorts of reasons why it may not be the case in any specific instance. Ideally that means they did a good job balancing the army. It may mean they borked a bunch of stuff and its underpowered. That said, there is lots of stuff SM's do not have. They do not have hordes or vast numbers. They do not have anything like a Flyrant, nor do they have heavy artillery like the Guard does, nor the same broad spectrum of powerful psychic buffs that Eldar do.

When you have the ability to pick and choose and mix-n-match from many armies, this issue becomes *dramatically* more pronounced.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Those items do make them better than baneblades its why you see IG with Knights at all the top tables instead of baneblades

Knights are better than Baneblades in terms of raw point efficiency right now.

Wouldn't you prefer it if they were brought more in line with each other? If a mono-AM player could take a Baneblade or another super-heavy and not feel like he's gimping his own list? Not ignoring Vaktathi's point about broad equivalence.

The same can be said for AM Infantry, (or Smash Captains, or [insert flavour of the meta unit here]), it shouldn't be a no brainer choice because they are flat better than Conscripts, there should be a decision to be made. It also shouldn't be such a no brainer to put them in a soup list.

They are currently balanced though as your not taking designed play style into account.
The issue with making a knight and a baneblade/shadowsword point for point as efficient is that the mono knight player can now never win an objective based game.
Knights have no acess to objective secured. They need to kill everything as quickly as possible, they either table or loose.
If they aren't more damaging per point than codex's with obsec etc they have no way to win.

Ice_can wrote:
They are currently balanced though as your not taking designed play style into account.
The issue with making a knight and a baneblade/shadowsword point for point as efficient is that the mono knight player can now never win an objective based game.
Knights have no acess to objective secured. They need to kill everything as quickly as possible, they either table or loose.
If they aren't more damaging per point than codex's with obsec etc they have no way to win.

Just wanted to point out the "objetive secured" is pointless in killpoint games. Therefore under your system, knights would be point for point better for no reason if you were playing killpoint based games.

Ice_can wrote:

They are currently balanced though as your not taking designed play style into account.

The designed playstyle that includes using allies?

The issue with making a knight and a baneblade/shadowsword point for point as efficient is that the mono knight player can now never win an objective based game.
Knights have no acess to objective secured. They need to kill everything as quickly as possible, they either table or loose.
If they aren't more damaging per point than codex's with obsec etc they have no way to win.

But what if the IG army is composed entierly of tanks? You can do that. It is the same issue.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

They are currently balanced though as your not taking designed play style into account.

The designed playstyle that includes using allies?

The issue with making a knight and a baneblade/shadowsword point for point as efficient is that the mono knight player can now never win an objective based game.
Knights have no acess to objective secured. They need to kill everything as quickly as possible, they either table or loose.
If they aren't more damaging per point than codex's with obsec etc they have no way to win.

But what if the IG army is composed entierly of tanks? You can do that. It is the same issue.

Guard have the cover with Obsec Leman russes in spearheads (the one faction that gets obsec vehicals)

I still think the best way to go about balance is to have everything pointed in a vacuum. The points cost of a unit should be what it is worth, not what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex. Space marines shouldn't have to pay extra points for having a wide selection of units, guard shouldn't have to pay extra points for melee units, and tyranids shouldn't have to pay extra points for shooting units etc. Having two units in two different codexes be the exactly the same, but pointed differently is utterly bonkers to me.

Sure this means that naturally certain combos become OP, but then you can nerf the SYNERGY between the two units that are causing the problem instead of nerfing the points cost of one unit and making it useless OUTSIDE of that synergy.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
They are currently balanced though as your not taking designed play style into account.
The issue with making a knight and a baneblade/shadowsword point for point as efficient is that the mono knight player can now never win an objective based game.
Knights have no acess to objective secured. They need to kill everything as quickly as possible, they either table or loose.
If they aren't more damaging per point than codex's with obsec etc they have no way to win.

Just wanted to point out the "objetive secured" is pointless in killpoint games. Therefore under your system, knights would be point for point better for no reason if you were playing killpoint based games.

