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.

Slayer-Fan123 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.

Except those two pieces don't do a good job of being that much anti-infantry. If they did you'd have a good reason to use them. There shouldn't be that much a difference in performance and you know that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

Why is cherrypicking a problem? Some factions have way more units to choose from than others to begin with. How it is fair that Guard have several times more units to choose from than the Harlequins? For the cherrypicking complaint to make sense all factions should have equal amount of units, with carefully designed strengths and weaknesses that are equally balanced against each other. This is not even remotely the case, so the whole argument is moot.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Excuse me but harlequins should've never had their own codex to begin with.
Same with knights, same with inquisition, same with even grey knights. These are Codexes that should've been either inbaked into a greater Codex or should've formed a combined Codex to begin with.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

Why is cherrypicking a problem? Some factions have way more units to choose from than others to begin with. How it is fair that Guard have several times more units to choose from than the Harlequins? For the cherrypicking complaint to make sense all factions should have equal amount of units, with carefully designed strengths and weaknesses that are equally balanced against each other. This is not even remotely the case, so the whole argument is moot.

 Crimson wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Excuse me but harlequins should've never had their own codex to begin with.
Same with knights, same with inquisition, same with even grey knights. These are Codexes that should've been either inbaked into a greater Codex or should've formed a combined Codex to begin with.

Yet with the current ally system they work just fine. Almost like it was intended...

The game you are looking for is chess. Both players have the same pieces with the same strengths and weaknesses. In 40k each army from a lore point is supposed to have a specific playstyle that functions with the lore. Tau are supposed to be amazing at range with no psychic phase and no CC, Khorne Demons are supposed to kill you up close but have crappy shooting, Nurgle is supposed to be hard to remove, ect. What you are championing for is every army having units that do the same thing at the same efficiency. The end goal of making every army have the same amount of unit choices that do the same things is simply play chess with different looking pieces.

Allowing things like imperium and chaos to cherry pick across multitudes of codexes with no downsides crushes codexes like tau that will never have an army that is meant to do what a BA smashcaptian does

 vipoid wrote:

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.

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

Why is cherrypicking a problem? Some factions have way more units to choose from than others to begin with. How it is fair that Guard have several times more units to choose from than the Harlequins? For the cherrypicking complaint to make sense all factions should have equal amount of units, with carefully designed strengths and weaknesses that are equally balanced against each other. This is not even remotely the case, so the whole argument is moot.

The game you are looking for is chess. Both players have the same pieces with the same strengths and weaknesses. In 40k each army from a lore point is supposed to have a specific playstyle that functions with the lore. Tau are supposed to be amazing at range with no psychic phase and no CC, Khorne Demons are supposed to kill you up close but have crappy shooting, Nurgle is supposed to be hard to remove, ect. What you are championing for is every army having units that do the same thing at the same efficiency. The end goal of making every army have the same amount of unit choices that do the same things is simply play chess with different looking pieces.

Allowing things like imperium and chaos to cherry pick across multitudes of codexes with no downsides crushes codexes like tau that will never have an army that is meant to do what a BA smashcaptian does

 Crimson wrote:
Why is cherrypicking a problem?

 Crimson wrote:
How it is fair that Guard have several times more units to choose from than the Harlequins?

Ice_can wrote:

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

Yeah a tank that guard players say is trash

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 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.

Except those two pieces don't do a good job of being that much anti-infantry. If they did you'd have a good reason to use them. There shouldn't be that much a difference in performance and you know that.

Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

That's because you're behaving like an Eldar player from 6th-7th edition. In fact almost all the Guard players here are simply because their army functions. That's nice, but if it's broken it's broken. You've had your fun. Now back to the points.

