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.

 Stux wrote:

Drager wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.

Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.

There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.

Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?

The same question can be asked in reverse, should people who have built soup armies and prefer to play that way have the option completely removed because others don't like it? I've been playing soup since the second it was available. I can't remember the last time I played a mono game. I play Aeldari (Dark Eldar/Craftworlds mainly) and my units are painted in a way that they look good together (purple/brass for DE, Purple/Bone for CE, Bone/Black for Wraith stuff), this is my main tournament army, although I also play Tyranids (Bone/Flesh for Nids, Black/Bone for GSC) as a tourney army sometimes. These two I used to play narratively in conjunction with a radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor (Black/Brass paint scheme). As you can see these armies are painted to blend and have been collected over a good number of years (started collecting 20+ years ago). If we were forced back to the old mono army design should I just quit because the playstyle I like is dead?

I think a more sensible option is to give Orks soup options, add a keyword (say Alien) to them, GSC (but not Nids), Tau and a maybe a select few Eldar units and/or give them a rule similar to the 'Brood Brothers' for GSC to let them be taken alongside select other forces.

There is an inherent problem in soup that people can pick the best units from each army to make something stronger than any mono list can ever be.

So to answer your question: yes, if that is the best way to balance properly. Sorry.

Now, it may be that we can get good enough balance without going that far. But it will require some disincentive to allies to balance the fact you are getting a better selection of units. That might be a limit of CP or the types of detachment that can be taken for your secondary forces.

That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.

I disagree. I don't think you can effectively balance the entirety of IMPERIUM as a soup against ORKS and still balance, say, DARK ANGELS against ORKS.

I don't believe it can be done. Not in a practical way that could ever be fully implemented before the edition rolls over and you start again.

I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Drager wrote:
That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.

Ideally the game would be balanced so that each full codex had at least one build that was reasonably viable and soup would unlock additional play styles instead of being practically mandatory to be successful. Soup really needs to have some sort of trade off for mixing armies. Being able to just take the best of three separate codexes without paying any sort of opportunity cost for the benefits gained is very poor game design IMO. That said I'm yet to see an elegant solution for the problem.

 IronBrand wrote:

Drager wrote:
That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.

Ideally the game would be balanced so that each full codex had at least one build that was reasonably viable and soup would unlock additional play styles instead of being practically mandatory to be successful. Soup really needs to have some sort of trade off for mixing armies. Being able to just take the best of three separate codexes without paying any sort of opportunity cost for the benefits gained is very poor game design IMO. That said I'm yet to see an elegant solution for the problem.

Exactly this.

Though I feel we're just having the same debate over and over on a loop at this point.

We really need this darn FAQ to drop so we can see what the GW plan for all this is! (Or if they have one)

 IronBrand wrote:

Drager wrote:
That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.

Ideally the game would be balanced so that each full codex had at least one build that was reasonably viable and soup would unlock additional play styles instead of being practically mandatory to be successful. Soup really needs to have some sort of trade off for mixing armies. Being able to just take the best of three separate codexes without paying any sort of opportunity cost for the benefits gained is very poor game design IMO. That said I'm yet to see an elegant solution for the problem.

I think that, from a conceptual level, we need to look at the fix as thus: if you are to soup, you get the benefit of additional flexibility of options and ability to pick the best, so there would need to be a corresponding downside to that. The form of the downside is what is up for debate - things like limiting CP's/stratagems/numbers or types of detachments/points/etc. are all potential solutions that are numeric and can be dialed up or down as needed to help enforce balance. There are some potential other solutions, but they're a more generic sort of game fix and might be harder to balance without a lot of testing.

Unfortunately, I admit that would mean a nerf to armies that are not built with power-soup in mind, but I think that is an acceptable casualty right now.

Or you could just hit the power units and focus on what units are terrible and why.

The only monolists that do well are ones with strong internal and external balance in the first place.

Having CPs limited to the detachment generating it would already be a huge downside to bringing soups instead of mono lists.

Spoletta wrote:
Having CPs limited to the detachment generating it would already be a huge downside to bringing soups instead of mono lists.

Do you mean faction rather than detachment right?

Reemule wrote:
I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Well that would work once everyone has an actual Codex army.

