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.
glados wrote: I think the big winners in this FAQ is melee horde armies like Orks & Nids. Often going 2nd anyway due to having larger amount of units and units being too big to be placed in cover, +1 save will mean you can just deploy your swarms right up against the front of your deployment zone in the open and get the benefit of cover. Massive. your large squads now being a more effective screen to protect your buff characters or support units etc is also pretty big.
Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
Am I also the only one intensely frustrated that the Battle Brothers rule completely breaks Inquisition units? Moving half their stuff to the Ministorium faction was one thing, but when you cant take those units any more in the same detachment as an inquisitor that was sold in the same damn box, that's a bit much.
It's flawed, but you'll have to pay the Acolyte tax to run inquisitors. Hopefully they and SoS will get something make the detachment worthwhile. (Though that may fly in the face of everyone else's hopes)
glados wrote: I think the big winners in this FAQ is melee horde armies like Orks & Nids. Often going 2nd anyway due to having larger amount of units and units being too big to be placed in cover, +1 save will mean you can just deploy your swarms right up against the front of your deployment zone in the open and get the benefit of cover. Massive. your large squads now being a more effective screen to protect your buff characters or support units etc is also pretty big.
Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
Am I also the only one intensely frustrated that the Battle Brothers rule completely breaks Inquisition units? Moving half their stuff to the Ministorium faction was one thing, but when you cant take those units any more in the same detachment as an inquisitor that was sold in the same damn box, that's a bit much.
They deployed so anyway. And the cover bonus helps higher save units more than 6+ and orks often enough sported 5++ anyway at which point this is nothing. 5++ is waaaaay better than 5+.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Call me cynical, but I expect the main beneficiaries will be IG and Tau. Marines running a Reece style list might benefit from it too. These are armies where under certain circumstances it might almost become worth thinking about going second.
As tournament picks armies which can cope with being second tend to win out.
I mean okay having Orks get +1 save is nice - but you would much rather trade that for going first. Same I'd have thought for Nids. Experiencing slightly reduced shooting damage is nowhere near as good as "no shooting". This stratagem or no you are still likely to have lost too much stuff if they get two turns while you are closing the gap.
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
I disagree in the case of Guard who have no real individual knock out stratagems. I think their whole schitck is that they get a huge boat load of CP to spend on a whole bunch of situational and averagely powered stratagems rather then what most other armies have which is fewer CP to spend on better stratagems.
Guard have never been the issues in regards to CP points. Knights & BA gaining access to Guard CP is the issue. Which was not at all addressed this FAQ.
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
The former especially is quite unplayable...you would be spendings 9+ CP for you Castellan Knight alone without a method to replenish those CPs (so even if you start with 25+ you'll lose them all in 2 turns)
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
The former especially is quite unplayable...you would be spendings 9+ CP for you Castellan Knight alone without a method to replenish those CPs (so even if you start with 25+ you'll lose them all in 2 turns)
Or you realize the situation has changed and you only use 3?
Order of Companions is to good not to use.
Rotate Ion Shield is a luxury you can no longer afford, 4++ is good enough.
Same for the Missile Stratagem, shoot them at something your allowed to target instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/30 12:05:55
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
The former especially is quite unplayable...you would be spendings 9+ CP for you Castellan Knight alone without a method to replenish those CPs (so even if you start with 25+ you'll lose them all in 2 turns)
Or you realize the situation has changed and you only use 3?
Order of Companions is to good not to use.
Rotate Ion Shield is a luxury you can no longer afford, 4++ is good enough.
Same for the Missile Stratagem, shoot them at something your allowed to target instead.
Nah, people will keep playing IKs with IG alone dropping BA and using the aforementioned stratagems
ThePorcupine wrote: They just completely butchered the entire Harlequin army with the changes to "fly" and "flip belts." Without maneuverability, Harlequins are nothing.
Not nothing, you still get to play with tiny, plastic space clowns.
With disco ball bases. Don't ask - some of the things I've seen on Harlequin armies are absolutely indescribable, in an awesome way.
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
The former especially is quite unplayable...you would be spendings 9+ CP for you Castellan Knight alone without a method to replenish those CPs (so even if you start with 25+ you'll lose them all in 2 turns)
Or you realize the situation has changed and you only use 3?
Order of Companions is to good not to use.
Rotate Ion Shield is a luxury you can no longer afford, 4++ is good enough.
Same for the Missile Stratagem, shoot them at something your allowed to target instead.
Nah, people will keep playing IKs with IG alone dropping BA and using the aforementioned stratagems
I'd probably drop the Castellan and bring a 2nd Guard detachment instead.
