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.

Captain Brown wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

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.

Cheers,

CB

What are your dominant factions?

i wouldn't go off one random gamegorup, if we could find multiple gamegroups with such a limitation we could cover the whole spectrum methodically as in have all types of players over all and therefore minimize statistical outliers. Get the data from the base albeit there is a chance that such a method only shows the easier to play factions instead of the stupendiously powerfull broken factions when said faction is more difficult to play.

I'm just curious. It's just as likely to be Tyranids, who are very strong I think in a mono-faction meta.

Martel732 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

I like the approach but i also dislike it.
For one, certain traits heavly favour certain matchups, boards or other factors, so giving them a pts cost is extremely difficult.

Additionally all the -1 to hit shenanigans differ vastly in value, I'll give you an exemple:

-1 on a unit that hits on 2+ is a reduction of 20%
-1 on a unit that hits on 3+ is a reduction in efficency of 25%
-1 on a unit that hits on 4+ ( guardsmen etc) that is a reduction of 33%
-1 on a unit that hits on 5+ (R&H militia, ork boys) that is a 50% loss in efficency.

Armies that allready have medicore BS suffer quite a bit more in their shooting phase, which is the phase were most armies deal the most damage so probably the most important combat phase (beyond psychic smite shenanigans)

Against Custodes and CO Alpha Legion, Alaitoc and Ravenguard gain less advantage compared against Orkz, Guardsmen or other untis.

There are also Stratagems that i'd like to have a look at. VotlW for exemple, or the god specific stratagems Slaneshs cacophony double shooting is strictly better on 90% of all CSM units but does in essence the same as Khornes fury does, for one less CP AND WITH NO REACTION.

Then there is stuff like AA missiles for missile launcher or grenadiers for IG which should've been just base upgrades for units or buyable options.

( imagine if each time a Havoc has to ask for orders from his Chaos Lord to use that missile launcher against a valkyrie and to get the rocket personally from the commander of the army in said battle)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm just curious. It's just as likely to be Tyranids, who are very strong I think in a mono-faction meta.

Tau, IG, Tyranids would be my bet, albeit a mono CSM codex list could also be there easily.

The -1 to hit can also kill plasma units in the enemy force. I think it's hands down a 3 pt trait. Also, RG and AL get the infiltrate ability on top. Definitely 3 pts. I don't know if Alaitoc can do that or not.

Trait costs would be a judgment call,but it's better than what we have now. Especially for white scars and word bearers.

Martel732 wrote:


What are your dominant factions?

I know you were asking someone else, but here's my answer. I'm sure every meta is different, but aside from a few players here, most of the local guys prefer to go with mono-army lists. Top among them are Death Guard, Ad Mech, Custodes, and Knights. The shop has only ran 2 tournaments so far (using Chapter Approved missions for progressive scoring); one was won by Tyranids, the other was won by my Imperial Fists. We have two regular IG players; one of them is in usually in the top half for rankings, the other is around the middle.

DG become more nightmarish in mono-faction world, too. I don't see how mono-Custodes just aren't shot to death easily by almost any list.

Martel732 wrote:
The -1 to hit can also kill plasma units in the enemy force. I think it's hands down a 3 pt trait. Also, RG and AL get the infiltrate ability on top. Definitely 3 pts. I don't know if Alaitoc can do that or not.

Trait costs would be a judgment call,but it's better than what we have now. Especially for white scars and word bearers.

I would have rather seen specific upgrades for units instead of stratagems for things like "forward operatives" it would've even oppened up options to expand the non god legions or diffrent Raven guard.

Alpha legion could've gained Agent's something inbetween a scout and a Guardsmen veteran with sniper rifle and breacher charges.
Raven guard could've gotten something along the same vein.

Basically a troop choice along the line of cult marines for the non- god legions as to diversify them.
For some that would not even be necessary, you could give improved bikers to the whitescars and improved raptors for the nightlords and move them to troops.
Iron warriors could get better cult of destruction units (warpsmiths, Obliterators and mutilators)
Etc. They would differentiate the armies enough so as to still have the subfactions which is much appreciated imo but still make the balancing not so glaringly difficult.

Yeah, there's a lot to unpack with just the army traits. But it clearly needs to be more complex than AL and RG get awesomeness and word bearers get gak on.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack with just the army traits. But it clearly needs to be more complex than AL and RG get awesomeness and word bearers get gak on.

I have quite some differing parts of CSM, for one there are my soulsellers, which were a bunch of nurglite CSM.
I also have an older iron warrior splinter.