 Stux wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Having CPs limited to the detachment generating it would already be a huge downside to bringing soups instead of mono lists.

Do you mean faction rather than detachment right?

Detachment feels better. Faction gets people too whiny because of the wide range available to imperium and other soup culprits.

Limit CP regeneration to the detachment with the regenerator that is proccing the strat.

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Having CPs limited to the detachment generating it would already be a huge downside to bringing soups instead of mono lists.

Do you mean faction rather than detachment right?

Detachment feels better. Faction gets people too whiny because of the wide range available to imperium and other soup culprits.

Limit CP regeneration to the detachment with the regenerator that is proccing the strat.

So if I have two Dark Angels detachments in my army, a Battalion and a Patrol, I wouldn't be able to use any of the CP from the Battalion on units from the Patrol detachment?

Just making sure I understand the idea.

Seems a lot simpler to just divide by codex, as targeting on some strats is a bit ambiguous.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output

Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

If you look at the maximum potential GROTS outshoot CASTELLAN.

You sure you want to look at the full potential regardless of what's say average output and what sort of damage distribution they have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, by this logic the Stock Baneblade is broken. 36 shots re-rolling 1s, 120 possible wounds. Then it gets to charge and melee! 9 attacks at S9 ap-3! thats 54 more wounds! NERFFFFFFFFFF.

This is why you need to pay attention in math class. Because Statistics matter!

That's nothing compared to might of the MIGHTY GROT! 120 wounds? Amateur!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.

The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?

if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.

Umm if you are factoring in BS etc YOU AREN'T LOOKING AT THE MAXIMUM!

Maximum is: Max shots, max wounds, max damage.

At that category grots outshoot pretty much everything. But you don't see grots hailed as uber killers of the game...Now I wonder why...Maybe because maximum isn't the way to rate units?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ballzonya wrote:
I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.

No I was annoyed that it was having its points increased, I added that its also annoying that the Necron unit looks OP. I wasn't moaning about the Necron unit being OP like you wrongly implied. 'Yeah annoying considering', read that a few times. Jesus...

Relax guys - I am sure all knowing GW will make this right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.

Yeah true - you can't know if something is OP without knowing it's points cost. All we know right now is what it's weapon does. Which seems decent. If it's 400 points with 24 W and quantum shielding - it will be OP and make Necrons top tier instantly. If it's 900 points with those stats it won't even see play. It's all in the cost.

I bet it'll end up being both.
It'll launch with stats & a points cost designed to get you to drop $$$. Then later on, once enough have been sold, the errata will come.

I think the Guard CP battery is its own issue that needs fixing. Personally I’m a fan of the Detachment that generated the CP, uses the CP (with the basic 3 being useable anywhere).

Quite separately, the sharp imbalance between soup and non-soup armies has a potential fix that I’ve been harping on about for a while now:

Chapter Tactics and the Chapter-specific Stratagem, Warlord Trait and Relic are only available if the entire army shares that Chapter keyword.

(Replace Chapter with Craftworld, Regiment etc for each faction.) Auxiliary Detachments are excepted, neither gaining access to Chapter Tactics etc nor preventing the rest of the army from getting them. You could give exceptions to mini ally-only factions like Inquisitors and Assassins.

This kind of already exists; in the Chapter Tactics section of each Codex there is a paragraph to that effect, the only difference being that it is restricted by Detachment, whereas I’m advocating it be restricted by army.

This solution gives you a real advantage to taking a pure army to balance the power of a soup army to fill the natural weaknesses in its list. The only thing is that I game up with this before the Dark Eldar Codex came out, and I’m not clued in enough with the nuances of that book to know how to sort them out.

kombatwombat wrote:
I think the Guard CP battery is its own issue that needs fixing. Personally I’m a fan of the Detachment that generated the CP, uses the CP (with the basic 3 being useable anywhere).

Quite separately, the sharp imbalance between soup and non-soup armies has a potential fix that I’ve been harping on about for a while now:

Chapter Tactics and the Chapter-specific Stratagem, Warlord Trait and Relic are only available if the entire army shares that Chapter keyword.