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
The former especially is quite unplayable...you would be spendings 9+ CP for you Castellan Knight alone without a method to replenish those CPs (so even if you start with 25+ you'll lose them all in 2 turns)
Or you realize the situation has changed and you only use 3?
Order of Companions is to good not to use.
Rotate Ion Shield is a luxury you can no longer afford, 4++ is good enough.
Same for the Missile Stratagem, shoot them at something your allowed to target instead.
Nah, people will keep playing IKs with IG alone dropping BA and using the aforementioned stratagems
Which is why Horde armies are winning all the tournaments right? Ohh wait, they aren't winning
Again, if that is the case why aren't pure horde armies winning events? ironically it is the super elite lists that are dominating. NOVA proved that with all the knights/smash captains. People took minimum units of Guard as CP batteries for their elite units and used those cheap infantry to hold objectives and screen. So again, all the evidence says its the super elite winning not the hordes.
Well the winning list was 1k points guard, 600 knight and 400 ba, with 95 bodies of guard in a brigade, I think that is a clear horde and calling it bare minimum is a bit of a stretch don’t you think?
LunarSol wrote: Yeah. It’s not min battalion guard. It’s a brigade.
And lets break down those "95" bodies of the guard battalion. 60 of them were throw away infantry, so 240pts of horde chaff. So of that 1k points of guard, 240 of it was Horde. Now when I play Horde orkz I tend to bring 5-6 Mobz of boyz for 150-180 Boyz, Then I either Bring 50-60 Stormboyz or 45 Kommandos liberally sprinkled with Grotz either on Mek Gunz or in their own Mobz, but easily another 30-60 models. So on the low side that horde list is bringing just under 300 Models. SO yeah I consider THAT a horde. 90 models isn't.
So yes, he brought a Brigade, but he equipped it with the MINIMUM troops possible, and the rest were more elite stuff. This was used as a CP battery for his other stuff. So if "Horde" is so overwhelmingly powerful and better then elite stuff, why didn't anyone in the top 11 spam cheap infantry squads instead of using them as either Battalion or Brigade CP batteries for other factions in their list?
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
it's not a nerf to soup if a bunch of solo armies get nerfs right next to it. I guess Tau likes the FAQ....
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Spoletta wrote: IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
Except that mono armies were hit just as hard or harder, so, no, Soup wasn't nerfed at all. If anything, it was made even more necessary.
Wake me when there is a single downside to taking a Soup army over a mono army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/30 12:40:09
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Which is why Horde armies are winning all the tournaments right? Ohh wait, they aren't winning
Again, if that is the case why aren't pure horde armies winning events? ironically it is the super elite lists that are dominating. NOVA proved that with all the knights/smash captains. People took minimum units of Guard as CP batteries for their elite units and used those cheap infantry to hold objectives and screen. So again, all the evidence says its the super elite winning not the hordes.
Well the winning list was 1k points guard, 600 knight and 400 ba, with 95 bodies of guard in a brigade, I think that is a clear horde and calling it bare minimum is a bit of a stretch don’t you think?
LunarSol wrote: Yeah. It’s not min battalion guard. It’s a brigade.
And lets break down those "95" bodies of the guard battalion. 60 of them were throw away infantry, so 240pts of horde chaff. So of that 1k points of guard, 240 of it was Horde. Now when I play Horde orkz I tend to bring 5-6 Mobz of boyz for 150-180 Boyz, Then I either Bring 50-60 Stormboyz or 45 Kommandos liberally sprinkled with Grotz either on Mek Gunz or in their own Mobz, but easily another 30-60 models. So on the low side that horde list is bringing just under 300 Models. SO yeah I consider THAT a horde. 90 models isn't.
So yes, he brought a Brigade, but he equipped it with the MINIMUM troops possible, and the rest were more elite stuff. This was used as a CP battery for his other stuff. So if "Horde" is so overwhelmingly powerful and better then elite stuff, why didn't anyone in the top 11 spam cheap infantry squads instead of using them as either Battalion or Brigade CP batteries for other factions in their list?
That's great and all that you have your own arbitrary thought process on what constitutes a horde/non-horde list, but the rest of us do not have to adhere to that description. When I am playing Necrons or even my Nids, I am typically not reaching anywhere near 95 models, NOR am I rocking a fething Castellan alongside them.
And you again can call them "throw-away" units all you like, but they are still a massive amount of bodies on the board that can take objectives, screen, and out-put damage far above what any normal "throw-away" unit does. By the way, all three of those things are basically the most important values of a unit in the current state of 8th edition.
