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.
Martel732 wrote: If you compare Leman Russ to predators and hammerheads, something has to happen there, too.
That’s because, for some reason, GW decided that Russes and Fire Prisms needed to be able to fire twice a turn, for no reason what so ever.
Easiest fix, is to give Predator and Hammerhead main weapons the ability to also double tap for free.
What about other mbt's? (Ork also would like that)
What about daemon mbt's (defilers?)
Also grinding advance is only on movement has a condition and weakens non turret weaponry.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
When a unit is fine in the context of his own army but is a problem in Soup, that means the unit is overpowered but the rest of the codex is underpowered.
What are you even talking about?
Galas wrote: In the context of a mono army, the weakness of one part balances with the OP'ness of the other part. Examples: Guillimand and Space Marines, Blood Angel Captain and Blood Angels, Custodes Jetbikes+Telemon Dreadnoughts vs the rest of the Custodes Army.
Either a unit is overpowered in its own army or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If Space Marines (the unit, not the codex) are weak, then that does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. It might make the SM codex or certain SM armies weaker, but it does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. That's just complete nonsense.
But they become very obvious in Soup because you can basically cherrypick the most OP unit in every codex and mix them to have a uber army.
Except that Soup also allows interactions that would not normally be allowed, as well as allowing armies to cover their weaknesses. For example, Imperial Knights would normally have access to very few CPs, but with allies they can suddenly gain access to a ton of CP generation/regeneration that they would not normally have access to and which can then fuel their uber-stratagems. It's a similar issue with, for example, Farseers in Eldar Soup. Doom is above any beyond literally any buff that Dark Eldar could bring with their own codex, and indeed synergises far better with many DE units than their own merge buffs.
This sort of thing goes far beyond the power level of individual units because it's based around the interactions that allies permit.
Galas wrote: But those units, even without soup, would be still a problem, at least from a context of internal balance of their factions.
You've literally contradicted the point you were supposed to be arguing against.
Saying that AC Captains on Jetbikes are fine because when played as Mono-Custodes the army is middle of the road
Dear Lord, could you maybe leave the goalposts in place for 5 minutes? You've moved them so much that they must have crossed at least 3 boarders at this point.
I specifically pointed to the power levels of units, not armies. If AC Captains on Jetbikes are overpowered even in the context of mono-Custodes (i.e. without allied CP batteries or any such), then by all means nerf them to bring them into line.
How many times do I have to say this? If I put it in my signature, will that help get the message across?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Kdash wrote: @Galas
Wait, what?
So, if a unit is balanced within their own codex, but falls out of balance in a soup army, then the unit is naturally (within its own codex) overpowered??
I’d rather look at what makes it overpowered in a soup list and address that, rather than unbalance a unit in its own codex that was previously considered balanced.
But what does "balanced withint their own codex" means? Are Adeptus Custodes Jetbike Captains balanced withint their own codex because when played in a mono Custodes Army, the combined strenght of that army is mid tier? No. That just means Jetbike Captains are OP and the rest is weak, and the end result balances out. But that is just very bad internal balance, and is bad for the game, and it makes a miserable experience because when you try to make a Adeptus Custodes mono-army you find out that... why take anything other than Jetbikes and a Telemon?
That what I was talking about. The problem with soup is that you can take those badly internally balanced units without the weak stuff they have to take in a mono-army, so they show their true colours. But that does not mean that those units are only a problem in soup. Maybe without soup they wouldn't be an issue from the perspective of external, competitive balance, but they will be still a problem of internal balance.
When a unit is fine in the context of his own army but is a problem in Soup, that means the unit is overpowered but the rest of the codex is underpowered.
What are you even talking about?
Galas wrote: In the context of a mono army, the weakness of one part balances with the OP'ness of the other part. Examples: Guillimand and Space Marines, Blood Angel Captain and Blood Angels, Custodes Jetbikes+Telemon Dreadnoughts vs the rest of the Custodes Army.
Either a unit is overpowered in its own army or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If Space Marines (the unit, not the codex) are weak, then that does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. It might make the SM codex or certain SM armies weaker, but it does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. That's just complete nonsense.
But they become very obvious in Soup because you can basically cherrypick the most OP unit in every codex and mix them to have a uber army.
