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:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

A battalion of Custodes allied with another of SoB or Blood angles isn't a problem going by results and it's not like Top players haven't been searching those codex for the most broken combos.

Grand Strategists and Kurov's is broken. Even if you can't take a battalion there will still be a Company comander warlord with that combo in evey list as that combo is just that broken.

Your proposal to destroying allies to protect one codex from loosing 1 warlord trait and 1 Relic. While leaving soup as still a problem

Choas and Aeldari soups also arn't relying on Battalions of allies its an allied detachment of minimum points for Agents of Vect which you haven't affected with your battalion/brigade suggestions.

It doesn't affected Choas who run Thousand sons supreme comand as their allied detachment. You have however prevented a Korn player from being able to bring a Choas spacemarine battalion and a demon battalion

Ice_can wrote:

A battalion of Custodes allied with another of SoB or Blood angles isn't a problem going by results and it's not like Top players haven't been searching those codex for the most broken combos.

And why aren't those problems? Because two battalions isn't going to be enough CPs to make the Custodes and BA silliness work.

Grand Strategists and Kurov's is broken. Even if you can't take a battalion there will still be a Company comander warlord with that combo in evey list as that combo is just that broken.

If you can't take a Battalion or Brigade, you can't get the CPs to regenerate. How is this so hard for you?

Having a Patrol with a Company Commander and Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist grants you +0 CPs.

Your proposal to destroying allies to protect one codex from loosing 1 warlord trait and 1 Relic. While leaving soup as still a problem

I've also addressed this with the idea of making it so that outside of a purely Guard army, Guard characters cannot be your Warlord. But hey let's just pretend I've said nothing.

Choas and Aeldari soups also arn't relying on Battalions of allies its an allied detachment of minimum points for Agents of Vect which you haven't affected with your battalion/brigade suggestions.

It doesn't affected Choas who run Thousand sons supreme comand as their allied detachment. You have however prevented a Korn player from being able to bring a Choas spacemarine battalion and a demon battalion

Actually it does affect Chaos, because I quite literally have said that Spearhead, Outrider, Vanguard, Auxiliary Superheavy Detachment, Superheavy Detachments and Patrols would be the only allied detachments allowed. Fortification Networks are a given but Air Wing Detachments shouldn't be ally-accessible either.

I don't really care about Agents of Vect. It was supposed to be a way to mitigate soup, and it seems to do an okay job. Drukhari stuff is currently designed around smaller Detachments and low investments for multiple Allied Detachments in the same army. There's nothing to really be done against this without rejigging the book.

You're still pulling the same mental gymnastics Eldar players did with their codex last edition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're still pulling the same mental gymnastics Eldar players did with their codex last edition.

You keep saying this.

It doesn't make it true.

I've outlined pretty well why I think the Battalions and Brigades should be removed from the running for what you can take as Allies. I've suggested a rule that prevents Grand Strategist from being present anywhere but a purely Guard army. I've suggested removing Mortars from Guard Infantry Squads to reduce their appeal.

Clearly, I'm as bad as the players who kept insisting that Scatbikes were "fine because Marines had Gladius/Skyhammer" and "blobsquads exist".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're still pulling the same mental gymnastics Eldar players did with their codex last edition.

You keep saying this.

It doesn't make it true.

I've outlined pretty well why I think the Battalions and Brigades should be removed from the running for what you can take as Allies. I've suggested a rule that prevents Grand Strategist from being present anywhere but a purely Guard army. I've suggested removing Mortars from Guard Infantry Squads to reduce their appeal.

Clearly, I'm as bad as the players who kept insisting that Scatbikes were "fine because Marines had Gladius/Skyhammer" and "blobsquads exist".

Your suggestions would massively hurt completely nonproblematic ally builds. Your ideas are bad, please stop.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're still pulling the same mental gymnastics Eldar players did with their codex last edition.

You keep saying this.

It doesn't make it true.

I've outlined pretty well why I think the Battalions and Brigades should be removed from the running for what you can take as Allies. I've suggested a rule that prevents Grand Strategist from being present anywhere but a purely Guard army. I've suggested removing Mortars from Guard Infantry Squads to reduce their appeal.