And you ask why they don't spam more infantry squads, well because with the stupid battle brothers rule of Imperium they can continue to cherry-pick the best units from other books to fill the gaps of any other roles they would want or need outside of their troops. As has been stated on this forum quite a few times already, builds that rely solely on one or two phases of the game will typically have a harder time winning than a balanced list.
For Guard + allies it is far too easy to create those "balanced" lists, and as we have seen those lists all ended up being pretty similar, IG/BA/IK.
I will add that I believe Castellans and Knights are FAR too cheap for what they provide, at least when you compare them to something like a Wraithknight or IG Super-Heavy Tank (which is why you almost never see either of them). Again GW continues to gak the bed when it comes to balance across codexes. I think we can all agree that this can make for frustrating or less enjoyable games, which is the whole point of this stupid thing right!? To have fun!!!?
Spoletta wrote: IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
Except that mono armies were hit just as hard or harder, so, no, Soup wasn't nerfed at all. If anything, it was made even more necessary.
Wake me when there is a single downside to taking a Soup army over a mono army.
Thank you for your reasonable and enlightened thoughts.
Try to compare any mono BA list to an Imperium Soup list and it is laughable at best. MONO armies should not continue to be punished for the crimes of the WAAC players abusing a stupid system.
And before everyone goes crazy and says that I am advocating for IG itself to be nerfed in any way, I'm not. It is only the stupidity of SOUP that bothers me. It's impossible to balance, especially for rules writers like GW has. Just save yourselves the fething hassle and cut the gak out, or at the VERY least make some type of penalty or cost for doing so.
I suggest watching the TableTop tactics review of the FAQ, they pretty much hit on ALL of these points.
Spoletta wrote: IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
Except that mono armies were hit just as hard or harder, so, no, Soup wasn't nerfed at all. If anything, it was made even more necessary.
Wake me when there is a single downside to taking a Soup army over a mono army.
Talk about being dishonest!
Mono armies were almost untouched by this FAQ, while the top Soup lists were completely destroyed!
Only BA and IK suffered a bit, all the other mono codici were either not impacted or were positively impacted.
Yes, souping is still better than not souping, true, but the best advantage of souping has been removed (CP abuse).
This FAQ reduced the gap between a mono codex list and a soup list. It isn't zero yet, correct, but better than previously.
The <Fly> restriction hit quite a few armies, but it's probably better in the longer term. 'Soup' as most people see it isn't going to go away like they hope; I do hope other armies aren't left in the cold in future though.
vipoid wrote: Still no nerf to Soup. Garbage FAQ is garbage.
glados wrote: Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.
To be honest, at this point, I wish GW would just scrap the CP regeneration abilities and artefacts entirely and just say that mono-armies automatically generate 1 CP each turn.
IG/BA/IK lists and CWE/Harlie/DE lists have been nerfed, so i have no idea what you mean when you say that Soup has not been nerfed.
Thev still are good and if anything soup has become even more essential. Mono knights took even bigger hit than soup so igcp battery or two is even more essential
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
That's great and all that you have your own arbitrary thought process on what constitutes a horde/non-horde list, but the rest of us do not have to adhere to that description. When I am playing Necrons or even my Nids, I am typically not reaching anywhere near 95 models, NOR am I rocking a fething Castellan alongside them.
And you again can call them "throw-away" units all you like, but they are still a massive amount of bodies on the board that can take objectives, screen, and out-put damage far above what any normal "throw-away" unit does. By the way, all three of those things are basically the most important values of a unit in the current state of 8th edition.
And you ask why they don't spam more infantry squads, well because with the stupid battle brothers rule of Imperium they can continue to cherry-pick the best units from other books to fill the gaps of any other roles they would want or need outside of their troops. As has been stated on this forum quite a few times already, builds that rely solely on one or two phases of the game will typically have a harder time winning than a balanced list.
That boils down to your play style, but for most armies that take a BRIGADE, 95 models isn't much. Necrons have an advantage in that they can take 5 man troops choices, but even still that alone is 30 bodies just to fulfill the minimum requirements for the troops section. Take warriors instead of immortals and you are up to that magic 60 number that every guard brigade was at. Throw in some flavor and poof, you are quickly over 95 models without trying too hard.
The soup lists that took Battalions instead of Brigades were also only taking 30 models of troops instead of 60.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/30 13:15:59
Is CP farming during deployment still on? I'm guessing so, as it's not a "turn" per say.
If a Raven Guard Assault Marine unit with jumppacks uses the stratagem. Are they allowed to use their jumppacks for the 9" move? I'm currently inclined to say that they can't, due to it not being the "movement phase".