1. The point was literally that internal balance is always the primary issue. Like, you completely ignored it to say you don't get it? It was blatantly obvious what point I was making. Seriously. Reading comprehension, dude.
2. They will have units that perform almost the same role though, and not every army needs the role to function. Obviously Tau don't need a Slamguinus to function, do they? Therefore it's Slamguinus proving he's an issue.
3. So if those certain units like Predators are going above Rule Of 3, it doesn't matter because the Predator isn't broken. You need to look at the fundamental issues with the unit in discussion. Math proved there was an issue with Infantry whether you like it or not. Math doesn't care about your feelings.
4. CP doesn't matter when discussing unit merit. Simple as that. The beginning of the edition showed that when we had only the three Stratagems to use, and people called for the nerfing of Roboute and Conscripts and Stormravens RATHER than blaming the Ally system like you're choosing to do now.
5. Yeah you might've been better off with using Disintegrator Ravagers, except that the weapon itself is the issue. Or should we just deny that too and blame Doom?
Also I probably had the wrong stats for the Mandrake weapon. Assault 2 S3 AP-1 yes? Even with the math you provided, giving a percentage rather than the points killed is pretty dishonest. 50% sounds nasty when 20 dudes died in the first place, but at that low a number 2 Marines more dying is hardly an issue.
Also who cares if nothing else buffs them?

There are plenty of reasons to not play soup assuming balance was actually achieved. More units to target with your Stratagems, more synergy units for the HQ dudes, etc. Of course with how cheap Commanders and Infantry are who cares right?

Not Online!!! wrote:

That's because you're behaving like an Eldar player from 6th-7th edition. In fact almost all the Guard players here are simply because their army functions. That's nice, but if it's broken it's broken. You've had your fun. Now back to the points.

1. The point was literally that internal balance is always the primary issue. Like, you completely ignored it to say you don't get it? It was blatantly obvious what point I was making. Seriously. Reading comprehension, dude.
2. They will have units that perform almost the same role though, and not every army needs the role to function. Obviously Tau don't need a Slamguinus to function, do they? Therefore it's Slamguinus proving he's an issue.
3. So if those certain units like Predators are going above Rule Of 3, it doesn't matter because the Predator isn't broken. You need to look at the fundamental issues with the unit in discussion. Math proved there was an issue with Infantry whether you like it or not. Math doesn't care about your feelings.
4. CP doesn't matter when discussing unit merit. Simple as that. The beginning of the edition showed that when we had only the three Stratagems to use, and people called for the nerfing of Roboute and Conscripts and Stormravens RATHER than blaming the Ally system like you're choosing to do now.
5. Yeah you might've been better off with using Disintegrator Ravagers, except that the weapon itself is the issue. Or should we just deny that too and blame Doom?
Also I probably had the wrong stats for the Mandrake weapon. Assault 2 S3 AP-1 yes? Even with the math you provided, giving a percentage rather than the points killed is pretty dishonest. 50% sounds nasty when 20 dudes died in the first place, but at that low a number 2 Marines more dying is hardly an issue.
Also who cares if nothing else buffs them?

There are plenty of reasons to not play soup assuming balance was actually achieved. More units to target with your Stratagems, more synergy units for the HQ dudes, etc. Of course with how cheap Commanders and Infantry are who cares right?

Roffle that adhominem
I really like how you try so hard, yet fail so misserably. Infantery is a non issue, what kills atm are Knights, Vehicles and in the case of Chaos psykers /HQ (especially Daemonprinces)

Neither are infantry now are they and even the supposedly so evil and addmittedly good Leman russ has fallen out of favour in many tournaments. I wonder why?

Asmodios wrote:

The game you are looking for is chess. Both players have the same pieces with the same strengths and weaknesses. In 40k each army from a lore point is supposed to have a specific playstyle that functions with the lore. Tau are supposed to be amazing at range with no psychic phase and no CC, Khorne Demons are supposed to kill you up close but have crappy shooting, Nurgle is supposed to be hard to remove, ect. What you are championing for is every army having units that do the same thing at the same efficiency. The end goal of making every army have the same amount of unit choices that do the same things is simply play chess with different looking pieces.

Allowing things like imperium and chaos to cherry pick across multitudes of codexes with no downsides crushes codexes like tau that will never have an army that is meant to do what a BA smashcaptian does

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

That's because you're behaving like an Eldar player from 6th-7th edition. In fact almost all the Guard players here are simply because their army functions. That's nice, but if it's broken it's broken. You've had your fun. Now back to the points.

