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.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
If guard was the issue, we would be seeing mono-guard in the top 10 of every tournament running nothing but 2000pts of infantry squads. That isn't happening. In fact, very few mono-guard lists are making it in the top 5-10 spots in most tournaments. It is almost always bare minimum guard detachments for CP generation mixed with elite imperial soup. Further examining guard, players using regiments that are not Cadian or Catachan are performing even worse. Does IG's CP generation need to be FAQ'd? Yes. Do guardsmen need to be bumped up to 5ppm? Maybe. Are there units that definitely need to be buffed in the IG codex? Absolutely. Example: While Chimeras durability increased this edition, it increased in points, suffers -1BS on the move, lost rear firing ports (massive massive nerf), lost command vehicle, & lost amphibious rule. Chimeras were regarded as overpriced in 7th edition yet increased in cost in 8th while losing most of their utility, especially with the changes to how embarking/disembarking works now.

Yes, Pure Guard does not make up a large fraction of the lists at the tournament.

However, that still puts the guard codex as a member of the currnet "big two" right alongside (and frankly, better than) Drukhari.

"substantial guard CP engine backing up small elite imperial CP vacuum" is one of the two dominant meta lists atm, with the other being "Drukhari-dominated MSU".

Both of these codexes are obvious contenders for nerfs to their strong points. Whether they have weak units as well is irrelevant, because we aren't seeing the weak units making any appearances, and nobody is advocating blanket nerfs that would affect those already weak units in any way. Just nerfs that take the strong units down a peg. At the same time, weak units could be buffed even, and that'd be a good thing.

A nerf to guard infantry and a targeted nerf to Catachan stuff, a nerf to major Drukhari offenders (I'd argue a reworking of Prophets of Flesh to be something less ridiculous like "reroll 1s to save rolls" rather than "everything gets a 4++" would be better than a big nerf to grots and talos, because like with Aliatoc PoF severely enhances the issues with those two units) .

Then when it comes to buffs, the whole shared imperium-based (used also by CSM and to some extend GSC) armory needs a pricing rework. Plasma up, Melta down, Grav down, Heavy Bolter down, Flame way down. Autocannon and Lascannon are in a pretty good spot but hoo boy are flamer and melta weapons overpriced across the board.

the_scotsman wrote:

Then when it comes to buffs, the whole shared imperium-based (used also by CSM and to some extend GSC) armory needs a pricing rework. Plasma up, Melta down, Grav down, Heavy Bolter down, Flame way down. Autocannon and Lascannon are in a pretty good spot but hoo boy are flamer and melta weapons overpriced across the board.

I agree on the other stuff but I'm not convinced that Plasma needs to go up in price.

Unless I'm mistaken, none of the Imperium lists in the NOVA top 10 took even a single one. So I have trouble believing that they desperately need a price hike.

vipoid: What's your definition of a "Subfaction"? Not a vague feeling, but a technical rule definition.

 vipoid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Then when it comes to buffs, the whole shared imperium-based (used also by CSM and to some extend GSC) armory needs a pricing rework. Plasma up, Melta down, Grav down, Heavy Bolter down, Flame way down. Autocannon and Lascannon are in a pretty good spot but hoo boy are flamer and melta weapons overpriced across the board.

I agree on the other stuff but I'm not convinced that Plasma needs to go up in price.

Unless I'm mistaken, none of the Imperium lists in the NOVA top 10 took even a single one. So I have trouble believing that they desperately need a price hike.

While true I think that's due to the gobsmackingly stupid "1 or less triggers the insta-die" FAQ ruling.

In my ideal world of GW goes and balances all the things, that gets reverted to a natural 1 as part of a general nerfing of -to hit nonsense and then plasma guns and hellblaster guns get a slight price increase to make them not 100% always the best choice for anti elite/anti tank in Warhammer 40,000 Reroll Aura Edition.

Definitely the least in need of change (hello flamers) but IMO if you're going in and doing blanket changes to the shared weapons of the world, you should definitely go touch plasma too.

I think that outside of tournaments the issue is extremely irrelevant. Inside tournaments there are people to regulate the rules so as to provide a greater degree of balance.

Complaining about a game on the internet to change things you don't like is pointless and a waste of time. If you don't like the game, don't play. If you want to make up rules to better suit your gaming requirements there is nothing stopping you. If you would prefer to play a pick up game against a certain type of army, you certainly can.

At this point GW has done almost everything possible to cater to their fans, bringing in new factions, new ways to play with your collection, admitting and fixing mistakes, publishing a yearly to address game balance, even going so far as to bring old almost unheard of units back to the fold, and communicating with their playerbase via social media. So it begs the question whenever someone howls about the injustice of tiny plastic soldiers; is GW the problem or is it the players?

I think the answer should be obvious.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
vipoid: What's your definition of a "Subfaction"? Not a vague feeling, but a technical rule definition.