Do people actually play matched play games for kill points as they are totally imbalanced as heck?
But the knight are more efficient at killing enemy superheavies much less efficient at removing 4ppm infantry squads. Strengths and weaknesses. One homogenized fest of blandness isn't going to be good

w1zard wrote:
I still think the best way to go about balance is to have everything pointed in a vacuum. The points cost of a unit should be what it is worth, not what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex. Space marines shouldn't have to pay extra points for having a wide selection of units, guard shouldn't have to pay extra points for melee units, and tyranids shouldn't have to pay extra points for shooting units etc. Having two units in two different codexes be the exactly the same, but pointed differently is utterly bonkers to me.

Sure this means that naturally certain combos become OP, but then you can nerf the SYNERGY between the two units that are causing the problem instead of nerfing the points cost of one unit and making it useless OUTSIDE of that synergy.

Yes, absolutely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Guard have the cover with Obsec Leman russes in spearheads (the one faction that gets obsec vehicals)

True. I was originally talking about super-heavy tank company (or at least thinking about one as we were talking about Baneblades...)

Point is that not bringing objective holders is a choice. You can make a full Baneblade army or a full Knight army or you can bring some Skitarii for the Knights or Infantry Squads for Baneblades, and it is really not a different thing. Getting fixated on 'pure' factions is silly. Particularly silly in case of Knights as they were literally in the same book with Ad Mech still in this edition.

w1zard wrote:
I still think the best way to go about balance is to have everything pointed in a vacuum. The points cost of a unit should be what it is worth, not what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex. Space marines shouldn't have to pay extra points for having a wide selection of units, guard shouldn't have to pay extra points for melee units, and tyranids shouldn't have to pay extra points for shooting units etc. Having two units in two different codexes be the exactly the same, but pointed differently is utterly bonkers to me.

Sure this means that naturally certain combos become OP, but then you can nerf the SYNERGY between the two units that are causing the problem instead of nerfing the points cost of one unit and making it useless OUTSIDE of that synergy.

So how exactlly do you nerf the synergy between a psycher with -1 to hit and a superheavy tank vrs it being applied to a heavy eeapons squad?

Ice_can wrote:
So how exactlly do you nerf the synergy between a psycher with -1 to hit and a superheavy tank vrs it being applied to a heavy eeapons squad?

Off the top of my head? A rule saying that psychic powers originating from non-LOW units cannot be applied to LOW units?

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I still think the best way to go about balance is to have everything pointed in a vacuum. The points cost of a unit should be what it is worth, not what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex. Space marines shouldn't have to pay extra points for having a wide selection of units, guard shouldn't have to pay extra points for melee units, and tyranids shouldn't have to pay extra points for shooting units etc. Having two units in two different codexes be the exactly the same, but pointed differently is utterly bonkers to me.

Sure this means that naturally certain combos become OP, but then you can nerf the SYNERGY between the two units that are causing the problem instead of nerfing the points cost of one unit and making it useless OUTSIDE of that synergy.

So how exactlly do you nerf the synergy between a psycher with -1 to hit and a superheavy tank vrs it being applied to a heavy eeapons squad?

You can restrict the targets of psychic powers. Maybe it works only on INFANTRY or BIKERS. Or specifically do not work on TITANIC units. Pretty easy. Assuming it would be a problem in the first place, of course.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So how exactlly do you nerf the synergy between a psycher with -1 to hit and a superheavy tank vrs it being applied to a heavy eeapons squad?

Off the top of my head? A rule saying that psychic powers originating from non-LOW units cannot be applied to LOW units?

Or increased difficulty to cast for buffs that target units of X power level and higher.

Ice_can wrote:
Guard have the cover with Obsec Leman russes in spearheads (the one faction that gets obsec vehicals)

True. I was originally talking about super-heavy tank company (or at least thinking about one as we were talking about Baneblades...)

Point is that not bringing objective holders is a choice. You can make a full Baneblade army or a full Knight army or you can bring some Skitarii for the Knights or Infantry Squads for Baneblades, and it is really not a different thing. Getting fixated on 'pure' factions is silly. Particularly silly in case of Knights as they were literally in the same book with Ad Mech still in this edition.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is one of context. If I have access to a ton of powerful shooting, thats one thing. If I have access to a ton of powerful CC or resiliency buffs, that's one thing. I have access to both, then I can leverage that to create something more powerful than either in their original context, building on synergy that otherwise may not exist. These things are not always straight conversions, and there is a reason different armies often pay different points for often very similar or identical things. Points costs do not, and cannot be expected to, cover that by themselves.