1. The point was literally that internal balance is always the primary issue. Like, you completely ignored it to say you don't get it? It was blatantly obvious what point I was making. Seriously. Reading comprehension, dude.
2. They will have units that perform almost the same role though, and not every army needs the role to function. Obviously Tau don't need a Slamguinus to function, do they? Therefore it's Slamguinus proving he's an issue.
3. So if those certain units like Predators are going above Rule Of 3, it doesn't matter because the Predator isn't broken. You need to look at the fundamental issues with the unit in discussion. Math proved there was an issue with Infantry whether you like it or not. Math doesn't care about your feelings.
4. CP doesn't matter when discussing unit merit. Simple as that. The beginning of the edition showed that when we had only the three Stratagems to use, and people called for the nerfing of Roboute and Conscripts and Stormravens RATHER than blaming the Ally system like you're choosing to do now.
5. Yeah you might've been better off with using Disintegrator Ravagers, except that the weapon itself is the issue. Or should we just deny that too and blame Doom?
Also I probably had the wrong stats for the Mandrake weapon. Assault 2 S3 AP-1 yes? Even with the math you provided, giving a percentage rather than the points killed is pretty dishonest. 50% sounds nasty when 20 dudes died in the first place, but at that low a number 2 Marines more dying is hardly an issue.
Also who cares if nothing else buffs them?

There are plenty of reasons to not play soup assuming balance was actually achieved. More units to target with your Stratagems, more synergy units for the HQ dudes, etc. Of course with how cheap Commanders and Infantry are who cares right?

Roffle that adhominem
I really like how you try so hard, yet fail so misserably. Infantery is a non issue, what kills atm are Knights, Vehicles and in the case of Chaos psykers /HQ (especially Daemonprinces)

Neither are infantry now are they and even the supposedly so evil and addmittedly good Leman russ has fallen out of favour in many tournaments. I wonder why?

"Hey ignore THIS broken unit! Look at the other broken unit!"

OR, and hear me out, you can focus on all of them at once.

Also accusing people of fallacies and not following up is a classic move for people that want to appear smart but don't want to refute the points presented. I disagree with the poster and we can have a discussion. If you have nothing to add, don't post "lol fallacy" and not follow up with anything.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

Why is cherrypicking a problem? Some factions have way more units to choose from than others to begin with. How it is fair that Guard have several times more units to choose from than the Harlequins? For the cherrypicking complaint to make sense all factions should have equal amount of units, with carefully designed strengths and weaknesses that are equally balanced against each other. This is not even remotely the case, so the whole argument is moot.

Excuse me but harlequins should've never had their own codex to begin with.
Same with knights, same with Asassins, same with even grey knights. These are Codexes that should've been either inbaked into a greater Codex or should've formed a combined Codex to begin with.

Edit: meant asassins instead Inquisition

 vipoid wrote:

Because it means that Soup armies have a huge advantage over mono-armies right from the get-go, with no disadvantage to speak of.

How is it fair that a player who uses Harlequins, Eldar and Dark Eldar has a huge advantage over a player who only uses Harlequins, without incurring any cost or penalty whatsoever?

Martel732 wrote:
What are your dominant factions?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

That's because you're behaving like an Eldar player from 6th-7th edition. In fact almost all the Guard players here are simply because their army functions. That's nice, but if it's broken it's broken. You've had your fun. Now back to the points.

1. The point was literally that internal balance is always the primary issue. Like, you completely ignored it to say you don't get it? It was blatantly obvious what point I was making. Seriously. Reading comprehension, dude.
2. They will have units that perform almost the same role though, and not every army needs the role to function. Obviously Tau don't need a Slamguinus to function, do they? Therefore it's Slamguinus proving he's an issue.
3. So if those certain units like Predators are going above Rule Of 3, it doesn't matter because the Predator isn't broken. You need to look at the fundamental issues with the unit in discussion. Math proved there was an issue with Infantry whether you like it or not. Math doesn't care about your feelings.
4. CP doesn't matter when discussing unit merit. Simple as that. The beginning of the edition showed that when we had only the three Stratagems to use, and people called for the nerfing of Roboute and Conscripts and Stormravens RATHER than blaming the Ally system like you're choosing to do now.
5. Yeah you might've been better off with using Disintegrator Ravagers, except that the weapon itself is the issue. Or should we just deny that too and blame Doom?
Also I probably had the wrong stats for the Mandrake weapon. Assault 2 S3 AP-1 yes? Even with the math you provided, giving a percentage rather than the points killed is pretty dishonest. 50% sounds nasty when 20 dudes died in the first place, but at that low a number 2 Marines more dying is hardly an issue.
Also who cares if nothing else buffs them?

