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.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.
What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.
I don't think the Guard is the issue. The lack of a monofaction bonus is. You're aiming your ire the wrong way. That's my point at this point.
I don't think you made that point here until just now. You were going on about CP regen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/28 20:36:58
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote: I don't think you made that point here until just now. You were going on about CP regen.
I've said it before, even if I haven't mentioned it in this specific quote thread. The loss of CP regeneration moved the problem from the Guard to being the major issue of monofaction armies lacking support.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/28 20:38:49
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.
What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.
I don't think the Guard is the issue. The lack of a monofaction bonus is. You're aiming your ire the wrong way. That's my point at this point.
I don't think you made that point here until just now. You were going on about CP regen.
Guard went to a point per CP of about 9, which made it an obvious choice for everyone, to a point per CP of 28, which is good and is still the best available to the imperium, but is no longer so incredible that any imperium list should have it.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You will need to give me some arguments for that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/28 20:41:41
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
You're ignoring basically EVERYTHING I've said: the reliance on Guard gives a much lower benefit, costs more AND can't support both Castellans AND Blood Angels at the same time unless you want to blow your whole CP load in one turn. In short: Guard aren't the problem and you keep getting stuck on the idea that they seem to be somehow.
Basically, it's not a problem in the way you make it out to be since the way it broke the game has been handled. The actual issue CP is at now is that monofaction armies lack a bonus to make up for not just spamming a cheap ally to unlock extra CP.
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
You're ignoring basically EVERYTHING I've said: the reliance on Guard gives a much lower benefit, costs more AND can't support both Castellans AND Blood Angels at the same time unless you want to blow your whole CP load in one turn. In short: Guard aren't the problem and you keep getting stuck on the idea that they seem to be somehow.
Basically, it's not a problem in the way you make it out to be since the way it broke the game has been handled. The actual issue CP is at now is that monofaction armies lack a bonus to make up for not just spamming a cheap ally to unlock extra CP.
So you're suggesting that these factions will no longer be reliant on Guard for Command Points?
Darsath wrote: Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.
Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.
The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.
What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).
Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.
Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.
Err no, they didn't.
They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.
Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...
They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.
What are you on about? Blood Angels had the cost of one of their stratagems increased by 1 (to 2), in an army that is normally low on CP without extra command points. And there has been no reduction in the utility of a Guard Detachment. You still have to show that instead of asserting it.
Guard stacked a Warlord Trait and Relic to effectively double your max CP count. That is gone. You get a max of 6-7 CP per game this way now. This alone brings Guard way down in how much support they bring.
This affects more than IG, and the reliance on Guard detachments has not been reduced from this FAQ. If anything it's increased.
You know what's increased? How many points you need to take of guard to get a large amount of CP. This is a rather important point people are ignoring.
I think you're the one ignoring my point. These factions will continue to rely on Guard for CPs, and none of that has changed. And you're back to the CP regen argument and not the mono-faction bonus.
You're ignoring basically EVERYTHING I've said: the reliance on Guard gives a much lower benefit, costs more AND can't support both Castellans AND Blood Angels at the same time unless you want to blow your whole CP load in one turn. In short: Guard aren't the problem and you keep getting stuck on the idea that they seem to be somehow.
Basically, it's not a problem in the way you make it out to be since the way it broke the game has been handled. The actual issue CP is at now is that monofaction armies lack a bonus to make up for not just spamming a cheap ally to unlock extra CP.
So you're suggesting that these factions will no longer be reliant on Guard for Command Points?
I'm saying the combos that currently exist will need to go away for ones that aren't CP heavy. Basically throw out the broken combo that required 30-40CP a game to function for something more practical and balanced.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
These factions did become MORE reliant on command points for their key strategies. I don't know why you think they would drop a key source of CPs as a response. Mono BA and mono IK are fairly weak without the CPs they get from outside sources, and they just got worse.