I'm not buying that. Space Marines for example have access to both powerful melee and shooting units, and staggering selection of different units in general, so certainly they should be able to leverage this versatility and dominate? But that's not the case.

Space marines are very much hampered by only having 1 wound. That doesn't cut it in this edition for such expensive models/units. They die nearly as easily as guard lol especially when their weapons can kill a 2 wound model in one go. So the versatility kind of doesn't make them dominant. I mean they are bottom of middle tier.

Losing 3 while the obvious offenders farm many times that amount doesn't do much. Nerf the farming and feeding the elite allies far too many CPs and see where we end up.

Ice_can wrote:
Why is pointing out that certain units as written in their codex are balanced. Players shouldn't be forced into bringing allies to play the codex they wont.

Some factions have only handful of units while some have over a hundred. There inevitably will be some situatuations where a faction with more options has a better tools for some specific situation. Insisting faction purity when factions are far from equal to begin with is futile. Knights and Ad Mech Combined have far fewer units than either Marines or Guard alone. Also 'Codex' is pretty arbitrary. Ad Mech and Knights used to be in the same codex. Also, wanting to play a tank company or pure Primaris army is ultimately similar choice than wanting to play pure Knight army, the player chooses to restrict themselves to certain units for thematic reasons.

The obvious target as the the balance to Soup is just remove the battle firged CP if your Amy wide keyword is Imperium, Choas or Aldari.
It's common enough it captures all soups and gives souping a downside. However it still allows allies , just makes them have a downside that can be tuned

That is definitely my favoured way to restrict soup, if we assume restrictions are necessary. CP regen needs to go though, or it doesn't matter. Furthermore, there probably should be some exceptions for minifactions like Inquisition or Assassins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Space marines are very much hampered by only having 1 wound.

My marines have two wounds...

And I know marines are not good, that was kinda the point...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Losing 3 while the obvious offenders farm many times that amount doesn't do much. Nerf the farming and feeding the elite allies far too many CPs and see where we end up.

Yes. CP farming is the biggest offender. That's why I'd prefer if they would start by getting rid of it first, and only implement further soup nerfs if that doesn't cut it.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Why is pointing out that certain units as written in their codex are balanced. Players shouldn't be forced into bringing allies to play the codex they wont.

Some factions have only handful of units while some have over a hundred. There inevitably will be some situatuations where a faction with more options has a better tools for some specific situation. Insisting faction purity when factions are far from equal to begin with is futile. Knights and Ad Mech Combined have far fewer units than either Marines or Guard alone. Also 'Codex' is pretty arbitrary. Ad Mech and Knights used to be in the same codex. Also, wanting to play a tank company or pure Primaris army is ultimately similar choice than wanting to play pure Knight army, the player chooses to restrict themselves to certain units for thematic reasons.

The obvious target as the the balance to Soup is just remove the battle firged CP if your Amy wide keyword is Imperium, Choas or Aldari.
It's common enough it captures all soups and gives souping a downside. However it still allows allies , just makes them have a downside that can be tuned

That is definitely my favoured way to restrict soup, if we assume restrictions are necessary. CP regen needs to go though, or it doesn't matter. Furthermore, there probably should be some exceptions for minifactions like Inquisition or Assassins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Space marines are very much hampered by only having 1 wound.

My marines have two wounds...

And I know marines are not good, that was kinda the point...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Losing 3 while the obvious offenders farm many times that amount doesn't do much. Nerf the farming and feeding the elite allies far too many CPs and see where we end up.

Yes. CP farming is the biggest offender. That's why I'd prefer if they would start by getting rid of it first, and only implement further soup nerfs if that doesn't cut it.

My bad I didn't read the last bit of your sentence for some reason.

 pancakeonions wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I was considering how to effect the Guard, without altering points, and I may have discovered an answer. What about:

1. Guard squads now have a ballistic skill of 5+, 4+ if no movement in last turn. Vet squads keep their 3+
2. Guard squads now need to have a commissar for every 3 squads. So you are forcing a point increase, but thematically it makes sense.
3. Scions get no changes, they cost a ton as is.
4. Every squad of Conscripts now requires a commissar, no matter the size.