It was intended to refer to the highest faction keywords below Imperium, Chaos and Eldar.

So Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, Dark Eldar (except using their wanky faux-Latin names).

the_scotsman wrote:

While true I think that's due to the gobsmackingly stupid "1 or less triggers the insta-die" FAQ ruling.

In my ideal world of GW goes and balances all the things, that gets reverted to a natural 1 as part of a general nerfing of -to hit nonsense and then plasma guns and hellblaster guns get a slight price increase to make them not 100% always the best choice for anti elite/anti tank in Warhammer 40,000 Reroll Aura Edition.

Definitely the least in need of change (hello flamers) but IMO if you're going in and doing blanket changes to the shared weapons of the world, you should definitely go touch plasma too.

I'd also suggest that Plasma just cause a Mortal Wound on a roll of 1 - so that an overheat doesn't obliterate whole vehicles.

Listen - regardless of the "root" of the problem allies are NOT going away.

Allies gives us a tremendous opportunity to expand fantastically unique parts of 40K into our games without needing to create full fledged codexes. Just look at the upcoming Rogue Trader book. There is no way they could make a good army for them without half a decade of lead up.

 darkcloak wrote:
I think that outside of tournaments the issue is extremely irrelevant. Inside tournaments there are people to regulate the rules so as to provide a greater degree of balance.

Complaining about a game on the internet to change things you don't like is pointless and a waste of time. If you don't like the game, don't play. If you want to make up rules to better suit your gaming requirements there is nothing stopping you. If you would prefer to play a pick up game against a certain type of army, you certainly can.

At this point GW has done almost everything possible to cater to their fans, bringing in new factions, new ways to play with your collection, admitting and fixing mistakes, publishing a yearly to address game balance, even going so far as to bring old almost unheard of units back to the fold, and communicating with their playerbase via social media. So it begs the question whenever someone howls about the injustice of tiny plastic soldiers; is GW the problem or is it the players?

I think the answer should be obvious.

The way this is worded is quite telling. It sounds like one of those who mock the hobby itself, referring to the game as "tiny plastic soldiers" really makes me wonder if you're even involved in the game. Heck, the defence of "don't like don't play" or "don't like don't watch/ read" defence is a common excuse used for indefensible decisions and fan-fic comics. So I wouldn't use it as a defence.

Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, I've got nothing so far for the army I play. So it hardly feels like they're doing everything possible.

 vipoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
vipoid: What's your definition of a "Subfaction"? Not a vague feeling, but a technical rule definition.

It was intended to refer to the highest faction keywords below Imperium, Chaos and Eldar.

So Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, Dark Eldar (except using their wanky faux-Latin names).

Again, give me a proper rules definition. Saying "Blah blah Subfaction" is fine, but unless you can back it up with proper rules suggestions you're just whining.

The issue is a relic AND a warlord trait that can be put on very cheap HQs accompanied by cheap troops.

So it's basically guard lending too much CP to any soup it's in.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, give me a proper rules definition. Saying "Blah blah Subfaction" is fine, but unless you can back it up with proper rules suggestions you're just whining.

Yeah, get back to me when you've figured out what words mean.

 vipoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, give me a proper rules definition. Saying "Blah blah Subfaction" is fine, but unless you can back it up with proper rules suggestions you're just whining.

Yeah, get back to me when you've figured out what words mean.

I read your rule. It's a good rule, with the exception that you never define what a subfaction is. How do I know, via your rule, what exactly a subfaction is? Are Ultramarines a different Subfaction to Raven Guard, or are they the same because they are both Adeptus Astartes? What's to stop me saying IMPERIUM is a subfaction when you never define what a faction is? I actually have the rule you need written in my head, I am just wondering what your take on it would be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Listen - regardless of the "root" of the problem allies are NOT going away.

Allies gives us a tremendous opportunity to expand fantastically unique parts of 40K into our games without needing to create full fledged codexes. Just look at the upcoming Rogue Trader book. There is no way they could make a good army for them without half a decade of lead up.

Allies are highly unlikely to go away but I think it is nearly inevitable at this point that they will be very limited in Matched compared to where they are now.

I think the "1/4 of your army's points max can have a different faction keyword" or a similar limit is likely to be the first thing we see.GW has tended to go for the simplest solution and for the one tested in another game - AOS in this instance.

An egg with soldiers.

Soup/Allies is the issue.

We aren't seeing Mono IG lists dominating anything, we're not seeing mono Anything dominating. It's all soup, be it Eldar/Dark Eldar, Guard/BA/Knights, Custodes/Guard, etc. It's not something unique to IG, they're just the ones that are exploitable by the largest number of factions, but are hardly the only ones guilty of this.