Except that Soup also allows interactions that would not normally be allowed, as well as allowing armies to cover their weaknesses. For example, Imperial Knights would normally have access to very few CPs, but with allies they can suddenly gain access to a ton of CP generation/regeneration that they would not normally have access to and which can then fuel their uber-stratagems. It's a similar issue with, for example, Farseers in Eldar Soup. Doom is above any beyond literally any buff that Dark Eldar could bring with their own codex, and indeed synergises far better with many DE units than their own merge buffs.
This sort of thing goes far beyond the power level of individual units because it's based around the interactions that allies permit.
Galas wrote: But those units, even without soup, would be still a problem, at least from a context of internal balance of their factions.
You've literally contradicted the point you were supposed to be arguing against.
Saying that AC Captains on Jetbikes are fine because when played as Mono-Custodes the army is middle of the road
Dear Lord, could you maybe leave the goalposts in place for 5 minutes? You've moved them so much that they must have crossed at least 3 boarders at this point.
I specifically pointed to the power levels of units, not armies. If AC Captains on Jetbikes are overpowered even in the context of mono-Custodes (i.e. without allied CP batteries or any such), then by all means nerf them to bring them into line.
How many times do I have to say this? If I put it in my signature, will that help get the message across?
I have the impresion you are agreeing with me, at least in some parts, but I have express myself wrongly. I apologize for that.
For example, my example of Guillimand and Space Marines was not to say that Guilliman is fine, but to reflect how you can have armies composed of OP units and Weak units, with a net result of "Mid tier army", but that does not mean Guilliman is not OP and the other units are no underpowered. That reflects a Codex that has a very bad internal balance.
Also, I agree about allies allowing for unexpected sinergyes that should be fixed and controlled. And that the CP system needs changes.
I'll try to make clear what my point was:
I disagree with the idea that many people have said. That idea is "Blood Angel Captains are only OP because they have many CP to spend in soup, they are fine in a pure BA army" (For example, apply that to Imperial Knights and Castellans or Adeptus Custodes and Jetbikes or Telemon).
I disagree with it, because those armies are not fine. They are badly balanced, internally, because you have one or two OP units carryng the rest of the codex. Those units are a problem in soup, but they are also a problem in mono-armies of their own codex.
And thats a problem you can't see only looking at tournament results.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/09/19 13:27:23
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
For example, my example of Guillimand and Space Marines was not to say that Guilliman is fine, but to reflect how you can have armies composed of OP units and Weak units, with a net result of "Mid tier army", but that does not mean Guilliman is not OP and the other units are no underpowered. That reflects a Codex that has a very bad internal balance.
Also, I agree about allies allowing for unexpected sinergyes that should be fixed and controlled. And that the CP system needs changes.
I'll try to make clear what my point was:
I disagree with the idea that many people have said. That idea is "Blood Angel Captains are only OP because they have many CP to spend in soup, they are fine in a pure BA army" (For example, apply that to Imperial Knights and Castellans or Adeptus Custodes and Jetbikes or Telemon).
I disagree with it, because those armies are not fine. They are badly balanced, internally, because you have one or two OP units carryng the rest of the codex. Those units are a problem in soup, but they are also a problem in mono-armies of their own codex.
And thats a problem you can't see only looking at tournament results.
Yeah, that's fair. The point I was trying to make was that I didn't want units to be nerfed because they're overpowered in Soup armies (because of CP shenanigans or such), if those units are actually balanced okay within the context of their own army.
If Blood Angel captains are overpowered even in mono-BA armies, then I'm more than happy for them to be nerfed. I just believe that they should be looked at in that context - not in the context of soup.
I'm definitely not a fan of otherwise weak armies being propped up by a few OP units, so I'm definitely not proposing that we only look at the average power level of an army.
I just think that nerfing soup first will give a better idea as to which units are being taken because they're overpowered in and of themselves, and which units are being taken because of synergies that are only possible in Soup.
Does that make sense?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Yeah. I agree with that. Sadly I believe soup is a bigger problem than GW expected and I don't believe they have changed their mentality about how the game plays to reflect the new paradigma of competitive play.
They still are balancing with the idea of mono-armies in mind. It will took a time for them to find the way to attack the Soup problem. Or at least thats my impresion.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: Yeah. I agree with that. Sadly I believe soup is a bigger problem than GW expected and I don't believe they have changed their mentality about how the game plays to reflect the new paradigma of competitive play.
They still are balancing with the idea of mono-armies in mind. It will took a time for them to find the way to attack the Soup problem. Or at least thats my impresion.
Yeah, I'd concur with that.