Clearly, I'm as bad as the players who kept insisting that Scatbikes were "fine because Marines had Gladius/Skyhammer" and "blobsquads exist".

Your suggestions would massively hurt completely nonproblematic ally builds. Your ideas are bad, please stop.

And you've yet to show a "completely nonproblematic ally build" that would be significantly hurt.
Your arguments are bad and the fact you've resorted to an ad hominem suggests you know it.

People keep pissing and moaning about Guard. People keep pissing and moaning about soup. But when push comes to shove, they always find something that they think justifies why "Guard should just be nerfed" instead of soup getting hit.

There's mechanisms in the fricking rulebook for corner case Allies like Inquisitors and Assassins. They impose penalties. They're called "Auxiliary Support Detachments". They give you a single unit and remove a Command Point from your pool. It's (shock! gasp!) a penalty for cherrypicking something that likely isn't from your book.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And you've yet to show a "completely nonproblematic ally build" that would be significantly hurt.

Any allied force which has about equal parts of different factions would be effectively banned. That is completely crazy. Joint crusade of SOB and Black Templars is not an issue.

Your arguments are bad and the fact you've resorted to an ad hominem suggests you know it.

No, I'm just tired of your nonsense. Your detachment of reality is nearing truly trumpian levels.

People keep pissing and moaning about Guard. People keep pissing and moaning about soup. But when push comes to shove, they always find something that they think justifies why "Guard should just be nerfed" instead of soup getting hit.

Yes, because Guard is the thing that contributes the most problematic element. And you yourself have said that mono guard doesn't need the CP regen, so getting rid of it should be a non issue.

There's mechanisms in the fricking rulebook for corner case Allies like Inquisitors and Assassins. They impose penalties. They're called "Auxiliary Support Detachments". They give you a single unit and remove a Command Point from your pool. It's (shock! gasp!) a penalty for cherrypicking something that likely isn't from your book.

Right. Because bringing a single Inquisitor or an Assassin is totally worth losing a CP, and that's why all the top lists do so... Wait, they don't.

The issue, the way I see it, is that a lot of people want Guard nerfed to hell and back. Removing Grand Strategist or making it the same as the other CP regen Warlord Traits, and removing or reworking Kurov's Aquila is fine. But the OP's suggestions... Not so much.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And you've yet to show a "completely nonproblematic ally build" that would be significantly hurt.

Any allied force which has about equal parts of different factions would be effectively banned. That is completely crazy. Joint crusade of SOB and Black Templars is not an issue.

Of course it's not an issue--but neither are Steel Legion lists packed with Chimeras for every Infantry Squad, Cadian Spearheads with Pask and a bunch of Russes,

One just has to look at the lists from the Nova thread to see the issue. Brigade(12 CPs) of Guard, obligatory Grand Strategist+Kurov's Aquila(usually Catachan), Battalion(5 CPs) of Blood Angels with 2x Captains and 3, and a House Raven Knight.

Seeing the problem yet?

Remove the ability for the Grand Strategist if there's a non-Guard character present, remove the ability for the Battalion and all of a sudden...that's a lot of those CPs disappearing.

Your arguments are bad and the fact you've resorted to an ad hominem suggests you know it.

No, I'm just tired of your nonsense. Your detachment of reality is nearing truly trumpian levels.

Then put me on ignore and stop trying to engage me. You've done nothing but try to play the "blame the Guard" game and even in that regard you're really doing nothing but trying to say that "Soup's fine, it's just YOUR army makes it OP so nerf YOUR army".

Nerf soup and CP generation, then figure out if there's actually a problem.

People keep pissing and moaning about Guard. People keep pissing and moaning about soup. But when push comes to shove, they always find something that they think justifies why "Guard should just be nerfed" instead of soup getting hit.

Yes, because Guard is the thing that contributes the most problematic element. And you yourself have said that mono guard doesn't need the CP regen, so getting rid of it should be a non issue.