All this FAQ does right now is make me nervous for CA and the points changes they are going to be making. Buying models to make my existing armies "viable" again is going to hurt when i'm 75% sure that they'll get hit with a points change in CA (and probably the wrong direction of change). For example, i'm really curious about running a Preceptor and 2 Warglaives but...
I am curious about T'au now though. They have the ability to screen exceptionally well, whilst still having a large amount of points dedicated to shooting.
Overall though, i don't see the "top lists" changing too much until CA comes along and introduces the points changes. There is still no reason not to take a Guard brigade and a Castellan. The only difference now, is you might use the points gained from dropping the BA battalion into 2 Helverins and a little extra in the Guard brigade.
For example, starting with 18 CP and getting 1 a turn (gonna happen - so 24 in total) i can still use RIS and the Raven stratagem 4 times throughout the game. The only difference to my game plan now would be that i dedicate a couple of units to ensuring nothing with fly can ever charge the Knight, unless i want it to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/30 13:20:07
Is CP farming during deployment still on? I'm guessing so, as it's not a "turn" per say.
If a Raven Guard Assault Marine unit with jumppacks uses the stratagem. Are they allowed to use their jumppacks for the 9" move? I'm currently inclined to say that they can't, due to it not being the "movement phase".
All this FAQ does right now is make me nervous for CA and the points changes they are going to be making. Buying models to make my existing armies "viable" again is going to hurt when i'm 75% sure that they'll get hit with a points change in CA (and probably the wrong direction of change). For example, i'm really curious about running a Preceptor and 2 Warglaives but...
I am curious about T'au now though. They have the ability to screen exceptionally well, whilst still having a large amount of points dedicated to shooting.
Overall though, i don't see the "top lists" changing too much until CA comes along and introduces the points changes. There is still no reason not to take a Guard brigade and a Castellan. The only difference now, is you might use the points gained from dropping the BA battalion into 2 Helverins and a little extra in the Guard brigade.
For example, starting with 18 CP and getting 1 a turn (gonna happen - so 24 in total) i can still use RIS and the Raven stratagem 4 times throughout the game. The only difference to my game plan now would be that i dedicate a couple of units to ensuring nothing with fly can ever charge the Knight, unless i want it to.
To be honest you keep the IG Brigade, drop the blood angles, scouts and Slamquinius's are not worth the investment in points as no turn 1 ds for scouts to screen out, no jumping past the 90 guardsmen so slamguinius needs a clear walk in charge, not happening . It's just moved the meta from IG/BA/Catellan to IG/IG/Castellan.
While BA and Knights take it in the sack for IG's rediculous CP generation.
I also want to know when GW is going to give all the ultramarine charictors new warlord traits seing as the current one just got dumpster fired.
Is CP farming during deployment still on? I'm guessing so, as it's not a "turn" per say.
If a Raven Guard Assault Marine unit with jumppacks uses the stratagem. Are they allowed to use their jumppacks for the 9" move? I'm currently inclined to say that they can't, due to it not being the "movement phase".
All this FAQ does right now is make me nervous for CA and the points changes they are going to be making. Buying models to make my existing armies "viable" again is going to hurt when i'm 75% sure that they'll get hit with a points change in CA (and probably the wrong direction of change). For example, i'm really curious about running a Preceptor and 2 Warglaives but...
I am curious about T'au now though. They have the ability to screen exceptionally well, whilst still having a large amount of points dedicated to shooting.
Overall though, i don't see the "top lists" changing too much until CA comes along and introduces the points changes. There is still no reason not to take a Guard brigade and a Castellan. The only difference now, is you might use the points gained from dropping the BA battalion into 2 Helverins and a little extra in the Guard brigade.
For example, starting with 18 CP and getting 1 a turn (gonna happen - so 24 in total) i can still use RIS and the Raven stratagem 4 times throughout the game. The only difference to my game plan now would be that i dedicate a couple of units to ensuring nothing with fly can ever charge the Knight, unless i want it to.
To be honest you keep the IG Brigade, drop the blood angles, scouts and Slamquinius's are not worth the investment in points as no turn 1 ds for scouts to screen out, no jumping past the 90 guardsmen so slamguinius needs a clear walk in charge, not happening . It's just moved the meta from IG/BA/Catellan to IG/IG/Castellan.
While BA and Knights take it in the sack for IG's rediculous CP generation.
I also want to know when GW is going to give all the ultramarine charictors new warlord traits seing as the current one just got dumpster fired.
We might see another Ally to pair with the IG and IKs. Not sure who, but if we do, it might introduce at least something new to keep the game from getting stale.