Allies have been a consistent problem for the last six years and three editions, 8E is no different. Unfortunately nobody, not GW nor Event Organizers, seem to want to do anything about it.

Make it so that CP can only be used by the faction or even just the detachment that generates it, or that detachments not of the same faction as the Warlord cannot spend CP, or something, and maybe we'll get somewhere. I love Vipoid's suggestion above for "Fractured Command".

Guard CP generation becomes pointless when you have 20CP to spend on a couple dozen Guardsmen and none to spend on your Custodian Captians.

Then lets take a look at any faction imbalance issues after that.

IG infantry and elite SM working together on the same battlefield seems fluffy as hell and interesting to me. Why we gotta break nice things?

Buff the other stuff

Like other people have commented: the issue is the guard a low cost for CP + CP generation relics.

Imo - It seems GW wanted to give the Guard easier access to CP because individual units in the guard are weaker than individual units in most other armies - so a CP spent to boost a 4+ or 5+ to hit unit that melts to a hard look isn't really equal to a CP spent on a 2+ elite with 4+ invul saves.

That would explain the easy CP and CP generator relics. It just seems they (stupidly) didn't realize people would break the system and just use Guard for easy CP in soup.

They really just need to make CP only usable by the detachment/faction that generates it.

I voted soup but I also think AM need a good rollicking too. I play AM, I play against AM all the time, and I am sick to the back teeth of bleedin' AM.

Their ubiquity tells its own story.

To be frank, I think actual AM players would benefit from being knocked off the top spot for main soup ingredient. Eye-rolling would subside, coolness would increase, and bargains would fall like rain on ebay ... give Admech their time in the sun, I say.

What about you start out with CPs for your main detachment and you have to spend CPs to take allies - as opposed to generating them.

That would go some way to nerf the IG CP battery.

You can find several iterations of the 'Detatchments cost CP' scheme, which is basically what you suggest. A number of posters love that idea, but most posters agree it won't happen (to large a change).

The major difference is that, in most of the schemes, players get a set number of CP (per total points of the army), and even the first detatchment costs CP.

You guys gotta understand something.

Almost every element in the top 10 lists is excessively OP when combined with stratagems/cost efficiency/ ect. Every single unit on that list is OP except scouts.

They are all problems.

Who's the biggest problem?

#1 - Honestly I think it's captain slam for 130 points. He 1 shots 500 point titans...Yeah...even if your army only has 10 CP and he just spent 5 of them. You still win when a 130 point unit destroyed a full life 500 pointer. Like - don't actually think anyone takes you seriously if you try to defend that.

#2 - AM infantry + CC. Combined all at once.
Most efficient anti infantry shooting (by a long shot)
Most durable infantry unit per point (by a long shot)
Most utility provided by OP AF orders (which have no counter)(move twice - fight twice - shoot twice - fall back and shoot - reroll all hits - take your pick)
Most efficient command point generation/ through detachments and relic+warlord trait.

#3 IK Castellan
Obviously at least 100 points under-costed.
Who thought giving a warlord knight a 4++ base was a good idea?
IK relics are so much more powerful than other codex relics - they should cost 3 CP each.

That is my take on the super unbeatable list.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You guys gotta understand something.

Almost every element in the top 10 lists is excessively OP when combined with stratagems/cost efficiency/ ect. Every single unit on that list is OP except scouts.

They are all problems.

Who's the biggest problem?

#1 - Honestly I think it's captain slam for 130 points. He 1 shots 500 point titans...Yeah...even if your army only has 10 CP and he just spent 5 of them. You still win when a 130 point unit destroyed a full life 500 pointer. Like - don't actually think anyone takes you seriously if you try to defend that.

#2 - AM infantry + CC. Combined all at once.
Most efficient anti infantry shooting (by a long shot)
Most durable infantry unit per point (by a long shot)
Most utility provided by OP AF orders (which have no counter)(move twice - fight twice - shoot twice - fall back and shoot - reroll all hits - take your pick)
Most efficient command point generation/ through detachments and relic+warlord trait.

#3 IK Castellan
Obviously at least 100 points under-costed.
Who thought giving a warlord knight a 4++ base was a good idea?
IK relics are so much more powerful than other codex relics - they should cost 3 CP each.

That is my take on the super unbeatable list.

I'm not going to argue the Castellan isn't undercosted I agree, i'd quibble by how much but it's definataly in need of a price rise.
The 4++ trait is because knights with the codex CP as written would have had 6 CP for the whole game so 2 turns of rotate ions on a dominus chassis and noting else for the entire game.
Even with the CP increase it still only gets it to turn 3 with a 4++.

I think your nerfing a lot of stuff.

The idea isn't to take this list to the bottom of the pile its to make it so it works a little less well why giving some other lists a leg up.

Instead of the rage nerfs, shouldn't they try something light nerf, and see how that works?

I actually think Castellans cost too much. I'd never use one.