This forces point increases, while maintaining lore and effectiveness. And btw, I rock guard, so these changes effect me. But still, I would be okay with these.

Thoughts?

For a newbie who plays Imperial Guard, can someone explain the problems to me? I've played 3 times, with a 1K guard list. 3 squads of guardsmen (each with a mortar team) and 3 LR tanks (plus a tank commander, psyker, and HQ commissar dude. Oh, and one basilisk too). In each game, the guardsmen are vaporized in the first turn or two. They literally do nothing. The tanks tear up the enemy. Each game, the guard has won. Once barely, it was pretty much a tie, and twice they tabled the enemy.

I reckon 1K is not the perfect sized game to get a feel for this, but are others finding that guardsmen are really good? Or is there some other aspect of playing guard that I just haven't picked up on yet?

Thanks in advance for helping this new kid out...

No, they're not arguing that your basic 4pt guardsman with a lasgun is too good. Or priced wrong for what he himself actually does. Not even if you give him a special/heavy weapon.

The problem they're going on about is the Command Points, how many you get per Detachment (see p242-p245 of the main rulebook), the fact that you can spend these Command Poins on any Stratagem your combined force has access to, and arguing about how to solve it.

1) "Armies" can be made up of multiple detachments. These don't have to be from the same codex. They don't have to be the same sizes of detachments either. All they have to do is contain the minimum squads for whatever size of whatever detachment is chosen. So you can make 1 detachment of IG. And another of Blood Angels. And another of Knights. And so on until you run out of points.

2) You'll note that each size of detachment tells you how many command points you get for taking it.
Of these, the Battalion detachment grants you the most command pts for the least investment: 2 HQ, & 3 troops. In this case that's 3 squads of basic IG (120 pts) + whatever 3 mortars & the 2 HQ units cost. I don't own a Guard codex yet, so lets just call it = 200 pts.
So 200 pts gets me access to +3 Command points.
Clearly their tournaments are running enough pts that 3 (or more?) Battalions are viable. 3 Battalions = +9 Command Points. These pts in turn get spent buffing up some already pretty awesome unit. Seems close combat oriented Blood Angel characters are the favorite (I don't own a BA codex either, but based on my knowledge of prior editions I have a very clear vision of the carnage....)

3) So you take some IG just for the extra Command pts. You give them mortars to make them useful. And then you park them way out of the way/just close enough to contest objectives & take pot shots at units out of sight. If you kill or plink a wound off something? Bonus! Doesn't matter - because they're only really there to provide those Command pts.
And apparently there's wargear you can invest in that allows your spent Command Points to replenish each turn.

4) Now you spend the rest of your pts on 2 more Battalion sized detachments (because you really want those +6 Command Points) of whatever the most effective/over-powered things you can access are. Don't forget to buy whatever bit of wargear those forces have to regain Command points!
These are the parts of your army that're going to go kill your opponent.
And you buff them up each turn with Stratagems paid for with those Command Points & annihilate someone as quickly as possible.

That's what they're going on about.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Why is pointing out that certain units as written in their codex are balanced. Players shouldn't be forced into bringing allies to play the codex they wont.

Some factions have only handful of units while some have over a hundred. There inevitably will be some situatuations where a faction with more options has a better tools for some specific situation. Insisting faction purity when factions are far from equal to begin with is futile. Knights and Ad Mech Combined have far fewer units than either Marines or Guard alone. Also 'Codex' is pretty arbitrary. Ad Mech and Knights used to be in the same codex. Also, wanting to play a tank company or pure Primaris army is ultimately similar choice than wanting to play pure Knight army, the player chooses to restrict themselves to certain units for thematic reasons.

This is bollocks.
AdMech still has access to a limited selection of Knights from their book. They even had Armigers added via a free download/Forgebane and put out updated points for them.
Don't believe me? Look here and see for yourself.

You're also missing that the "faction purity" being insisted upon is you not being able to dump a Brigade of Guardsmen in to fuel up a Knightmare army. It's not a limiting factor on the Knights themselves, it's preventing you from abusing things.