(Replace Chapter with Craftworld, Regiment etc for each faction.) Auxiliary Detachments are excepted, neither gaining access to Chapter Tactics etc nor preventing the rest of the army from getting them. You could give exceptions to mini ally-only factions like Inquisitors and Assassins.

This kind of already exists; in the Chapter Tactics section of each Codex there is a paragraph to that effect, the only difference being that it is restricted by Detachment, whereas I’m advocating it be restricted by army.

This solution gives you a real advantage to taking a pure army to balance the power of a soup army to fill the natural weaknesses in its list. The only thing is that I game up with this before the Dark Eldar Codex came out, and I’m not clued in enough with the nuances of that book to know how to sort them out.

Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.

 IronBrand wrote:
Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.

See now, everything you just listed as a bug I see as a feature.

We want different things out of this game, I guess.

kombatwombat wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:
Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.

See now, everything you just listed as a bug I see as a feature.

We want different things out of this game, I guess.

I agree with you, however id change to faction not detachment- That way as Ironbrand pointed out, you wouldn't be preventing a baneblade using a strat- which whilst powerful.... isn't unfair, but would be preventing the Castellan from blowing through 5 in its first shooting phase.

The whole issue is that people are using incredibly powerful stratagems on incredibly powerful LOW options that were intended to have a limited supply of CP, knights were never meant to have 15CP with the ability to regen- it removes the strategy of using stratagems.

Personally i feel the same about all stratagems and think the CP increase last FAQ wasn't necessary and removed an element of risk from the game- you basically are giving a guard player a free reroll every phase of every turn which isnt what the stratagem idea was intended for.

 Stux wrote:

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Having CPs limited to the detachment generating it would already be a huge downside to bringing soups instead of mono lists.

Do you mean faction rather than detachment right?

Detachment feels better. Faction gets people too whiny because of the wide range available to imperium and other soup culprits.

Limit CP regeneration to the detachment with the regenerator that is proccing the strat.

So if I have two Dark Angels detachments in my army, a Battalion and a Patrol, I wouldn't be able to use any of the CP from the Battalion on units from the Patrol detachment?

Just making sure I understand the idea.

Seems a lot simpler to just divide by codex, as targeting on some strats is a bit ambiguous.

Nail on the head.
I find it simple in my head anyways and play it that way now with no problems.
I think of CP in MtG mana. Batallion has 5 white CP, allied Vanguard detachment has 1 blue CP and then there the 3 grey CP everyone gets from battleforged that can be used anywhere.
Strats to me were meant to be a cool twist to use at a critical moment that could tactically pay off. Unfortunately, it got used and abused into a crutch.

Process wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:
Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.

See now, everything you just listed as a bug I see as a feature.

We want different things out of this game, I guess.

I agree with you, however id change to faction not detachment- That way as Ironbrand pointed out, you wouldn't be preventing a baneblade using a strat- which whilst powerful.... isn't unfair, but would be preventing the Castellan from blowing through 5 in its first shooting phase.

The whole issue is that people are using incredibly powerful stratagems on incredibly powerful LOW options that were intended to have a limited supply of CP, knights were never meant to have 15CP with the ability to regen- it removes the strategy of using stratagems.

Personally i feel the same about all stratagems and think the CP increase last FAQ wasn't necessary and removed an element of risk from the game- you basically are giving a guard player a free reroll every phase of every turn which isnt what the stratagem idea was intended for.

Guard Infinite CP is 1 huge issue that should be dealt with sperately, it's the true driving force behind imperium soup.

The changes to battalions etc made the guard farm worse not better, the change should have been to battle forged CP numbers not battalion and the rediculous brigade.

Battle forged should scale with game size at say 5CP to 1000 points 7CP 1k to 2k, 9CP 2x to 3k.

If you dip into multiple codex's you loose your battle forged CP idf your detachments only sharing Imperium, Choas or Aeldari Keyword.

Add in a Assasins Vanguard, SoS vanguard, Inquisition detachment don't count towards the above rule.

Ice_can wrote:


Guard Infinite CP is 1 huge issue that should be dealt with sperately, it's the true driving force behind imperium soup.

The changes to battalions etc made the guard farm worse not better, the change should have been to battle forged CP numbers not battalion and the rediculous brigade.

Battle forged should scale with game size at say 5CP to 1000 points 7CP 1k to 2k, 9CP 2x to 3k.