Even those compare terribly to AL trait and that is just within one codex. Needless to say that Hemlocks / miasma of pestilience stacking of -1 on bs is even worse and should not under any circumstance be possible. It is not fun to force certain armies to skip their shooting phase and it should never have happened. Yes this is in regards of alaitocs psykers.

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. 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.

I did some math again, but trying to keep up with this discussion is getting exhausting and I'm starting to not care anymore. Most of the reason I want 5 pt guard is to shift the points upwards so we can get more granularity of points. Guard, FW, Skitarii rangers, kabalites all go up one point. Then marines, eldar aspects, necrons etc.. can go down if needed.
So we get:
4 pt conscripts/ 5 pt infantry/ 6 pt veterans
8pt FW
8pt S rangers
7 pt kabalites
Then:
12 pt marines
11 pt dire avengers etc...

Anyway here's the math if you care at all:

I can't say i like the look of that but when soup is adressed and those choices are still problematic i'd like it very much if dandelions suggestion would be used by GW.
It scales well and it adresses over and undercosted units with it.

I am wondering though if you would let cultist be at 4 pts since they are worse equipped then guardsmen or move them aswell to 5 since they get better support from bubbles and stratagems

Anyways i belive GW not doing more in favour of balance is kinda annoying since we get edition half a year later we get Ca and now another half a year we get another CA.
I don't want monthly balance updates but a bimonthly one with smaller steps would be easyier to handle.

Dandelion wrote:


Anyway here's the math if you care at all:

Spoiler:

Your point about morale is true, but there are a few things to consider:

- There's a 22 pt difference in favor of the tau, that's enough for 5 more guys, or 2 heavy bolters. The heavy bolters would have killed 1-2 FW at range without risking triple tap. Cadian HB would kill even more.
- FW are also undercosted
- CP can be used to pass that morale check
- The FW went first, letting the guard go first would have netted 2 fewer casualties in the first couple rounds
- The pulse accelerator drone can only be taken by pathfinders, which will cost an additional 40 pts. Not to mention if you consider the grander game, that drone can be singled out by anything. The only reason I included it was because another poster wanted it in.
- Starting 42" away is difficult in most games. The board itself is usually 48" across. If the Tau start at the board edge, the Guard can still deploy at 36" and get within rapid fire in 2 turns instead of 3, which also removes the Tau's ability to retreat that one time.
- The Borkan/Fireblade/PA drone combo is brutal, no denying that. 130 pts of most infantry would have been murdered on it's way over. So again FW are also undercosted.


But let's ignore all that and just say that the Guard go first this time, the FW are 42" away and can't retreat and the Fireblade uses his markerlight and the C Commander actually fights, all casualties are rounded. What changes?
- Guard move move move! into 27" first / FW kill 3 guard (morale passes)
- Guard move normally to 21" and FRFSRF (15 lasguns=30 shots) killing 4 FW (morale passes, 8 left) / FW move to between 18" and 21", triple tap killing 6 Guard ( 3 more run, so 1 Guardsmen+7 Guardsmen/sergeant left)
- Guard move into between 12 and 15", FRFSRF (7 lasguns=28 shots cuz steel legion) kills 3 FW +1 drone (saviour) (morale passes, 5 left) / FW triple tap killing 4 Guard (morale passes, 1 Guardsmen+3 Guardsmen/sergeant)
- Guard move (now within at about 6-9") FRFSRF (3 lasguns+ 2 pistols (sarge and commander) =14 shots) kills 2 FW (3 left), FW shoot and kill 2 (including sergeant (morale passes, 2 Guardsmen left + commander)
- Guard FRFSRF (2 lasguns + 1 pistol = 9 shots) 1 kill (2 FW left) Guard charge with commander and 2 guys. lose one wound on commander to overwatch but get in. 4+2 attacks= 1 kill / 1 FW hits back, does nothing. / FW rertreats, Fireblade shoots and kills 1 guy.
- Guard FRFSRF + pistol then charge and fight all to kill the last FW / The Fireblade then kills the last guardsmen.
Then it becomes a slugfest between the two commanders, which the fireblade could win since he has 5 wounds and WS 3+ for some bizarre reason but I don't feel like doing that now.

So we'll call it a tie.