I've heard rumours that CP generation is going to be tweaked in the FAQ, but I've no idea whether that's accurate or what the change will actually be. If it's limited to factions then that might help address allies to some degree, but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Galas wrote: Yeah. I agree with that. Sadly I believe soup is a bigger problem than GW expected and I don't believe they have changed their mentality about how the game plays to reflect the new paradigma of competitive play.
They still are balancing with the idea of mono-armies in mind. It will took a time for them to find the way to attack the Soup problem. Or at least thats my impresion.
Yeah, very little is being done to account for unintended synergies and the books, especially for more complete armies, are basically still being written as self contained forces as they have been in previous editions.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
Because allies issues aren't just related to the Guard, the issue could potentially arise in the future with other books, and wholesale just arbitrarily halving Guard CP can affect many different IG builds that may not have gobs of CP (say those built around Russ tanks and Spearhead detachments).
Marin wrote: Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that.
So your saying that every faction that can soup needs to be inferior just because they have the option to soup? Yeah that's gonna be a no from me dawg.
ditto from me, not everybody WANTS to soup, I shouldn't have to buy 3 friggen extra armies just because I want to play Space Marines for example.
Martel732 wrote: If you compare Leman Russ to predators and hammerheads, something has to happen there, too.
That’s because, for some reason, GW decided that Russes and Fire Prisms needed to be able to fire twice a turn, for no reason what so ever.
Easiest fix, is to give Predator and Hammerhead main weapons the ability to also double tap for free.
Well, the problem there was that many of the Russ weapons were poorly translated into 8E, and instead of fixing the weapons profiles or unit costs, they just allowed them all to double-shoot, and decided to just roll with that for Fire Prisms for whatever reason. I doubt that's going to go away for the lifetime of this edition, but hopefully whenever 9E rolls around they'll dump it and fix the weapon profiles instead.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Once I started using guardsmen, the floodgates have opened. I'm using primaris psykers (better than libbies), Russes (better than every marine vehicle), IG fixer dum dums (better than techmarines), and company commander (crazy undercosted). I understand what the IG players are saying about tournament results, but the IG codex just has way more handy units than their marine equivalents. Marines are just paying way too much for the in-game utility of their stats. I'm not missing librarians at all. Not missing techmarines. Not missing any marine troop. I've only got 15 scouts for a battalion attached to capt smash. I don't even miss jump marines, because go go go guardsmen move about as fast. Nothing lives in 8th ed, so why pay marine prices? Ever? Except as minimal life support to capt smash?
The IG book is so much better, top to bottom, than any marine book save chaos marines. This is clear to me from even non-competitive souping.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/19 14:49:19
Upon looking at the math hammer for firewarriors with buffs vs tau with buffs the problem is he doesn't include Morale. If I'm double tapping into guard with tau I'll shoot the full squad kill 7 and the rest should all flee on average. Your 7 kills just became 10 and tau handily win the rest. So then guard shoot frfsrf with 6 guys killing 2-3 so 7 fire warriors vs 6 guardsmen, guardsmen die next turn.
Even including a commissar doesn't help since their changes. Fire warriors with buffs handily beat guard. Also I don't he included the marker light the fireblade had which would also help the tau as well as sacrificing the Recon Droid using savior protocols once they got with 18" range to retain one more guy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/19 15:06:38
knightofdread wrote: Upon looking at the math hammer for firewarriors with buffs vs tau with buffs the problem is he doesn't include Morale. If I'm double tapping into guard with tau I'll shoot the full squad kill 7 and the rest should all flee on average. Your 7 kills just became 10 and tau handily win the rest. So then guard shoot frfsrf with 6 guys killing 2-3 so 7 fire warriors vs 6 guardsmen, guardsmen die next turn.
Even including a commissar doesn't help since their changes. Fire warriors with buffs handily beat guard.
Hmm? What do you mean I was referring to the flawed math hammer dandelion did earlier in the thread trying to prove guard superiority. One for one guardsmen beat a firewarrior. But a firewarrior does much better vs marines then guards do. A guardsmen kills a sm .05445 per shot a firewarrior kills one every .1089 exactly double that of a guard yet are not double the pts, if guard are 5ppm its even worse. This is not even including the superior range or armor of the tau
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 15:04:18
Firewarriors, guardsmen, kabalites, sisters of battle and to a lesser extent termagants are all far too effective for their price when compared to guardians, DA, marines, and necron warriors. This creates a "haves" and "have not" duality in the area of troops. I think it is inappropriate to single out guardsmen when there are several other offenders. Simplest fix: make the "have nots" much cheaper in order to be comparable in effectiveness.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 15:07:55
Ahh I understand. As I siad my post was nothing against you I just don't like seeing bad math used as a argument as to why infantry squads are op. Which everybody keeps citing without looking at what was actually done.