The cheap Guard Battalion is good, but hardly game breaking. In most cases, the Guard itself is probably better than what its giving its CP to. Where I think we'll continue see issues is the existence of the Brigade, which is what lets Guard put up CP numbers no other faction can really dream of while keeping the list under the 3 detachment limit.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
These factions did become MORE reliant on command points for their key strategies. I don't know why you think they would drop a key source of CPs as a response. Mono BA and mono IK are fairly weak without the CPs they get from outside sources, and they just got worse.
You become less reliant because you'll be forced to make a choice: BA or Knights. Not both. This means the CP you have available goes further and means you don't have to stretch your CP battery into ridiculous proportions. Plus the more CP you take the less points you're putting into things you could be spending that CP on (like extra Castellans or Smash Captains).
You're not more reliant on a resource when you reduce how much of that resource you need.
Darsath wrote: Don't dodge the question, man. Do you think that these factions will no longer rely on Guard for CPs?
I think they're going to be less reliant, yes because what they can do before this dropped and what they can do after it dropped has changed. You can still take Guard for CP, and many will, but it's not as beneficial and it costs more to get more meaning you have to give other stuff up. Basically the Guard CP farm is little more than a Guard CP garden and your notion that the armies we're seeing using the farm will still be using a farm is a false premise.
The Guard WILL continue to support armies, BUT the support won't be as strong and won't go nearly as far. This means the combos that currently rely on the farm will change and the reliance for high amounts of CP will drop to meet the lowered amount of CP available.
Basically you've ignored the fact that the CP isn't as effective as it used to be and requires more investment to reach anywhere close just to try and push an idea that the game won't change and we'll somehow see bigger CP batteries instead of weaker ones and weaker reliance of CP battery support.
These factions did become MORE reliant on command points for their key strategies. I don't know why you think they would drop a key source of CPs as a response. Mono BA and mono IK are fairly weak without the CPs they get from outside sources, and they just got worse.
You become less reliant because you'll be forced to make a choice: BA or Knights. Not both. This means the CP you have available goes further and means you don't have to stretch your CP battery into ridiculous proportions. Plus the more CP you take the less points you're putting into things you could be spending that CP on (like extra Castellans or Smash Captains).
You're not more reliant on a resource when you reduce how much of that resource you need.
More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
In all fairness, a lot of the marine stratagems are kind of bad. Plus, people would always prefer to run the ally that provides better usage of the CPs anyways, such as IK, BA or Custodes. I don't see that changing, unless Chapter Approved makes some big changes. Keep in mind that, even with that, other armies, even the ones that already dominate, will also get some love from it (and so they should, not saying they shouldn't).
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
In all fairness, a lot of the marine stratagems are kind of bad. Plus, people would always prefer to run the ally that provides better usage of the CPs anyways, such as IK, BA or Custodes. I don't see that changing, unless Chapter Approved makes some big changes. Keep in mind that, even with that, other armies, even the ones that already dominate, will also get some love from it (and so they should, not saying they shouldn't).
Marine durability being fixed would fix a lot of the Marine problems. Strats need to be redone from the ground up (as do how they can take their support vehicles like the Predator).
Darsath wrote: More likely, we'll just see Blood Angels dropped. And Guard detachment stays. Similar lists circle around etc. Really, it still nerfs the mono-BA and mono-IK armies. Any Blood Angel or Imperial Knight army will want to ally Guard for Command Points. I think you're only thinking about that 1 list that was spammed at the recent NOVA event.
Marine armies weren't getting far in events even with a CP battery. It's at the point that you want Marines for 1-2 units tops to support specific holes in other armies. Marines are (if claims are true) going to get something in CA that's supposed to help, but let's not pretend like any Marine army is doing well with a CP battery or without.
In all fairness, a lot of the marine stratagems are kind of bad. Plus, people would always prefer to run the ally that provides better usage of the CPs anyways, such as IK, BA or Custodes. I don't see that changing, unless Chapter Approved makes some big changes. Keep in mind that, even with that, other armies, even the ones that already dominate, will also get some love from it (and so they should, not saying they shouldn't).
Marine durability being fixed would fix a lot of the Marine problems. Strats need to be redone from the ground up (as do how they can take their support vehicles like the Predator).