The obvious target as the the balance to Soup is just remove the battle firged CP if your Amy wide keyword is Imperium, Choas or Aldari.
It's common enough it captures all soups and gives souping a downside. However it still allows allies , just makes them have a downside that can be tuned

That is definitely my favoured way to restrict soup, if we assume restrictions are necessary. CP regen needs to go though, or it doesn't matter. Furthermore, there probably should be some exceptions for minifactions like Inquisition or Assassins.

There is. Read the BRB on pg 245. They're called "AUXILIARY SUPPORT DETACHMENTS" and they can only include a single unit but remove a CP from your totals.

But nobody uses them, now do they?

 Eldarain wrote:
Losing 3 while the obvious offenders farm many times that amount doesn't do much. Nerf the farming and feeding the elite allies far too many CPs and see where we end up.

Yes. CP farming is the biggest offender. That's why I'd prefer if they would start by getting rid of it first, and only implement further soup nerfs if that doesn't cut it.

Then you're willingly blinding yourself to the issue. CP farming doesn't mean fethall to Guard outside of being ran as soup. Kurov's and Strategist only apply when you're actually burning Stratagems--I can't run Overlapping Fields of Fire enough to justify a Brigade+Kurov+Grand Strategist. I can't run Jury Rigging, Consolidate Squads, flipping Vortex Missiles and Fire on My Position enough to justify those last two. Not when a fluffy player playing pure Cadian Guard can get better mileage out of Laurels of Command and Superior Tactical Training.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I was considering how to effect the Guard, without altering points, and I may have discovered an answer. What about:

1. Guard squads now have a ballistic skill of 5+, 4+ if no movement in last turn. Vet squads keep their 3+
2. Guard squads now need to have a commissar for every 3 squads. So you are forcing a point increase, but thematically it makes sense.
3. Scions get no changes, they cost a ton as is.
4. Every squad of Conscripts now requires a commissar, no matter the size.


This forces point increases, while maintaining lore and effectiveness. And btw, I rock guard, so these changes effect me. But still, I would be okay with these.

Thoughts?

No thanks. Guard is fine as is. What the guard needs is horse cavalry and air cavalry.

Heafstaag wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I was considering how to effect the Guard, without altering points, and I may have discovered an answer. What about:

1. Guard squads now have a ballistic skill of 5+, 4+ if no movement in last turn. Vet squads keep their 3+
2. Guard squads now need to have a commissar for every 3 squads. So you are forcing a point increase, but thematically it makes sense.
3. Scions get no changes, they cost a ton as is.
4. Every squad of Conscripts now requires a commissar, no matter the size.


This forces point increases, while maintaining lore and effectiveness. And btw, I rock guard, so these changes effect me. But still, I would be okay with these.

Thoughts?

No thanks. Guard is fine as is. What the guard needs is horse cavalry and air cavalry.

How about air horse cavalry? Rough Riders on Pegasus mounts.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Why is pointing out that certain units as written in their codex are balanced. Players shouldn't be forced into bringing allies to play the codex they wont.

Some factions have only handful of units while some have over a hundred. There inevitably will be some situatuations where a faction with more options has a better tools for some specific situation. Insisting faction purity when factions are far from equal to begin with is futile. Knights and Ad Mech Combined have far fewer units than either Marines or Guard alone. Also 'Codex' is pretty arbitrary. Ad Mech and Knights used to be in the same codex. Also, wanting to play a tank company or pure Primaris army is ultimately similar choice than wanting to play pure Knight army, the player chooses to restrict themselves to certain units for thematic reasons.

This is bollocks.
AdMech still has access to a limited selection of Knights from their book. They even had Armigers added via a free download/Forgebane and put out updated points for them.
Don't believe me? Look here and see for yourself.

You're also missing that the "faction purity" being insisted upon is you not being able to dump a Brigade of Guardsmen in to fuel up a Knightmare army. It's not a limiting factor on the Knights themselves, it's preventing you from abusing things.

The obvious target as the the balance to Soup is just remove the battle firged CP if your Amy wide keyword is Imperium, Choas or Aldari.
It's common enough it captures all soups and gives souping a downside. However it still allows allies , just makes them have a downside that can be tuned

That is definitely my favoured way to restrict soup, if we assume restrictions are necessary. CP regen needs to go though, or it doesn't matter. Furthermore, there probably should be some exceptions for minifactions like Inquisition or Assassins.