If you're throwing Heavy Bolters in for the Guard, where's the Support Turret for the Fire Warriors? it literally costs them 0 points and gives them a Smart Missile System or Missile Pod.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


Anyway here's the math if you care at all:

Spoiler:

Your point about morale is true, but there are a few things to consider:

- There's a 22 pt difference in favor of the tau, that's enough for 5 more guys, or 2 heavy bolters. The heavy bolters would have killed 1-2 FW at range without risking triple tap. Cadian HB would kill even more.
- FW are also undercosted
- CP can be used to pass that morale check
- The FW went first, letting the guard go first would have netted 2 fewer casualties in the first couple rounds
- The pulse accelerator drone can only be taken by pathfinders, which will cost an additional 40 pts. Not to mention if you consider the grander game, that drone can be singled out by anything. The only reason I included it was because another poster wanted it in.
- Starting 42" away is difficult in most games. The board itself is usually 48" across. If the Tau start at the board edge, the Guard can still deploy at 36" and get within rapid fire in 2 turns instead of 3, which also removes the Tau's ability to retreat that one time.
- The Borkan/Fireblade/PA drone combo is brutal, no denying that. 130 pts of most infantry would have been murdered on it's way over. So again FW are also undercosted.


But let's ignore all that and just say that the Guard go first this time, the FW are 42" away and can't retreat and the Fireblade uses his markerlight and the C Commander actually fights, all casualties are rounded. What changes?
- Guard move move move! into 27" first / FW kill 3 guard (morale passes)
- Guard move normally to 21" and FRFSRF (15 lasguns=30 shots) killing 4 FW (morale passes, 8 left) / FW move to between 18" and 21", triple tap killing 6 Guard ( 3 more run, so 1 Guardsmen+7 Guardsmen/sergeant left)
- Guard move into between 12 and 15", FRFSRF (7 lasguns=28 shots cuz steel legion) kills 3 FW +1 drone (saviour) (morale passes, 5 left) / FW triple tap killing 4 Guard (morale passes, 1 Guardsmen+3 Guardsmen/sergeant)
- Guard move (now within at about 6-9") FRFSRF (3 lasguns+ 2 pistols (sarge and commander) =14 shots) kills 2 FW (3 left), FW shoot and kill 2 (including sergeant (morale passes, 2 Guardsmen left + commander)
- Guard FRFSRF (2 lasguns + 1 pistol = 9 shots) 1 kill (2 FW left) Guard charge with commander and 2 guys. lose one wound on commander to overwatch but get in. 4+2 attacks= 1 kill / 1 FW hits back, does nothing. / FW rertreats, Fireblade shoots and kills 1 guy.
- Guard FRFSRF + pistol then charge and fight all to kill the last FW / The Fireblade then kills the last guardsmen.
Then it becomes a slugfest between the two commanders, which the fireblade could win since he has 5 wounds and WS 3+ for some bizarre reason but I don't feel like doing that now.

So we'll call it a tie.

If you're throwing Heavy Bolters in for the Guard, where's the Support Turret for the Fire Warriors? it literally costs them 0 points and gives them a Smart Missile System or Missile Pod.

The turret itself is free but the SMS is 15 pts and Missile pod is 24 pts. BTW the math presented doesn't have Heavy Bolters in it. It's the exact same scenario as before but with guard going first and a couple other tweaks.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


Anyway here's the math if you care at all:

Spoiler:

Your point about morale is true, but there are a few things to consider:

- There's a 22 pt difference in favor of the tau, that's enough for 5 more guys, or 2 heavy bolters. The heavy bolters would have killed 1-2 FW at range without risking triple tap. Cadian HB would kill even more.
- FW are also undercosted
- CP can be used to pass that morale check
- The FW went first, letting the guard go first would have netted 2 fewer casualties in the first couple rounds
- The pulse accelerator drone can only be taken by pathfinders, which will cost an additional 40 pts. Not to mention if you consider the grander game, that drone can be singled out by anything. The only reason I included it was because another poster wanted it in.
- Starting 42" away is difficult in most games. The board itself is usually 48" across. If the Tau start at the board edge, the Guard can still deploy at 36" and get within rapid fire in 2 turns instead of 3, which also removes the Tau's ability to retreat that one time.
- The Borkan/Fireblade/PA drone combo is brutal, no denying that. 130 pts of most infantry would have been murdered on it's way over. So again FW are also undercosted.