There are plenty of reasons to not play soup assuming balance was actually achieved. More units to target with your Stratagems, more synergy units for the HQ dudes, etc. Of course with how cheap Commanders and Infantry are who cares right?

Roffle that adhominem
I really like how you try so hard, yet fail so misserably. Infantery is a non issue, what kills atm are Knights, Vehicles and in the case of Chaos psykers /HQ (especially Daemonprinces)

Neither are infantry now are they and even the supposedly so evil and addmittedly good Leman russ has fallen out of favour in many tournaments. I wonder why?

"Hey ignore THIS broken unit! Look at the other broken unit!"

OR, and hear me out, you can focus on all of them at once.

Also accusing people of fallacies and not following up is a classic move for people that want to appear smart but don't want to refute the points presented. I disagree with the poster and we can have a discussion. If you have nothing to add, don't post "lol fallacy" and not follow up with anything.

Oh i don't know, if you actually would've taken the time before, were i and multiple other have allready explained it to you and actually tried to understand the points presented to you wouldn't need to base yourself on cheap shots like the Eldar player 5-6th edition remark which still is an ad hominem btw. so excusme for calling you out.

 Galas wrote:


To be honest that could be said about Necrons when they launched with literally 4 units. All factions should start at some point, no? Harlequins are very small now. Maybe in 20 years they will be one of the biggest factions.

I doubt Imperial Guard had as units in rogue trader or 2nd edition has it has now. They don't have any privilege or special right to be a "proper faction" compared with the smaller and newer factions like Harlequins or Genestealer Cults. They just had the look of being their own army early.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

Why is cherrypicking a problem?

Some factions have way more units to choose from than others to begin with. How it is fair that Guard have several times more units to choose from than the Harlequins?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 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.

Except those two pieces don't do a good job of being that much anti-infantry. If they did you'd have a good reason to use them. There shouldn't be that much a difference in performance and you know that.

Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

Nevertheless would it not have a defined role though that it excels at? You'd have to get AT elsewhere perhaps, but would the marine player NEED to go to Basilisks immediately and then get all the benefits of being able to target non-Infantry effectively? Of course not.

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even if they were perfectly costed, there's still incentive to cherrypick and take the Basilisk over the others because it does something the SM artillery does not. A Thunderfire cannon, even if all current balance issues are fixed, fills a different role, a role SM's don't natively have an equivalent to because conventional long range heavy artillery is not a feature of their army, but is a defining aspect of the Guard. Different strengths and weaknesses interact differently in different armies.

As SM's do not natively have access to this capability, Soup offers that possibility, and thus there is the incentive to cherrypick.

Unit costing imbalances may aggravate that and enhance that problem, but fundamentally it's an issue with the inherent nature of allies.

Why is cherrypicking a problem? Some factions have way more units to choose from than others to begin with. How it is fair that Guard have several times more units to choose from than the Harlequins? For the cherrypicking complaint to make sense all factions should have equal amount of units, with carefully designed strengths and weaknesses that are equally balanced against each other. This is not even remotely the case, so the whole argument is moot.

The game you are looking for is chess. Both players have the same pieces with the same strengths and weaknesses. In 40k each army from a lore point is supposed to have a specific playstyle that functions with the lore. Tau are supposed to be amazing at range with no psychic phase and no CC, Khorne Demons are supposed to kill you up close but have crappy shooting, Nurgle is supposed to be hard to remove, ect. What you are championing for is every army having units that do the same thing at the same efficiency. The end goal of making every army have the same amount of unit choices that do the same things is simply play chess with different looking pieces.

Allowing things like imperium and chaos to cherry pick across multitudes of codexes with no downsides crushes codexes like tau that will never have an army that is meant to do what a BA smashcaptian does

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

That's because you're behaving like an Eldar player from 6th-7th edition. In fact almost all the Guard players here are simply because their army functions. That's nice, but if it's broken it's broken. You've had your fun. Now back to the points.