There is. Read the BRB on pg 245. They're called "AUXILIARY SUPPORT DETACHMENTS" and they can only include a single unit but remove a CP from your totals.

But nobody uses them, now do they?

 Eldarain wrote:
Losing 3 while the obvious offenders farm many times that amount doesn't do much. Nerf the farming and feeding the elite allies far too many CPs and see where we end up.

Yes. CP farming is the biggest offender. That's why I'd prefer if they would start by getting rid of it first, and only implement further soup nerfs if that doesn't cut it.

Then you're willingly blinding yourself to the issue. CP farming doesn't mean fethall to Guard outside of being ran as soup. Kurov's and Strategist only apply when you're actually burning Stratagems--I can't run Overlapping Fields of Fire enough to justify a Brigade+Kurov+Grand Strategist. I can't run Jury Rigging, Consolidate Squads, flipping Vortex Missiles and Fire on My Position enough to justify those last two. Not when a fluffy player playing pure Cadian Guard can get better mileage out of Laurels of Command and Superior Tactical Training.

If Guard mono have no use for grand strategist and Kurov's why can't they just be banned from matched play?

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Those items do make them better than baneblades its why you see IG with Knights at all the top tables instead of baneblades

Knights are better than Baneblades in terms of raw point efficiency right now.

Wouldn't you prefer it if they were brought more in line with each other? If a mono-AM player could take a Baneblade or another super-heavy and not feel like he's gimping his own list? Not ignoring Vaktathi's point about broad equivalence.

The same can be said for AM Infantry, (or Smash Captains, or [insert flavour of the meta unit here]), it shouldn't be a no brainer choice because they are flat better than Conscripts, there should be a decision to be made. It also shouldn't be such a no brainer to put them in a soup list.

They are currently balanced though as your not taking designed play style into account.
The issue with making a knight and a baneblade/shadowsword point for point as efficient is that the mono knight player can now never win an objective based game.
Knights have no acess to objective secured. They need to kill everything as quickly as possible, they either table or loose.
If they aren't more damaging per point than codex's with obsec etc they have no way to win.

Isn't the fix for that to give Knights a unit that has objective secured rather than make them better than everyone else's super heavies by default?

Knights are clearly imbalanced compared to other super heavies - you can pick any one of them and Knights perform better. This is the definition of imbalanced.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Those items do make them better than baneblades its why you see IG with Knights at all the top tables instead of baneblades

Knights are better than Baneblades in terms of raw point efficiency right now.

Wouldn't you prefer it if they were brought more in line with each other? If a mono-AM player could take a Baneblade or another super-heavy and not feel like he's gimping his own list? Not ignoring Vaktathi's point about broad equivalence.

The same can be said for AM Infantry, (or Smash Captains, or [insert flavour of the meta unit here]), it shouldn't be a no brainer choice because they are flat better than Conscripts, there should be a decision to be made. It also shouldn't be such a no brainer to put them in a soup list.

They are currently balanced though as your not taking designed play style into account.
The issue with making a knight and a baneblade/shadowsword point for point as efficient is that the mono knight player can now never win an objective based game.
Knights have no acess to objective secured. They need to kill everything as quickly as possible, they either table or loose.
If they aren't more damaging per point than codex's with obsec etc they have no way to win.

Isn't the fix for that to give Knights a unit that has objective secured rather than make them better than everyone else's super heavies by default?

Knights are clearly imbalanced compared to other super heavies - you can pick any one of them and Knights perform better. This is the definition of imbalanced.

Your equating balanced to the same.
Something can be better than something at one aspect of the game and weaker in another and still be balanced. It up to the players to leverage their strengths against their opponents weakness.

But why has a solving the guards insane CP generation once again be redirected into everything else is souo is OP without answering the question of why Guard are the constant enabler for imperial soup?

Ice_can wrote:

But why has a solving the guards insane CP generation once again be redirected into everything else is souo is OP without answering the question of why Guard are the constant enabler for imperial soup?