Guards definitely are strong thus codex but are not nerf bat required crazy strong that I keep seeing mentioned. Russes double tap is bs.
The duality is exacerbated by the fact that marines are repeated as base troops in 5 or 6 codices. This amplifies the benefit gained by firewarriors, guardsmen, kabalites, sisters.
Cheaper is almost always better in 8th. I don't need much math to show that 3 guardsmen are WAY better than a single marine at everything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 15:17:03
Math hammer wise a one on one fight the marine actually beats three guard on average depending if he gets first turn and if it takes 3 or 4 rounds to kill the first one. If guard get first turn and the marine taje 4 turns to kill one they should win on average.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 15:30:30
Galas wrote: Yeah. I agree with that. Sadly I believe soup is a bigger problem than GW expected and I don't believe they have changed their mentality about how the game plays to reflect the new paradigma of competitive play.
They still are balancing with the idea of mono-armies in mind. It will took a time for them to find the way to attack the Soup problem. Or at least thats my impresion.
Except soup isn't the problem. Guard players are just pretending it is.
Eliminate the Guard codex for a moment. The closest substitute you'll get is AdMech with Skitarii for some CP and that's it. Not at all nearly as effective. Then you have the mathematical problem with them that was literally presented earlier in this thread.
Martel732 wrote: If you compare Leman Russ to predators and hammerheads, something has to happen there, too.
That’s because, for some reason, GW decided that Russes and Fire Prisms needed to be able to fire twice a turn, for no reason what so ever.
Easiest fix, is to give Predator and Hammerhead main weapons the ability to also double tap for free.
What about other mbt's? (Ork also would like that)
What about daemon mbt's (defilers?)
Also grinding advance is only on movement has a condition and weakens non turret weaponry.
Yeah boohoo, your poor movement condition on weapons with what range again?
Also nobody would care if it was given to Orks. We don't even know if they're getting it anyway, so why bring it up?
Defilers don't make sense as they're not a battle tank like the rest of those. Defilers need help but the problem isn't with their shooting. They're not exactly a shooting model to begin with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 15:42:04
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Galas wrote: Yeah. I agree with that. Sadly I believe soup is a bigger problem than GW expected and I don't believe they have changed their mentality about how the game plays to reflect the new paradigma of competitive play.
They still are balancing with the idea of mono-armies in mind. It will took a time for them to find the way to attack the Soup problem. Or at least thats my impresion.
Except soup isn't the problem. Guard players are just pretending it is.
Eliminate the Guard codex for a moment. The closest substitute you'll get is AdMech with Skitarii for some CP and that's it. Not at all nearly as effective. Then you have the mathematical problem with them that was literally presented earlier in this thread.
Martel732 wrote: If you compare Leman Russ to predators and hammerheads, something has to happen there, too.
That’s because, for some reason, GW decided that Russes and Fire Prisms needed to be able to fire twice a turn, for no reason what so ever.
Easiest fix, is to give Predator and Hammerhead main weapons the ability to also double tap for free.
What about other mbt's? (Ork also would like that)
What about daemon mbt's (defilers?)
Also grinding advance is only on movement has a condition and weakens non turret weaponry.
Yeah boohoo, your poor movement condition on weapons with what range again?
Also nobody would care if it was given to Orks. We don't even know if they're getting it anyway, so why bring it up?
Defilers don't make sense as they're not a battle tank like the rest of those. Defilers need help but the problem isn't with their shooting. They're not exactly a shooting model to begin with.
Soup isn't a problem? No? Seriously? Covering weaknesses or gaining acess to other stratagems isn't an issue ?
Come again? Slamguinius and Castelans provide the hmmph to the guard battery, they are the core units and they use the CP of the guard. They are the units that literally wipe the floor with your army T1, not the freaking guardsmen with his overgrown Laserpointer stolen from a classroom somehwere.
Chaos and Eldar Soup however do not ally for Cp, they ally to either bypass the rule of 3 respectively to gain acess to certain bonkers HQ / units of other subfactions, generally speaking either doubling up on the cherrypicking for really good units or for covering weaknesses.