1. The point was literally that internal balance is always the primary issue. Like, you completely ignored it to say you don't get it? It was blatantly obvious what point I was making. Seriously. Reading comprehension, dude.
2. They will have units that perform almost the same role though, and not every army needs the role to function. Obviously Tau don't need a Slamguinus to function, do they? Therefore it's Slamguinus proving he's an issue.
3. So if those certain units like Predators are going above Rule Of 3, it doesn't matter because the Predator isn't broken. You need to look at the fundamental issues with the unit in discussion. Math proved there was an issue with Infantry whether you like it or not. Math doesn't care about your feelings.
4. CP doesn't matter when discussing unit merit. Simple as that. The beginning of the edition showed that when we had only the three Stratagems to use, and people called for the nerfing of Roboute and Conscripts and Stormravens RATHER than blaming the Ally system like you're choosing to do now.
5. Yeah you might've been better off with using Disintegrator Ravagers, except that the weapon itself is the issue. Or should we just deny that too and blame Doom?
Also I probably had the wrong stats for the Mandrake weapon. Assault 2 S3 AP-1 yes? Even with the math you provided, giving a percentage rather than the points killed is pretty dishonest. 50% sounds nasty when 20 dudes died in the first place, but at that low a number 2 Marines more dying is hardly an issue.
Also who cares if nothing else buffs them?

There are plenty of reasons to not play soup assuming balance was actually achieved. More units to target with your Stratagems, more synergy units for the HQ dudes, etc. Of course with how cheap Commanders and Infantry are who cares right?

Roffle that adhominem
I really like how you try so hard, yet fail so misserably. Infantery is a non issue, what kills atm are Knights, Vehicles and in the case of Chaos psykers /HQ (especially Daemonprinces)

Neither are infantry now are they and even the supposedly so evil and addmittedly good Leman russ has fallen out of favour in many tournaments. I wonder why?

"Hey ignore THIS broken unit! Look at the other broken unit!"

OR, and hear me out, you can focus on all of them at once.

Also accusing people of fallacies and not following up is a classic move for people that want to appear smart but don't want to refute the points presented. I disagree with the poster and we can have a discussion. If you have nothing to add, don't post "lol fallacy" and not follow up with anything.

Oh i don't know, if you actually would've taken the time before, were i and multiple other have allready explained it to you and actually tried to understand the points presented to you wouldn't need to base yourself on cheap shots like the Eldar player 5-6th edition remark which still is an ad hominem btw. so excusme for calling you out.

It's literally the same exact attitude and manner though. You blame a host of other things without getting the core issues. Riptide Wing being broken didn't stop Aspect Host and Scatterbikes and Wraithknights from being ridiculous. Yet they wanted their stuff untouched. At least the majority of Tau players could admit Riptides were silly though.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Because these units are being designed and balanced to fit in with a certain playstyle and theme,

and in other contexts can combine with other stuff not normally available to be something much more powerful, as is plainly evident by the fact that Soup lists dominate everything.

This is an issue where Harlequins aren't really an army, they're a half dozen or so units that should have just been integrated into the Eldar and Dark Eldar books, that got split off into their own distinct faction for its own sake. They're not really a complete army. They really should be treated the way IG treat Stormtroopers, as a wholly incorporated sub-element of another army.

Thats not the same thing as SM's taking Basilisks.

Dandelion wrote:
But the whole faction strengths and weaknesses spiel is not really present in most larger armies:
- Tau have kroot for CC
- Guard have Ogryns for CC, and Scions for mobility
- Eldar have fast and slow units, and fragile and tough units
- Orks are pretty well rounded with options: horde vs elite and shooting vs CC
- Necrons in theory are also well rounded, with a mix of fast and slow units, shooting and CC
- Nids, again, are well rounded.
etc...
If it's a major faction, it's got the tools it needs. The factions have skews, but they don't really lack those other options. So when Tau go up against pure Custodes, the Custodes struggle because they lack strong long range shooting, but since Custodes are designed to ally with other armies it's fine.