But let's ignore all that and just say that the Guard go first this time, the FW are 42" away and can't retreat and the Fireblade uses his markerlight and the C Commander actually fights, all casualties are rounded. What changes?
- Guard move move move! into 27" first / FW kill 3 guard (morale passes)
- Guard move normally to 21" and FRFSRF (15 lasguns=30 shots) killing 4 FW (morale passes, 8 left) / FW move to between 18" and 21", triple tap killing 6 Guard ( 3 more run, so 1 Guardsmen+7 Guardsmen/sergeant left)
- Guard move into between 12 and 15", FRFSRF (7 lasguns=28 shots cuz steel legion) kills 3 FW +1 drone (saviour) (morale passes, 5 left) / FW triple tap killing 4 Guard (morale passes, 1 Guardsmen+3 Guardsmen/sergeant)
- Guard move (now within at about 6-9") FRFSRF (3 lasguns+ 2 pistols (sarge and commander) =14 shots) kills 2 FW (3 left), FW shoot and kill 2 (including sergeant (morale passes, 2 Guardsmen left + commander)
- Guard FRFSRF (2 lasguns + 1 pistol = 9 shots) 1 kill (2 FW left) Guard charge with commander and 2 guys. lose one wound on commander to overwatch but get in. 4+2 attacks= 1 kill / 1 FW hits back, does nothing. / FW rertreats, Fireblade shoots and kills 1 guy.
- Guard FRFSRF + pistol then charge and fight all to kill the last FW / The Fireblade then kills the last guardsmen.
Then it becomes a slugfest between the two commanders, which the fireblade could win since he has 5 wounds and WS 3+ for some bizarre reason but I don't feel like doing that now.

So we'll call it a tie.

If you're throwing Heavy Bolters in for the Guard, where's the Support Turret for the Fire Warriors? it literally costs them 0 points and gives them a Smart Missile System or Missile Pod.

The turret is not free. You pay the missiles. Also he only mentioned heavy bolters because theres a point different in his mathhammer based in the actual units and not rounding (like 11 IG infantry), but he has not used them into his math.

Also, I agree with him. At this point this discussion... well, sorry. Not at this point. We pased the point of discussion like 3 weeks ago. We are all trenched here in our opiniones. We can only wait for GW judgement about this.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


Anyway here's the math if you care at all:

Spoiler:

Your point about morale is true, but there are a few things to consider:

- There's a 22 pt difference in favor of the tau, that's enough for 5 more guys, or 2 heavy bolters. The heavy bolters would have killed 1-2 FW at range without risking triple tap. Cadian HB would kill even more.
- FW are also undercosted
- CP can be used to pass that morale check
- The FW went first, letting the guard go first would have netted 2 fewer casualties in the first couple rounds
- The pulse accelerator drone can only be taken by pathfinders, which will cost an additional 40 pts. Not to mention if you consider the grander game, that drone can be singled out by anything. The only reason I included it was because another poster wanted it in.
- Starting 42" away is difficult in most games. The board itself is usually 48" across. If the Tau start at the board edge, the Guard can still deploy at 36" and get within rapid fire in 2 turns instead of 3, which also removes the Tau's ability to retreat that one time.
- The Borkan/Fireblade/PA drone combo is brutal, no denying that. 130 pts of most infantry would have been murdered on it's way over. So again FW are also undercosted.


But let's ignore all that and just say that the Guard go first this time, the FW are 42" away and can't retreat and the Fireblade uses his markerlight and the C Commander actually fights, all casualties are rounded. What changes?
- Guard move move move! into 27" first / FW kill 3 guard (morale passes)
- Guard move normally to 21" and FRFSRF (15 lasguns=30 shots) killing 4 FW (morale passes, 8 left) / FW move to between 18" and 21", triple tap killing 6 Guard ( 3 more run, so 1 Guardsmen+7 Guardsmen/sergeant left)
- Guard move into between 12 and 15", FRFSRF (7 lasguns=28 shots cuz steel legion) kills 3 FW +1 drone (saviour) (morale passes, 5 left) / FW triple tap killing 4 Guard (morale passes, 1 Guardsmen+3 Guardsmen/sergeant)
- Guard move (now within at about 6-9") FRFSRF (3 lasguns+ 2 pistols (sarge and commander) =14 shots) kills 2 FW (3 left), FW shoot and kill 2 (including sergeant (morale passes, 2 Guardsmen left + commander)
- Guard FRFSRF (2 lasguns + 1 pistol = 9 shots) 1 kill (2 FW left) Guard charge with commander and 2 guys. lose one wound on commander to overwatch but get in. 4+2 attacks= 1 kill / 1 FW hits back, does nothing. / FW rertreats, Fireblade shoots and kills 1 guy.
- Guard FRFSRF + pistol then charge and fight all to kill the last FW / The Fireblade then kills the last guardsmen.
Then it becomes a slugfest between the two commanders, which the fireblade could win since he has 5 wounds and WS 3+ for some bizarre reason but I don't feel like doing that now.

So we'll call it a tie.

If you're throwing Heavy Bolters in for the Guard, where's the Support Turret for the Fire Warriors? it literally costs them 0 points and gives them a Smart Missile System or Missile Pod.