Actually what contributes the most problematic element is that people can stack the deck by taking a Brigade and a Warlord as an 'auxiliary' element effectively to feed whatever beatstick they're bringing with Command Points.

There's mechanisms in the fricking rulebook for corner case Allies like Inquisitors and Assassins. They impose penalties. They're called "Auxiliary Support Detachments". They give you a single unit and remove a Command Point from your pool. It's (shock! gasp!) a penalty for cherrypicking something that likely isn't from your book.

Right. Because bringing a single Inquisitor or an Assassin is totally worth losing a CP, and that's why all the top lists do so... Wait, they don't.

That's kind of the point I'm making...?

GW's designers effectively live in a separate reality from tournament play. They wrote in mechanisms for things they almost definitely considered 'fluffy' like a single Inquisitor or Assassin or a unit of Custodes or whatever. They thought it would mandate a CP penalty of 1.

Tournament players, whose lists inevitably end up shaping oh everything,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue, the way I see it, is that a lot of people want Guard nerfed to hell and back. Removing Grand Strategist or making it the same as the other CP regen Warlord Traits, and removing or reworking Kurov's Aquila is fine. But the OP's suggestions... Not so much.

This is actually the biggest reason why I've been pushing lately for the addition of a rule for the Guard and their characters. Making it so they 'defer' to any Astartes, Inquisition, Sororitas, or Mechanicus and thus can't be the Warlord would be a way of removing Grand Strategist from the Allies pool.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

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.

So if someone wants to play a IG superheavy tank company, by your logic they should just be screwed? Points exist for a reason. They should be commensurate to the effectiveness of the unit regardless of the originating codex.

Things like knights only become OP with the edition of soup.

Knights were always meant to work with allies. They were recently in same codex with Ad Mech and in the last edition had combined formation with them!

This is typical of dakka.

Do you know that a Shadowsword can be hitting on 2s, rerolling, with a 2+ save and -1 to hit? Declaring Shadowswords have no synergy but Knights do is freaking bonkers. And these guys come with baked-in allies, because they're a part of imperial guard. So any CP nerf will not affect them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Of course it's not an issue--but neither are Steel Legion lists packed with Chimeras for every Infantry Squad, Cadian Spearheads with Pask and a bunch of Russes,

One just has to look at the lists from the Nova thread to see the issue. Brigade(12 CPs) of Guard, obligatory Grand Strategist+Kurov's Aquila(usually Catachan), Battalion(5 CPs) of Blood Angels with 2x Captains and 3, and a House Raven Knight.

Seeing the problem yet?

YES!

Remove the ability for the Grand Strategist if there's a non-Guard character present, remove the ability for the Battalion and all of a sudden...that's a lot of those CPs disappearing.

Or just remove Grand Strategist+Kurov's Aquila and other CP regenerators. No need to restrict people choosing the warlord they want, and you've said mono guard doesn't need CP regen, so they're not hurt either.
And if you remove the ability to ally battalion or brigade, you're just effectively banned the SOB & BT crusade you just earlier conceded was not a problem.

That's kind of the point I'm making...?

GW's designers effectively live in a separate reality from tournament play. They wrote in mechanisms for things they almost definitely considered 'fluffy' like a single Inquisitor or Assassin or a unit of Custodes or whatever. They thought it would mandate a CP penalty of 1.

Tournament players, whose lists inevitably end up shaping oh everything,

I don't think that's the point of Auxiliary. It costs one CP because you can bring just one specific thing, without having to pay for other units in the detachment. Ally rules were fully intended to utilise all detachments.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yes, because Guard is the thing that contributes the most problematic element. And you yourself have said that mono guard doesn't need the CP regen, so getting rid of it should be a non issue.

Actually what contributes the most problematic element is that people can stack the deck by taking a Brigade and a Warlord as an 'auxiliary' element effectively to feed whatever beatstick they're bringing with Command Points.

This is where the flaw is in that argument when that guard brigade is the largest detachment by points its not a Brigade and a warlord as an "auxiliary" element.
The Slamguinius Battalion and the Knight in a Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment are the auxiliaries.
It's a Guard primary force, all they will do it ditch the Blood angles for anoth guard battalion and keep the knight and pump CP into it.
Game is still broken.