I am however certain that those soups are perfectly fine and balanced......
Secondly, learn some manners, beeing petty will not win you any argument.
Additionally pointing this to you out since you left it out and are willfully petty about it or dismissive won't change the fact that sponson weaponry get's a 3rd less efficent if you want to fire your turret weaponry twice.Additionally, little newsflash there, what leman russ varaints do you see beyond Battlecannons or Pask potentially in a punisher? I can't recount the last time i saw a exterminator, or a demolisher outside a fluff list.
But that is no problem since i am anyways just an entitled little guard player anyways no? (I am not, I play CSM, R&H and Orkz so please come again.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 16:01:12
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
vipoid wrote: Either a unit is overpowered in its own army or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If Space Marines (the unit, not the codex) are weak, then that does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. It might make the SM codex or certain SM armies weaker, but it does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. That's just complete nonsense.
Off topic but it is possible to have a unit that is OP but still not taken in its own army. If the other stuff you need to take does its job for it, it can still be superfluous, but then great in a mixed army where the other units don't mirror its abilities.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
Because allies issues aren't just related to the Guard, the issue could potentially arise in the future with other books, and wholesale just arbitrarily halving Guard CP can affect many different IG builds that may not have gobs of CP (say those built around Russ tanks and Spearhead detachments).
Indeed, hands off the Leman Russ company armies (though it is currently something of a self limit not taking an armoured fist battalion as backup).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 16:05:32
Martel732 wrote: There are plenty of matchups where triple catachan manticore and triple cadian basilisk are just as good or even better than slam/ knight combo.
Bottom line is that any of the "have" troops are a massive advantage in a mono list OR soup list.
Problem also is that any of the "haves" have seen a point reduction coming into 8th, whilest marines are still their 13 pts for whatever reason.
Even cultists got a pricecut of 20% from 7th to 8th whiles the CSM stayed their 13 pts.
If you'd cut those 20% off the marine price you'd also could play marines again and not gimp yourself for that. (10-11pts marines would be fine imo) in a semi fluff/ list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 16:10:24
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Martel732 wrote: There are plenty of matchups where triple catachan manticore and triple cadian basilisk are just as good or even better than slam/ knight combo.
Bottom line is that any of the "have" troops are a massive advantage in a mono list OR soup list.
Problem also is that any of the "haves" have seen a point reduction coming into 8th, whilest marines are still their 13 pts for whatever reason.
Even cultists got a pricecut of 20% from 7th to 8th whiles the CSM stayed their 13 pts.
If you'd cut those 20% off the marine price you'd also could play marines again and not gimp yourself for that. (10-11pts marines would be fine imo) in a semi fluff/ list.
Absolutely. At 10 or 11 they would be pretty good units. This also means Primaris need to drop 3 points also.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, I don't get it. A single game vs drukhari illustrates how crazy kabalites are compared to marines. It's not just guardsmen.
You pointed it out well. IG are maybe the worst offender but khabs and firewarriors are almost as good when you compare them to elite units like DA/tacs/ Necrons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 16:20:00
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, I don't get it. A single game vs drukhari illustrates how crazy kabalites are compared to marines. It's not just guardsmen.
I remeber Kabalites beeing 8 pts before, now they are 6, that is a pricecut of 25%, when you compare that to units that did get nothing along those lines, like Orks or Spacemarine profile units then you see why many of these struggle when they are not the few specialized units with the right faction traits.
It also raises quite some points about internal balance of the Codex. If you have two base troop units like the CSM codex and one get's a cut of 25% price but both units stay same, that seems off. Worse are the faction traits within certain factions, compare the traits of Ravenguard or Alpha legion with a Word bearer or iron fist marine and tell me which one is more survivable and better for the same price.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
vipoid wrote: Either a unit is overpowered in its own army or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If Space Marines (the unit, not the codex) are weak, then that does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. It might make the SM codex or certain SM armies weaker, but it does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. That's just complete nonsense.
Off topic but it is possible to have a unit that is OP but still not taken in its own army. If the other stuff you need to take does its job for it, it can still be superfluous, but then great in a mixed army where the other units don't mirror its abilities.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
Because allies issues aren't just related to the Guard, the issue could potentially arise in the future with other books, and wholesale just arbitrarily halving Guard CP can affect many different IG builds that may not have gobs of CP (say those built around Russ tanks and Spearhead detachments).