The turret itself is free but the SMS is 15 pts and Missile pod is 24 pts. BTW the math presented doesn't have Heavy Bolters in it. It's the exact same scenario as before but with guard going first and a couple other tweaks.

You stated that there's a 22 points difference in favor of the Guard, room enough for 2 Heavy Bolters.
I was pointing out that the points difference when someone throws in HBs doesn't mean a whole lot when there's a freebie to the Fire Warriors unit that only pays for the points of the weapon.

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 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.)

I don't have any vendetta. Nice way to play victim like Eldar players the last two editions though. Solid work. Now for the bullet points.

1. Which shows the problem is internal balance. Why would a Marine player take Basilisks if GW made Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons functional?
2. Other units could perform those functions if they were buffed, or the units taken are already overpowered in the first place. Vanguard are a fast melee hammer unit, but they're not taken because Slamguinus is broken in function. Plus Guard could throw Ogre units into the enemy fast if they wanted because of how cheap stuff in the codex is, but they don't because those units hardly perform their melee function in the first place, and GW overcosts transports besides the Dark Eldar ones because reasons.
3. And Rule Of 3 was a bad idea to convince people that they were helping fix the game. It doesn't matter if you can only take 3 Hive Tyrants if Hive Tyrants are still mathematically broken in the first place. Would it be okay if Terminators cost 10 points each and got all their Power Fists free and all got Assault Cannons free, but they were only limited to 3 squads total? The answer is no because the unit is fundamentally broken. Hell, the unit is broken at being limited to only one squad.
Rule of 3 was essentially put away when 6th came about and forgotten about in 7th, but none of the power builds from those editions ever seemed to focus on breaking that outside very specific builds, and those were units you could get tons of anyway with the very basic FOC (Wave Serpents, Centurion Deathstar, Scatterbikes, free Rhinos and Razorbacks, etc), and THEN you had the off units that were taken like Wraithknights and Warp Spiders and Termicide. Wonder why that is?
4. CP is the only thing new to this edition, so you'd almost have a fair point if CP actually mattered when the edition first came out and people weren't just spamming Conscripts + Commisars because they were fundamentally broken. Come to my surprise when they were actually fixed with the Guard codex, though bumping them to 4 points with Chapter Approved is stupid silly, sure. Once again, that's a unit that would break Rule Of 3 anyway.
5. The fun part of your example with Mandrakes is that you get literally a single extra wound on preferred targets for something you'd like that on, like Custodes. Even against a Tactical Marine squad, that's 2.4 dead compared to 3.1 with the Shred bonus.
Hardly scary, huh?

Essentially, rather than there being no reason not to play soup, you only have reasons to because of the internal and external balance still being all fethed up basically.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


Anyway here's the math if you care at all:

Spoiler:

Your point about morale is true, but there are a few things to consider:

- There's a 22 pt difference in favor of the tau, that's enough for 5 more guys, or 2 heavy bolters. The heavy bolters would have killed 1-2 FW at range without risking triple tap. Cadian HB would kill even more.
- FW are also undercosted
- CP can be used to pass that morale check
- The FW went first, letting the guard go first would have netted 2 fewer casualties in the first couple rounds
- The pulse accelerator drone can only be taken by pathfinders, which will cost an additional 40 pts. Not to mention if you consider the grander game, that drone can be singled out by anything. The only reason I included it was because another poster wanted it in.
- Starting 42" away is difficult in most games. The board itself is usually 48" across. If the Tau start at the board edge, the Guard can still deploy at 36" and get within rapid fire in 2 turns instead of 3, which also removes the Tau's ability to retreat that one time.
- The Borkan/Fireblade/PA drone combo is brutal, no denying that. 130 pts of most infantry would have been murdered on it's way over. So again FW are also undercosted.


But let's ignore all that and just say that the Guard go first this time, the FW are 42" away and can't retreat and the Fireblade uses his markerlight and the C Commander actually fights, all casualties are rounded. What changes?
- Guard move move move! into 27" first / FW kill 3 guard (morale passes)
- Guard move normally to 21" and FRFSRF (15 lasguns=30 shots) killing 4 FW (morale passes, 8 left) / FW move to between 18" and 21", triple tap killing 6 Guard ( 3 more run, so 1 Guardsmen+7 Guardsmen/sergeant left)
- Guard move into between 12 and 15", FRFSRF (7 lasguns=28 shots cuz steel legion) kills 3 FW +1 drone (saviour) (morale passes, 5 left) / FW triple tap killing 4 Guard (morale passes, 1 Guardsmen+3 Guardsmen/sergeant)
- Guard move (now within at about 6-9") FRFSRF (3 lasguns+ 2 pistols (sarge and commander) =14 shots) kills 2 FW (3 left), FW shoot and kill 2 (including sergeant (morale passes, 2 Guardsmen left + commander)
- Guard FRFSRF (2 lasguns + 1 pistol = 9 shots) 1 kill (2 FW left) Guard charge with commander and 2 guys. lose one wound on commander to overwatch but get in. 4+2 attacks= 1 kill / 1 FW hits back, does nothing. / FW rertreats, Fireblade shoots and kills 1 guy.
- Guard FRFSRF + pistol then charge and fight all to kill the last FW / The Fireblade then kills the last guardsmen.
Then it becomes a slugfest between the two commanders, which the fireblade could win since he has 5 wounds and WS 3+ for some bizarre reason but I don't feel like doing that now.