 Marmatag wrote:

This is typical of dakka.

Irony at its finest, considering your post...

Do you know that a Shadowsword can be hitting on 2s, rerolling, with a 2+ save and -1 to hit? Declaring Shadowswords have no synergy but Knights do is freaking bonkers. And these guys come with baked-in allies, because they're a part of imperial guard. So any CP nerf will not affect them.

We're going to break this down:
Shadowswords are a 4+ to hit, base. It degrades as it suffers wounds.
They have a special rule called "Shadowsword Targeters" where they can add 1 to any hit rolls for shooting attacks that target a model with the "TITANIC" keyword. That means things like other Baneblade chassis, Knights, Titans, Wraithknights, etc.
If they are a Cadian Shadowsword, then they can take advantage of the Cadian stratagem "Overlapping Fields of Fire". OFoF requires that the target suffer an unsaved wound during the Shooting phase, and after that happens--you can then add 1 to hit rolls when targeting that specific unit.
If they are Cadian and remain stationary then they can take advantage of "Born Soldiers"(reroll 1s to hit if the unit did not move during the preceding Movement phase) during Shooting.

Shadowswords have a 3+ save base. Their "2+ save" comes from using the "Take Cover!" stratagem on them, where you pay 1 CP when your opponent targets one of your units. Until the end of the phase, that specific unit gets to have +1 to its Cover Saves.
The "-1 to Hit" comes from Nightshroud, a 6 Warp Charge Value Psyker ability that requires you to field a Psyker...or from Smoke Launchers, which prevent you from shooting for that turn.

So to sum up:
They can get these things, but it requires specific things to be present. They're not just running around with these things all the time. It requires specific Regiments, timing, and outside elements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Of course it's not an issue--but neither are Steel Legion lists packed with Chimeras for every Infantry Squad, Cadian Spearheads with Pask and a bunch of Russes,

One just has to look at the lists from the Nova thread to see the issue. Brigade(12 CPs) of Guard, obligatory Grand Strategist+Kurov's Aquila(usually Catachan), Battalion(5 CPs) of Blood Angels with 2x Captains and 3 units of Scouts, and a House Raven Knight.

Seeing the problem yet?

YES!

So you're just engaging in confirmation bias? Coolcoolcool.

The Captains tended to all have a CP Regen Relic as well, maybe BAs should get theirs nerfed too.

Remove the ability for the Grand Strategist if there's a non-Guard character present, remove the ability for the Battalion and all of a sudden...that's a lot of those CPs disappearing.

Or just remove Grand Strategist+Kurov's Aquila and other CP regenerators. No need to restrict people choosing the warlord they want, and you've said mono guard doesn't need CP regen, so they're not hurt either.

I said that most mono-Guard lists won't. There's a few builds I can think of that would get use out of it--but it tends to be more of an Open/Narrative Play thing.
"Fire On My Position" is a great example of this. I don't know anyone who runs it seriously, but it's a very fluffy & thematic. Same thing goes for Vortex Missile.

And if you remove the ability to ally battalion or brigade, you're just effectively banned the SOB & BT crusade you just earlier conceded was not a problem.

No, I've made it so that you have to do it all as one big mishmashed force(forfeiting your army traits) or you have to figure out a way to use Spearhead, Vanguard, Outrider, and Patrol Detachments.

It's almost like I've actually been playtesting these ideas...

That's kind of the point I'm making...?

GW's designers effectively live in a separate reality from tournament play. They wrote in mechanisms for things they almost definitely considered 'fluffy' like a single Inquisitor or Assassin or a unit of Custodes or whatever. They thought it would mandate a CP penalty of 1.

Tournament players, whose lists inevitably end up shaping oh everything,

I don't think that's the point of Auxiliary. It costs one CP because you can bring just one specific thing, without having to pay for other units in the detachment. Ally rules were fully intended to utilise all detachments.

So explain why you never tend to see players use the Auxiliaries?