If you dip into multiple codex's you loose your battle forged CP idf your detachments only sharing Imperium, Choas or Aeldari Keyword.

Add in a Assasins Vanguard, SoS vanguard, Inquisition detachment don't count towards the above rule.

I agree, we have two completely seperate issues right now;

First is using cheap horde factions to generate cp for units that really shouldn't have access to such a large amount of stratagems at such little cost- lets be honest, if the castellan player isnt using guard for his cp gen he's gonna be using another barebones battalion or maybe 2.

Second is just how many cp guard can generate because of how cheap their units are- my personal opinion is that guard are good, maybe really good, but when you can pop 10 stratagems in your fist shooting phase that then synergise with orders for both infantry and tanks, and are able to regen CP aswell! then they become a little silly.

First problem is solved quite easily by using kombatwombat's fix or a variation of such. Second is fixed by changing cp generation so that its not just "whoever has cheapest units gets the most".

 IronBrand wrote:
Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.

If they did this the thought is that perhaps at the same time all detachments would be reworked in CP given. I think if you had 3 cp for all detachments, and then 5 for the Battlion, and 10 for the Brigade, and you can put your battleforge points where you want them should be, but must be declared before the battle is the most common theme i see on how CP by detachment would work.

Overall, I favor the idea of 10 CP for 2K point games, and you can only use the Stratagems from your warlords faction.

tneva82 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.

That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.

Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output

Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.

Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...

If you look at the maximum potential GROTS outshoot CASTELLAN.

You sure you want to look at the full potential regardless of what's say average output and what sort of damage distribution they have?

Yeah it literally makes no sense. Looking at max damage potential, 6 termagants will sink a Knight Gallant every turn.

This is just the worst way of looking at damage potential.

Reemule wrote:
I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.

These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.

These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.

Now who's being reactionary

Banning soup is a big step, but it's still within the realms of possibility.

I'm talking about removing totally free ability to soup here mind. There would still be exceptions. Inquisitors and Assassins, maybe even allowing Auxiliary Support detachments for other armies, much in same way as Allied force orgs in past editions.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.

These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.

Your post reminds me of what people said pre-rule of 3, and how the rule would kill the player base and everyone is shortsighted and if it was going to happen it already would have blah blah blah

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.

These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.

While I agree banning multiple faction lists in Match play is a bit extreme, I highly doubt it would have those affects.

Keep in mind that many players that have been around for a while were once used to only taking 1 Faction, as are many Xenos players that don't even have the option to mix factions right now.
Also keep in mind that Open and Narrative play exist. Players who want to mix up factions still have those options, or can simply ignore a Matched play restriction on multiple factions when playing outside of Tournaments
Matched play is meant to be a balanced version of the game intended for competitive play. Mixing factions skews this balance greatly, so it really isn't out of the question for an FAQ beta rule to do just as Reemule is suggesting

Then throw in the fact that this change would encourage many multi-faction players to expand on 1 or more of their factions to make them a full armies, and GW sees more purchases, so it actually starts to seem very likely

-

 SHUPPET wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.

These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.

Your post reminds me of what people said pre-rule of 3, and how the rule would kill the player base and everyone is shortsighted and if it was going to happen it already would have blah blah blah

Yeah, definitely comes across as chicken-little-ing

I actually put some thought in it.

Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.

I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.

 Galef wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.

Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.

These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.

While I agree banning multiple faction lists in Match play is a bit extreme, I highly doubt it would have those affects.

Keep in mind that many players that have been around for a while were once used to only taking 1 Faction, as are many Xenos players that don't even have the option to mix factions right now.
Also keep in mind that Open and Narrative play exist. Players who want to mix up factions still have those options, or can simply ignore a Matched play restriction on multiple factions when playing outside of Tournaments
Matched play is meant to be a balanced version of the game intended for competitive play. Mixing factions skews this balance greatly, so it really isn't out of the question for an FAQ beta rule to do just as Reemule is suggesting

Then throw in the fact that this change would encourage many multi-faction players to expand on 1 or more of their factions to make them a full armies, and GW sees more purchases, so it actually starts to seem very likely

-

I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I actually put some thought in it.

Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.

I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.

Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.

Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.