So we'll call it a tie.

If you're throwing Heavy Bolters in for the Guard, where's the Support Turret for the Fire Warriors? it literally costs them 0 points and gives them a Smart Missile System or Missile Pod.

The turret itself is free but the SMS is 15 pts and Missile pod is 24 pts. BTW the math presented doesn't have Heavy Bolters in it. It's the exact same scenario as before but with guard going first and a couple other tweaks.

You stated that there's a 22 points difference in favor of the Guard, room enough for 2 Heavy Bolters.
I was pointing out that the points difference when someone throws in HBs doesn't mean a whole lot when there's a freebie to the Fire Warriors unit that only pays for the points of the weapon.

There's 110 pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau. Adding two heavy bolters puts that at 126 pts vs 132 pts. Adding an sms puts it at 126 pts vs 147 pts.
Also, the heavy bolter is just added to the guard squad, you don't pay extra for the team itself.

Edit: Wait wait wait. I said there's a 22 pt advantage in favor of Tau NOT Guard. The Tau have 22 more pts than the Guard which means the guard can stuff 2 heavy bolters in and still have fewer points than the Tau.

Dandelion wrote:

There's 110 pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau. Adding two heavy bolters puts that at 126 pts vs 132 pts. Adding an sms puts it at 126 pts vs 147 pts.
Also, the heavy bolter is just added to the guard squad, you don't pay extra for the team itself.

You don't pay extra for the team itself, but you do lose out on shots via FRFSRF--something the SMS or MP doesn't do.

I should also point out that losing a Support Turret isn't as big of a deal as a Guard Infantry Squad or Veteran Squad losing their HWT. For 1 CP, there's a Stratagem that lets you replace a destroyed Support Turret...there's not one letting you do so for HWTs.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

There's 110 pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau. Adding two heavy bolters puts that at 126 pts vs 132 pts. Adding an sms puts it at 126 pts vs 147 pts.
Also, the heavy bolter is just added to the guard squad, you don't pay extra for the team itself.

You don't pay extra for the team itself, but you do lose out on shots via FRFSRF--something the SMS or MP doesn't do.

The whole point of the heavy bolters was to avoid getting into rapid fire range, otherwise I'd take plasma guns instead. Also, I don't have my codex on me but don't those teams keep both lasguns (I know at least one lasgun is kept for sure)? If so they can still fire them because they're not pistols.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


Anyway here's the math if you care at all:

Spoiler:

Your point about morale is true, but there are a few things to consider:

- There's a 22 pt difference in favor of the tau, that's enough for 5 more guys, or 2 heavy bolters. The heavy bolters would have killed 1-2 FW at range without risking triple tap. Cadian HB would kill even more.
- FW are also undercosted
- CP can be used to pass that morale check
- The FW went first, letting the guard go first would have netted 2 fewer casualties in the first couple rounds
- The pulse accelerator drone can only be taken by pathfinders, which will cost an additional 40 pts. Not to mention if you consider the grander game, that drone can be singled out by anything. The only reason I included it was because another poster wanted it in.
- Starting 42" away is difficult in most games. The board itself is usually 48" across. If the Tau start at the board edge, the Guard can still deploy at 36" and get within rapid fire in 2 turns instead of 3, which also removes the Tau's ability to retreat that one time.
- The Borkan/Fireblade/PA drone combo is brutal, no denying that. 130 pts of most infantry would have been murdered on it's way over. So again FW are also undercosted.