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved. Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall) But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/28 21:36:32
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
Not really. Everything can hurt everything would still hold true. A 1+ still fails on a nat 1, and T5 would just be harder to wound for some armies (namely S4 shooting ones).
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved. Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall) But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
I don't know what you mean. If people are removing Marines wholesale, it means they have AP weapons, lots of shots, or both. Giving them +1 to their armour save wouldn't really change this, but it wouldn't be so dramatic and they would live a bit more often against no AP weapons.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/28 21:49:30
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
Yeah, that might be a change that they could have made, but it would be the kind of change that would have to have been made at the beginning of the edition, not 18 months into it. Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable with the units that you would expect them to run, and also realistic and within the possibilities of being included in a book designed to provide extra rules, complexity and balance to every army in the game, and not to overshadow the codex of those armies. Kind of coming up short though, so I would guess it's just going to be some points reductions until I can think of something a little more likely.
Doesn't the CP regenartion still work the same it does before, but you can only get 1CP per turn. So while less efficient each way to regen CP is still giving a chance to get a CP back. And while not as good as getting 4-6+CP per turn, it seem still valuable enough to run. Or am I missing something?
The IG is still going to be used for chaff duty alone and the starter CP. And a BA cpt killing an important target may still be worth using. Am sure people are going to test it out.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
I don't know what you mean. If people are removing Marines wholesale, it means they have AP weapons, lots of shots, or both. Giving them +1 to their armour save wouldn't really change this, but it wouldn't be so dramatic
-
I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
I think that Marine durability has been reduced massively due to the new AP system (or more, how much Games Workshop gave away AP to high volume fire weapons), and in response, the increased reliance on invulnerable saves to create a durable unit, such as with Custodes, Drukhari and currently IK with rotate Ion Shields. Really, I think that a 3+ save should be more reliable, and I wouldn't want to see the response to be just to reduce their points cost. But I'm not sure what other changes can realistically happen at the minute. I also say this as a primarily Necron player, who knows all too well how bad a 3+ save really is.
I think GW missed the opportunity with the AP system to give some units a 1+ armour, like Terminators. Marines could then have 2+ saves and the problem would be solved.
Non-Marine MEQs (that's an oxymoron) like Immortals would preferably stay at 3+ armour but get a points drop, or maybe a T bump (they used to be T5 afterall)
But it was a mistake to just port over old stats in an edition that is seemingly built from the ground up.
-
That would fly in the face of the “everything can hurt everything” design philosophy they followed, though.
I don't know what you mean. If people are removing Marines wholesale, it means they have AP weapons, lots of shots, or both. Giving them +1 to their armour save wouldn't really change this, but it wouldn't be so dramatic
-
I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.
Except they already have a rule that says 1s always fail for armour saves for when 2+ saves are sitting in cover.
Darsath wrote: Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable.
Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop
I mean that a 1+ save would prevent AP- weapons being able to kill a unit so wouldn’t fit their design philosophy.
Except they already have a rule that says 1s always fail for armour saves for when 2+ saves are sitting in cover.
Exactly, 1s would still fail, so Terminators having a 1+ armour would play exactly as they do now against AP- weapons. It just gives them a better chance against AP-1 and up weapons
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/28 21:54:32
Darsath wrote: Really, I'm just trying to guess the kind of change that would appear in Chapter Approved that would be good enough to make these armies playable.
Points reductions only, pretty much. The issue I see with this is that it just shifts the meta. Units that don't get dramatic point decreases will either stay on the shelf, or take the spot of units that are now unplayable but become so with a points drop
-
Or, more dramatically, we get to the point where Warhammer Fantasy ended up, where the difference of 1 point for a unit was considered a large difference (since everything just continued to go down in points and instead of up in effectiveness). Hopefully we don't end up with half points again. Those were silly.
We are 3 days from "Orktober" as GW put it. White Dwarf has zero leaks, sneak peaks or anything at all related to orkz except a fluff piece on a grot themed army somebody made. The FAQ and Errata don't even mention orkz....sweet.