Indeed, hands off the Leman Russ company armies (though it is currently something of a self limit not taking an armoured fist battalion as backup).
Yes - Manticores and Bassalisks and Russ are all examples of OP units that IG players don't even take to tournaments anymore.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Except soup isn't the problem. Guard players are just pretending it is.
Remember when I said that some people just wanted to nerf guard out of some personal vendetta?
Thank you for proving me right.
How are you possibly saying that Soup isn't a problem? It is completely dominant across tournaments. And this includes Soup armies with no access to Imperial Guard.
I'm sorry but if you think Soup isn't an issue you are provably wrong.
There is literally no disadvantage to using a Soup army over a regular army.
- You can get access to the best units in multiple codices, rather than being limited to the best units in your own book.
- You can take units that cover what would otherwise be weaknesses for your army (Fast Hammer or melee units for armies like guard, cheap screening units or CP generators for elite armies, elite units that can make better use of CP for IG armies etc.).
- You can basically get around the rule of 3 by taking similar units from across different codices.
- You can get access to the best CP-batteries (currently IG for Imperium), so you'll almost always have more Command Points than a mono-army.
- You gain access to synergies that would normally be impossible (e.g. Combining DE Mandrakes, which inflict Mortal Wounds on 6s, with Doom from an Eldar Farseer, allowing failed wounds to be rerolled - something Mandrakes can't get in a mono-DE army.)
As it stands, there is no reason to not play Soup. Like it or nor this is a serious problem and one which needs to be addressed before you go round nerfing individual armies because of your own biases.
vipoid wrote: Either a unit is overpowered in its own army or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If Space Marines (the unit, not the codex) are weak, then that does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. It might make the SM codex or certain SM armies weaker, but it does not change whether Guilliman is overpowered. That's just complete nonsense.
Off topic but it is possible to have a unit that is OP but still not taken in its own army. If the other stuff you need to take does its job for it, it can still be superfluous, but then great in a mixed army where the other units don't mirror its abilities.
It's not impossible but it seems like it would be very rare. Do you have any examples in mind (from the current edition or previous ones)? (Just curious.)
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, I don't get it. A single game vs drukhari illustrates how crazy kabalites are compared to marines. It's not just guardsmen.
I remeber Kabalites beeing 8 pts before, now they are 6, that is a pricecut of 25%, when you compare that to units that did get nothing along those lines, like Orks or Spacemarine profile units then you see why many of these struggle when they are not the few specialized units with the right faction traits.
It also raises quite some points about internal balance of the Codex. If you have two base troop units like the CSM codex and one get's a cut of 25% price but both units stay same, that seems off. Worse are the faction traits within certain factions, compare the traits of Ravenguard or Alpha legion with a Word bearer or iron fist marine and tell me which one is more survivable and better for the same price.
I have a potential idea for that one. Rank all faction traits on a scale of 1-3. At this time, I'd rate the -1 to hit and cover traits as a 3. The others can be debated. Any given legion, like Word Bearers, gets 3 "trait points", but MUST purchase their canonical trait. Clearly, the word bearer trait would be only 1 pt, leaving them 2 pts to purchase other traits off a generic chart. All traits apply to all units. Done.
There is literally no disadvantage to using a Soup army over a regular army.
- You can get access to the best units in multiple codices, rather than being limited to the best units in your own book.
- You can take units that cover what would otherwise be weaknesses for your army (Fast Hammer or melee units for armies like guard, cheap screening units or CP generators for elite armies, elite units that can make better use of CP for IG armies etc.).
- You can basically get around the rule of 3 by taking similar units from across different codices.
- You can get access to the best CP-batteries (currently IG for Imperium), so you'll almost always have more Command Points than a mono-army.
- You gain access to synergies that would normally be impossible (e.g. Combining DE Mandrakes, which inflict Mortal Wounds on 6s, with Doom from an Eldar Farseer, allowing failed wounds to be rerolled - something Mandrakes can't get in a mono-DE army.)
vipoid,
I really think that sums up the core issue.
Why my gaming group has pretty well insisted on mono-factions in our games.
Finished Forge World Elysian Army 
Finished Tau Sept Cadre 
Finished Ork Waaagh | 
Alaitoc Eldar Warhost 
Finished Order of Our Martyred Lady - Sisters of Battle 
Finished Necromundian Imperial Guard Regiment 