But let's ignore all that and just say that the Guard go first this time, the FW are 42" away and can't retreat and the Fireblade uses his markerlight and the C Commander actually fights, all casualties are rounded. What changes?
- Guard move move move! into 27" first / FW kill 3 guard (morale passes)
- Guard move normally to 21" and FRFSRF (15 lasguns=30 shots) killing 4 FW (morale passes, 8 left) / FW move to between 18" and 21", triple tap killing 6 Guard ( 3 more run, so 1 Guardsmen+7 Guardsmen/sergeant left)
- Guard move into between 12 and 15", FRFSRF (7 lasguns=28 shots cuz steel legion) kills 3 FW +1 drone (saviour) (morale passes, 5 left) / FW triple tap killing 4 Guard (morale passes, 1 Guardsmen+3 Guardsmen/sergeant)
- Guard move (now within at about 6-9") FRFSRF (3 lasguns+ 2 pistols (sarge and commander) =14 shots) kills 2 FW (3 left), FW shoot and kill 2 (including sergeant (morale passes, 2 Guardsmen left + commander)
- Guard FRFSRF (2 lasguns + 1 pistol = 9 shots) 1 kill (2 FW left) Guard charge with commander and 2 guys. lose one wound on commander to overwatch but get in. 4+2 attacks= 1 kill / 1 FW hits back, does nothing. / FW rertreats, Fireblade shoots and kills 1 guy.
- Guard FRFSRF + pistol then charge and fight all to kill the last FW / The Fireblade then kills the last guardsmen.
Then it becomes a slugfest between the two commanders, which the fireblade could win since he has 5 wounds and WS 3+ for some bizarre reason but I don't feel like doing that now.

So we'll call it a tie.

If you're throwing Heavy Bolters in for the Guard, where's the Support Turret for the Fire Warriors? it literally costs them 0 points and gives them a Smart Missile System or Missile Pod.

The turret itself is free but the SMS is 15 pts and Missile pod is 24 pts. BTW the math presented doesn't have Heavy Bolters in it. It's the exact same scenario as before but with guard going first and a couple other tweaks.

You stated that there's a 22 points difference in favor of the Guard, room enough for 2 Heavy Bolters.
I was pointing out that the points difference when someone throws in HBs doesn't mean a whole lot when there's a freebie to the Fire Warriors unit that only pays for the points of the weapon.

There's 110 pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau. Adding two heavy bolters puts that at 126 pts vs 132 pts. Adding an sms puts it at 126 pts vs 147 pts.
Also, the heavy bolter is just added to the guard squad, you don't pay extra for the team itself.

Edit: Wait wait wait. I said there's a 22 pt advantage in favor of Tau NOT Guard. The Tau have 22 more pts than the Guard which means the guard can stuff 2 heavy bolters in and still have fewer points than the Tau.

Which is actually closer to a 62 pt advantage once you pay for the parth finder's to unlock the drone.

So at 126 pts of Guard kills 132 pts of Tau Firewarriors yeah and people say Firewarriors are undercosted.

Firewarriors ARE undercosted. But so are guardsmen. At least by the "have not" standard.

For 6 pts, I get a dude that ignores toughness! The Tyranids are not amused.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

There's 110 pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau. Adding two heavy bolters puts that at 126 pts vs 132 pts. Adding an sms puts it at 126 pts vs 147 pts.
Also, the heavy bolter is just added to the guard squad, you don't pay extra for the team itself.

You don't pay extra for the team itself, but you do lose out on shots via FRFSRF--something the SMS or MP doesn't do.

I should also point out that losing a Support Turret isn't as big of a deal as a Guard Infantry Squad or Veteran Squad losing their HWT. For 1 CP, there's a Stratagem that lets you replace a destroyed Support Turret...there's not one letting you do so for HWTs.

Your replacing 1 lasgun with a heavybolter and thats loosing out on FRFSRF it's a heavybolter

Does your Heavy weapon team get destroyed if you move the squad? Drone turrets are totally different things. But your also bumping the maths to be even more scewed if 110points of Guard is barely defeated by 132 points of FW. You basically had to give tau 1.6 firewarriors extra to even the odds.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
[

1. Which shows the problem is internal balance. Why would a Marine player take Basilisks if GW made Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons functional?

Because a Basilisk is a heavy artillery piece able to engage almost any kind of target, while whirlwinds and thunderfie cannons are anti infantry light artillery. They have different purposes, and that capability is not otherwise available to SM's in that manner.

Different armies have different units with different strengths and abilities. Not all armies have inherent access to the same abilities, thats what defines them. When you throw the world open, of course cherrypicking occurs.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
[

1. Which shows the problem is internal balance. Why would a Marine player take Basilisks if GW made Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons functional?

Because a Basilisk is a heavy artillery piece able to engage almost any kind of target, while whirlwinds and thunderfie cannons are anti infantry light artillery. They have different purposes, and that capability is not otherwise available to SM's in that manner.