Because you seem to believe that people are ignoring issues when in reality they're trying to point out the crux of the matter and you don't like it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

If Guard mono have no use for grand strategist and Kurov's why can't they just be banned from matched play?

Because there are mono-Guard builds that can theoretically make use of them, and why should their stuff be banned if nobody else's is?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

But why has a solving the guards insane CP generation once again be redirected into everything else is souo is OP without answering the question of why Guard are the constant enabler for imperial soup?

Because you seem to believe that people are ignoring issues when in reality they're trying to point out the crux of the matter and you don't like it?

No I'm sticking to a scientific analysis method of correlation.
It's been IG+Custodes, IG plus Slamguinius, IG plus Slamguinius and Knight's as the top imperial soup armies for a long time now.
You dont see Custodes plus knight's, custodes plus Slamguinius or slamguinius plus knight's winning events.
Therfor the correlation is between IG plus X is the problem
Why is IG plus X always the best option, what is it that IG do that no other faction can match. CP generation at minimal points.
So if we remove guard's extremely cheap CP generation we can than see what the true soup vrs mono codex meta is.

However the choas and Aeldari Soup can be used to extrapolate what an non infinite CP meta looks like and it's still soupy, but a lot less cheesey.

What is something that can effect all soup lists with a single rule, the Battleforged 3CP (Ok you don't get those if your amy keyword is Aeldari, Choas or Imperium) a down side to soup that can be used to broadly balance soup vrs mono codex.

However that doesn't work if guard still have infinite CP for chump change points.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

If Guard mono have no use for grand strategist and Kurov's why can't they just be banned from matched play?

Because there are mono-Guard builds that can theoretically make use of them, and why should their stuff be banned if nobody else's is?

So People playing fluff lists should take a beasting just so the one warlord trait and relic that should never have been given to Guard can stay. Yeah right god forbid guard loose the brokenness thats superchargeing Imperial Soup because it might effect the abillity of a guard Trip LOW army or LemanRuss spam army to use strategums. (But I though "guard strategums are and not worth spaming." If they are that poor what does it matter if you need to bring 180 points of Infantry, Thats less than many armies spend on an HQ choice.

Ice_can wrote:

No I'm sticking to a scientific analysis method of correlation.

You're really not. You're assuming that causation is correlation.

It's been IG+Custodes, IG plus Slamguinius, IG plus Slamguinius and Knight's as the top imperial soup armies for a long time now.
You dont see Custodes plus knight's, custodes plus Slamguinius or slamguinius plus knight's winning events.
Therfore the correlation is between IG plus X is the problem
Why is IG plus X always the best option, what is it that IG do that no other faction can match. CP generation at minimal points.
So if we remove guard's extremely cheap CP generation we can than see what the true soup vrs mono codex meta is.

However the choas and Aeldari Soup can be used to extrapolate what an non infinite CP meta looks like and it's still soupy, but a lot less cheesey.

What is something that can effect all soup lists with a single rule, the Battleforged 3CP (Ok you don't get those if your amy keyword is Aeldari, Choas or Imperium) a down side to soup that can be used to broadly balance soup vrs mono codex.

However that doesn't work if guard still have infinite CP for chump change points.

You're assuming that because people are saying soup is the problem that they're not acknowledging other parts. You're literally ignoring that myself and others have said in that the ability to take a large detachment of cheap troops is the core issue.
That's why I keep saying that Brigades & Battalions need to be locked out from the ability to be Allied in.

It's interesting that you seem to ignore that suggestion all the time while shouting that Guard players are "ignoring" the issue.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

If Guard mono have no use for grand strategist and Kurov's why can't they just be banned from matched play?

Because there are mono-Guard builds that can theoretically make use of them, and why should their stuff be banned if nobody else's is?

So People playing fluff lists should take a beasting just so the one warlord trait and relic that should never have been given to Guard can stay. Yeah right god forbid guard loose the brokenness thats superchargeing Imperial Soup because it might effect the abillity of a guard Trip LOW army or LemanRuss spam army to use strategums. (But I though "guard strategums are and not worth spaming." If they are that poor what does it matter if you need to bring 180 points of Infantry, Thats less than many armies spend on an HQ choice.

Do you really think that a triple Baneblade or a Russ Spearhead are going to be lists that burn through a lot of stratagems?