Reemule wrote:
I think your nerfing a lot of stuff.

The idea isn't to take this list to the bottom of the pile its to make it so it works a little less well why giving some other lists a leg up.

Instead of the rage nerfs, shouldn't they try something light nerf, and see how that works?

The trouble is, in an ideal world yes, small adjustments to small numbers of units at regular intervals would probably be best for the health of the game.

With the way the game is currently delivered however, i.e. in CRAZY expensive full color printed usually hardback books that you have to go out, buy, and then carry around with you to play a game... No, balance as much as possible. Too much is better than too little here, as long as you're hitting what's a problem and buffing up what's clearly too weak.

We are in a situation where:

-Anyone with a brain can see power armor/elite but slow infantry in general is overcosted, and tons of the universally shared stuff between marine/imperial/practically everybody's codexes is in need of buffs

-We have settled into an established competitive meta where a single style (cheap CP generation chaff combined with big nasty hyper-mobile CP sucking mega-unit) has started to dominate the scene

You have two big, easy wins just waiting for a rebalance and you have Chapter Approved right around the corner.

I generally prefer temperance and moderation in changes as well, but now is the time for a shakeup. Now is the perfect time, and I hope they take it, rather than just going "welp, looks like it's time to start CODEX RELEASE CHURN 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO" or "hey guys Formations remember THOSE?" or something equally dumb.

The problem is when you nerf more than one area, you end up with Centurions...

Do you want more centurions?


(totally rhetorical, I know he doesn't)


I really feel that if you just nerfed a part, like CP can only be spent on Stratagems from your warlord's Faction, and BRB Stratagems, you would see that raising the Castallan cost, and other changes aren't in anyone's best interest.

Reemule wrote:
The problem is when you nerf more than one area, you end up with Centurions...

Do you want more centurions?


(totally rhetorical, I know he doesn't)


I really feel that if you just nerfed a part, like CP can only be spent on Stratagems from your warlord's Faction, and BRB Stratagems, you would see that raising the Castallan cost, and other changes aren't in anyone's best interest.

Yeah. I definitely can see and respect that. Or like "CP can only be spent within the detachment" which would also severely limit knights and bananabikes in particular. The hyper-elite tack-on units that don't come in their own battalions do definitely seem to be on a 'bubble' and I will concede if you pop it you'd basically be condensing down to just the Captain Smash and Ynnari Bikestar battalions.

At the same time again I understand this isn't the best solution. I just think it's the best solution within the paradigm GW is committing to to balance the rules. which is better still than their previous idea: not balancing the rules. The ol' "feth it" doctrine of Rogue Trader thru 7th.

 darkcloak wrote:
I think that outside of tournaments the issue is extremely irrelevant. Inside tournaments there are people to regulate the rules so as to provide a greater degree of balance.

Complaining about a game on the internet to change things you don't like is pointless and a waste of time. If you don't like the game, don't play. If you want to make up rules to better suit your gaming requirements there is nothing stopping you. If you would prefer to play a pick up game against a certain type of army, you certainly can.

At this point GW has done almost everything possible to cater to their fans, bringing in new factions, new ways to play with your collection, admitting and fixing mistakes, publishing a yearly to address game balance, even going so far as to bring old almost unheard of units back to the fold, and communicating with their playerbase via social media. So it begs the question whenever someone howls about the injustice of tiny plastic soldiers; is GW the problem or is it the players?

I think the answer should be obvious.

Yeah nothing better to hear after you find out that your army does not work, that you don't have to play with it. What else are people suppose to do with the models, have 700$ painting material? For me and I think almost all people playing at my store the cost of a GW army is a BIG deal, so having your army suddenly killed by a nerf/FAQ or it not being to fun to play with is a big problem . Not everyone has the ability to splash a ton of cash and buy a new army every 2-3 months.

Also your proposed method of fixing won't work unless you can force your opponent to accept it, and it can't be just on person it has to be most of them. You say GW fixs stuff, well they already made one fix book, for GK players it brought nerfs to razorbacks and Stormravens, no significant buffs. The GW "fixs" seemed to fixed nothing about the army, and people that bought the book then got to wait a year for update, and considering the last batch of updates, it doesn't seem like GW is going to fix much about GK. And it is not like they don't have data or don't see how abyssal GKs are doing right now.

Scottsman,
One upside is that those Ynnari Battalion rangers don't have Fieldcraft. Which is a good thing.

Still, that's a very valid concern. But it depends on how you pop the bubble. The "No shared CP" solution, while I dislike it, would also nerf Captain Smash quite a bit - because he's working from far fewer CP now. Maybe not enough, but certainly a notable nerf.

hard to argue its not soup when every top 10 list at nova was soup... IG is just the main ingredient in imperial soup. xeno factions are even forced to soup and if they can't then they can't compete