Oh right. Because players focus on Command Point totals, not fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yes, because Guard is the thing that contributes the most problematic element. And you yourself have said that mono guard doesn't need the CP regen, so getting rid of it should be a non issue.

Actually what contributes the most problematic element is that people can stack the deck by taking a Brigade and a Warlord as an 'auxiliary' element effectively to feed whatever beatstick they're bringing with Command Points.

This is where the flaw is in that argument when that guard brigade is the largest detachment by points its not a Brigade and a warlord as an "auxiliary" element.
The Slamguinius Battalion and the Knight in a Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment are the auxiliaries.
It's a Guard primary force, all they will do it ditch the Blood angles for anoth guard battalion and keep the knight and pump CP into it.
Game is still broken.

I'd suggest you actually look at the point totals. I don't have Blood Angels or Knights books to go from, but the Guard side of things for most of those lists might have been numerically significant but pointswise it was as trimmed down as it could be.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Their "2+ save" comes from using the "Take Cover!" stratagem on them, where you pay 1 CP when your opponent targets one of your units. Until the end of the phase, that specific unit gets to have +1 to its Cover Saves.

Which is also illegal, as that stratagem was changed to only apply to infantry units.

The real fix. Limit allies to 1 unit. And that’s it. All this crazy soup garbage is absolute nonsense and destroys the game.

warpedpig wrote:
The real fix. Limit allies to 1 unit. And that’s it. All this crazy soup garbage is absolute nonsense and destroys the game.

No. But let's ban your army. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm sure my knee-jerk response is perfectly valid and justified.

Seriously, everyone shut up about ShadowSwords being OP. With a hell of a lot of wasted points you can give them +1 to hit. You can re-roll 1 failed shot, ONE. UNO. UN. UM. EINS. JEDEN. This thing can put out over 40 shots in a single turn. You get to re-roll 1. AT 4+. 3+ if you spend three hundred points on a friggin command salamander, which YOU CANT EVEN BUY ANYMORE.

There is no way to get this thing under 3+. So stop with all the Bullshoot about 2+ OMFGITZOPOMFGHAXER. It's a walking target that can't get past turn 3 in any sort of competitive game. Last of all, there are ZERO ZILCH NADA stratagems that go with this giant pile of dakka. You can play tricks with it's deployment, thats it.

IT IS IN NO WAY AS POWERFUL AS THE KNIGHTS THAT ARE STOMPING ALL OVER THE TOURNAMENTS RIGHT NOW.

You can get it to 2+.

It ain’t easy, but don’t lie.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, everyone shut up about ShadowSwords being OP. With a hell of a lot of wasted points you can give them +1 to hit. You can re-roll 1 failed shot, ONE. UNO. UN. UM. EINS. JEDEN. This thing can put out over 40 shots in a single turn. You get to re-roll 1. AT 4+. 3+ if you spend three hundred points on a friggin command salamander, which YOU CANT EVEN BUY ANYMORE.

There is no way to get this thing under 3+. So stop with all the Bullshoot about 2+ OMFGITZOPOMFGHAXER. It's a walking target that can't get past turn 3 in any sort of competitive game. Last of all, there are ZERO ZILCH NADA stratagems that go with this giant pile of dakka. You can play tricks with it's deployment, thats it.

IT IS IN NO WAY AS POWERFUL AS THE KNIGHTS THAT ARE STOMPING ALL OVER THE TOURNAMENTS RIGHT NOW.

Read the units rules please
It hits anything with titanic on 3+ due to its inbuilt +1 targeters
Suffers no penalties for moving and shooting
Reroll's wounds on the volcano cannon base when wounding on 2+
-5AP so invulnerable saves only.
2D6 damage
If its vostrian it can have first born pride for 2+ to hit or the comand tank you mentioned
If it Tallarn it's outflanked so gets first shot.
For 92 pts it can rock a -1 to hit and +1 save.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can get it to 2+.

It ain’t easy, but don’t lie.

See above where I broke down how it happens.