Different armies have different units with different strengths and abilities. Not all armies have inherent access to the same abilities, thats what defines them. When you throw the world open, of course cherrypicking occurs.

Whirlwinds and basilisk are still WAY too close in cost though. Going by IG costing, the whirlwind is a 60 pt tank.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
[

1. Which shows the problem is internal balance. Why would a Marine player take Basilisks if GW made Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons functional?

Because a Basilisk is a heavy artillery piece able to engage almost any kind of target, while whirlwinds and thunderfie cannons are anti infantry light artillery. They have different purposes, and that capability is not otherwise available to SM's in that manner.

Different armies have different units with different strengths and abilities. Not all armies have inherent access to the same abilities, thats what defines them. When you throw the world open, of course cherrypicking occurs.

Whirlwinds and basilisk are still WAY too close in cost though.

Compair a wyvern to a whirlwind as they should do similar things.

Okay. It's way inferior to a wyvern. 60 pt tank lol.

Martel732 wrote:
Okay. It's way inferior to a wyvern. 60 pt tank lol.

Yeah a tank that guard players say is trash

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
[

1. Which shows the problem is internal balance. Why would a Marine player take Basilisks if GW made Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons functional?

Because a Basilisk is a heavy artillery piece able to engage almost any kind of target, while whirlwinds and thunderfie cannons are anti infantry light artillery. They have different purposes, and that capability is not otherwise available to SM's in that manner.

Different armies have different units with different strengths and abilities. Not all armies have inherent access to the same abilities, thats what defines them. When you throw the world open, of course cherrypicking occurs.

Whirlwinds and basilisk are still WAY too close in cost though.

Thats probably fair, but even if they were perfectly costed, there are reasons why you'd take a Basilisk over a Whirlwind just because they do different things.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I don't have any vendetta.

Yet you constantly go after not only IG but IG players, whilst parading the fact that you clearly have no clue what constitutes balance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. Which shows the problem is internal balance. Why would a Marine player take Basilisks if GW made Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons functional?

Because they want to take additional artillery units? Because you want to take different types of artillery unit?

Regardless, what exactly is your point here?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Other units could perform those functions if they were buffed, or the units taken are already overpowered in the first place.

That's simply not true. Not every codex has a plethora of units that all perform the same basic role.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

3. And Rule Of 3 was a bad idea to convince people that they were helping fix the game. It doesn't matter if you can only take 3 Hive Tyrants if Hive Tyrants are still mathematically broken in the first place.

I don't disagree.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Would it be okay if Terminators cost 10 points each and got all their Power Fists free and all got Assault Cannons free, but they were only limited to 3 squads total? The answer is no because the unit is fundamentally broken. Hell, the unit is broken at being limited to only one squad.

What has this even got to do with the points I made about allies?

I don't recall ever saying that the rule of 3 was a good rule. Merely that, like it or not, allies provide an advantage by allowing Soup armies to effectively evade it if they so choose.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

4. CP is the only thing new to this edition, so you'd almost have a fair point if CP actually mattered when the edition first came out and people weren't just spamming Conscripts + Commisars because they were fundamentally broken.

Wait, are you seriously arguing that CPs don't matter in the current game?

Are you even quoting the right person? Because you've thus far failed to refute any of the points I made. Hell, I'm not even sure you're addressing the points I made. All you seem to have done is attack a lot of things that I never said.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

5. The fun part of your example with Mandrakes is that you get literally a single extra wound on preferred targets for something you'd like that on, like Custodes. Even against a Tactical Marine squad, that's 2.4 dead compared to 3.1 with the Shred bonus.

Sigh. My apologies for trying to give a simple example, rather than trying to dig through tournament results or such to find out the best Dark Eldar units to use with Doom.

That said, I'm pretty certain your math is off here. 10 Mandrakes inflict 4.44 wounds on a Tactical squad without Doom, and 6.67 with doom. That's still a 50% increase in casualties.

And, again, I was just using this as an example of buffs/combos that don't exist within mono codices. There is literally no unit in the entire DE codex that can improve Mandrake hitting or wounding with Baleblast, let alone one as synergistic as Doom.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Essentially, rather than there being no reason not to play soup, you only have reasons to because of the internal and external balance still being all fethed up basically.

That doesn't make sense. Even if units in all codices were perfectly balanced, there would still be no reason not to play soup. Because armies are still going to have weaknesses in terms of the units/unit types they simply don't have access to, or the number of CPs they can generate or the buffs they can apply etc.. If you really want a balanced game, then there needs to be some downside to playing Soup armies - it can't just be all upside with no drawbacks as it currently is. Which is apparently how you want it to remain.