To get to a 2+ requires the enemy unit to have the "Titanic" keyword and the Shadowsword to be given "Cadian" as its Regimental keyword, with a Stratagem played after something else inflicts an unsaved Wound to the target.

I can understand that yeah, you can have a Shadowsword with a 2+...but how many "Titanic" units are there really in the game outside of FW? Mortarion, Magnus, Lord of Skulls, Baneblades, Knights, Wraithknights, Stompas, and the Stormsurge.

So a Cadian Heavy Weapons Team/Squad or Leman Russes inflict an unsaved Wound to one of those things, you blow Overlapping Fields of Fire to ensure a 2+...is that really such a big deal?

Shadowswords are meant to be Titankillers. Is it so bad that they actually succeed in that role?

I'm all for the "Shadowsword Targeters" rule to only apply to the Volcano Cannon and to impose a negative to Hit modifier when firing at non-Vehicle or Monster targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, everyone shut up about ShadowSwords being OP. With a hell of a lot of wasted points you can give them +1 to hit. You can re-roll 1 failed shot, ONE. UNO. UN. UM. EINS. JEDEN. This thing can put out over 40 shots in a single turn. You get to re-roll 1. AT 4+. 3+ if you spend three hundred points on a friggin command salamander, which YOU CANT EVEN BUY ANYMORE.

There is no way to get this thing under 3+. So stop with all the Bullshoot about 2+ OMFGITZOPOMFGHAXER. It's a walking target that can't get past turn 3 in any sort of competitive game. Last of all, there are ZERO ZILCH NADA stratagems that go with this giant pile of dakka. You can play tricks with it's deployment, thats it.

IT IS IN NO WAY AS POWERFUL AS THE KNIGHTS THAT ARE STOMPING ALL OVER THE TOURNAMENTS RIGHT NOW.

Read the units rules please
It hits anything with titanic on 3+ due to its inbuilt +1 targeters

It hits anything with Titanic on 3+ before it degrades. Once it degrades, it goes to 4s and 5s.

Suffers no penalties for moving and shooting

A lot of "Titanic" units have this rule. So what?

Reroll's wounds on the volcano cannon base when wounding on 2+

Rerolls Wounds on the Volcano Cannon when targeting Titanic units. If you're going to tell someone to read the unit's rules, at least make sure you copy them correctly.

-5AP so invulnerable saves only.
2D6 damage
If its vostrian it can have first born pride for 2+ to hit or the comand tank you mentioned
If it Tallarn it's outflanked so gets first shot.
For 92 pts it can rock a -1 to hit and +1 save.

The rest of this is just stating things. The Salamander Command Tank that he mentioned is a Forge World unit and no longer physically sold.

The Shadowsword can probably use a points increase, though is hardly a headliner of top table armies in 8E. The issues with Guard allies are just the most prominent facet of the larger issue of the Allies rules simply being far too open and permissive. You could drop KA and GS (and I honestly dont care if they do at this point, I can live with that) and we'd still see top tables be nothing but soup lists regardless of Imperial/Chaos/Xenos, albeit perhaps of a different flavor.

My biggest problem with Baneblades is not how killy they are (I won with my 3 lass predator agaisnt one full baneblade army...but to be honest, one of my predators survived agaisnt one round of shooting vs a Shadowsword, his shooting was abysmal. But even ignoring that, I had the other two predators out of LOS), but the fact that they are a beast in CC. Charging one Baneblade is a suicide, but if you don't charge him, he will charge you, and then it will hit you on 2+ with that stratagem.

In that same tournament, the last list I fought was another 3-baneblade list, and with that second one I didn't had that much luck. He destroyed one predator first turn, I failed miserably to do damage to him, and then he ran over me with 3 hellhounds and the baneblades, smashing everything in sight.

Because no matter how "weak" Imperial Guard seems on ITC tournaments (With a ton of rules that goes agaisnt their desired style of play), and compared with Soup, mono-guard has a ton of very powerfull lists.

If Shadowswords need a points increase then knights need nerfs across the board.

As a guard player, I am fine with losing Kurov's Aquila, Grand Strategist, or both. As long as they are replaced with something decent. CP regen is a really stupid mechanic that shouldn't be in the game.

The stupid game mechanic is when you can take three or four different allies to make some total cheesevall army list. Total cancer. How can you balance each faction and also try to keep them balanced as a soup list as well? If you want to play imperial guard then PLAY IMPERIAL GUARD.

w1zard wrote:
If Shadowswords need a points increase then knights need nerfs across the board.

As a guard player, I am fine with losing Kurov's Aquila, Grand Strategist, or both. As long as they are replaced with something decent. CP regen is a really stupid mechanic that shouldn't be in the game.

I think most people want Knights to take a small hit. They were abysmal before the codex, but now they're just stupid good.

w1zard wrote:
If Shadowswords need a points increase then knights need nerfs across the board.

As a guard player, I am fine with losing Kurov's Aquila, Grand Strategist, or both. As long as they are replaced with something decent. CP regen is a really stupid mechanic that shouldn't be in the game.

Some Imperial Knights need nerfs, yeah (Others need some buffs, but thats internal balance, it happens with every codex) . A 100% Imperial Knight force can have 12 CP. So, enough CP to do their stuff, even without an IG Battery.

I just wanted to point out how fast people loses perception of whats powerfull and what isn't when they stop being the top-dogs. Baneblades are VERY good (Ok, not all of them, but you know what I mean). They are inferior to Imperial Knights, ok, I understand that. But that does not make them any less good, compared with everything that isn't a Imperial Knight.

You only need to face a Baneblade list (And yeah, Imperial Guard for you. One list can have 3 baneblades, 3 Hellhounds, and a couple of Infantry Squads and some HQ like Straken) with a middle of the pack army to see how powerfull they are.

Imperial Guard are to 8th what Tau where to 7th. They are bullyes. Maybe they aren't powerfull enough to win tournaments by themselves and they are taken as soup (Just like Tau with Riptides), but outside those 2-3 tournament lists that are superior to them, they are capable of destroying, if they really want, any other faction.

And yeah yeah yeah I know warhammer changes from one place to another and I know how many Grey Knights players out there destroy all Imperial Guard lists they face.

How do you net 12 CP?

A Gallant is 350 points.

I guess you could combo in 2 Armigers for about 350 as well, but then that's 700 for 3 CP.

Three Gallants are 1050, near enough, for 6 CP, and then another Gallant plus two Armigers? Yeah, that's 12 CP with the battleforged 3.

But it's not very good, now is it?

Gallants are actually very good. Whenb I go home ill three to make one 12cp lists without that many gallants.

 Galas wrote:
Imperial Guard are to 8th what Tau where to 7th. They are bullyes. Maybe they aren't powerfull enough to win tournaments by themselves and they are taken as soup (Just like Tau with Riptides), but outside those 2-3 tournament lists that are superior to them, they are capable of destroying, if they really want, any other faction.

If we are just assuming mono-codexes. Guard aren't even the top. I would argue that Eldar and posibly even DE are better than guard, though not by much. The problem is that those three codices are so much better than the others it's not even funny.

Eldar > Dark Eldar > Guard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mid tier codices like Tau and Tyranids >>>>>>>>>>>>> Low tier codices like Space Marines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grey Knights

If it were just one codex that were the outlier I would say fine, nerf it. However that isn't the case. There are at least two, arguably more codices that can compete with guard on a mono vs mono codex level. Nerfing guard because they happen to be one of the better mono-codices seems wrong, especially since mono-guard is not the problem, and soup guard is.

w1zard wrote:


Eldar > Dark Eldar > Guard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mid tier codices like Tau and Tyranids >>>>>>>>>>>>> Low tier codices like Space Marines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grey Knights

If it were just one codex that were the outlier I would say fine, nerf it. However that isn't the case. There are at least two, arguably more codices that can compete with guard on a mono vs mono codex level. Nerfing guard because they happen to be one of the better mono-codices seems wrong, especially since mono-guard is not the problem, and soup guard is.

But certainly the proper response is to nerf the Guard and Eldar and buff the Marines, so that everybody ends up roughly on the mid tier?