Is CP farming during deployment still on? I'm guessing so, as it's not a "turn" per say.
If a Raven Guard Assault Marine unit with jumppacks uses the stratagem. Are they allowed to use their jumppacks for the 9" move? I'm currently inclined to say that they can't, due to it not being the "movement phase".
All this FAQ does right now is make me nervous for CA and the points changes they are going to be making. Buying models to make my existing armies "viable" again is going to hurt when i'm 75% sure that they'll get hit with a points change in CA (and probably the wrong direction of change). For example, i'm really curious about running a Preceptor and 2 Warglaives but...
I am curious about T'au now though. They have the ability to screen exceptionally well, whilst still having a large amount of points dedicated to shooting.
Overall though, i don't see the "top lists" changing too much until CA comes along and introduces the points changes. There is still no reason not to take a Guard brigade and a Castellan. The only difference now, is you might use the points gained from dropping the BA battalion into 2 Helverins and a little extra in the Guard brigade.
For example, starting with 18 CP and getting 1 a turn (gonna happen - so 24 in total) i can still use RIS and the Raven stratagem 4 times throughout the game. The only difference to my game plan now would be that i dedicate a couple of units to ensuring nothing with fly can ever charge the Knight, unless i want it to.
To be honest you keep the IG Brigade, drop the blood angles, scouts and Slamquinius's are not worth the investment in points as no turn 1 ds for scouts to screen out, no jumping past the 90 guardsmen so slamguinius needs a clear walk in charge, not happening . It's just moved the meta from IG/BA/Catellan to IG/IG/Castellan.
While BA and Knights take it in the sack for IG's rediculous CP generation.
I also want to know when GW is going to give all the ultramarine charictors new warlord traits seing as the current one just got dumpster fired.
We might see another Ally to pair with the IG and IKs. Not sure who, but if we do, it might introduce at least something new to keep the game from getting stale.
It's been IG plus something to super boost with CP since the guard codex dropped, it's still the same meta for Imperium players almost a year later.
Annoyingly the nerfs to combat soup actually just made it more mandatory than it ever has been. Unless CA changes the points costs of 90% of the imperium factions that imperial meta is locked in till next march.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/30 14:03:14
Spoletta wrote: Mono armies were almost untouched by this FAQ, while the top Soup lists were completely destroyed!
Citation needed.
Spoletta wrote: Only BA and IK suffered a bit, all the other mono codici were either not impacted or were positively impacted.
I have to wonder what you're smoking at this point.
Please show me the paragraphs in the FAQ which weakened Soup armies without also weakening mono armies at the same time.
I'll wait.
Spoletta wrote: Yes, souping is still better than not souping, true
And there go the goalposts.
Spoletta wrote: but the best advantage of souping has been removed (CP abuse).
Three points:
1) No it hasn't. At the very least, any Imperium army can still ally in guard Battalions or a Brigade to get 10-12 CP from the get-go. They might not be able to regenerate as much, but it's still a hell of a lot more than they'd have without Soup - and that's the whole problem.
2) Mono armies have the exact same restrictions on CP regeneration. The only difference is that, unlike Soup armies, they can't just ally in cheap units to start with as many CPs as possible.
3) CP abuse is just *one* advantage of Soup. It is not the only advantage and, as shown by points 1 & 2, it hasn't even been properly addressed. Hence, Soup will continue to dominate because, as you yourself have stated, it's outright better than not Souping.
Spoletta wrote: This FAQ reduced the gap between a mono codex list and a soup list. It isn't zero yet, correct, but better than previously.
How? If anything it's widened the gap by making those CP from cheap Battalions/Brigades even more necessary than they were before.
If GW want to close the gap, then they need to punish Soup armies and only Soup armies. Punishing mono armies and soup alike does nothing to reduce the gap.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Spoletta wrote: Mono armies were almost untouched by this FAQ, while the top Soup lists were completely destroyed!
Citation needed.
Spoletta wrote: Only BA and IK suffered a bit, all the other mono codici were either not impacted or were positively impacted.
I have to wonder what you're smoking at this point.
Please show me the paragraphs in the FAQ which weakened Soup armies without also weakening mono armies at the same time.
I'll wait.
Spoletta wrote: Yes, souping is still better than not souping, true
And there go the goalposts.
Spoletta wrote: but the best advantage of souping has been removed (CP abuse).
Three points:
1) No it hasn't. At the very least, any Imperium army can still ally in guard Battalions or a Brigade to get 10-12 CP from the get-go. They might not be able to regenerate as much, but it's still a hell of a lot more than they'd have without Soup - and that's the whole problem.
2) Mono armies have the exact same restrictions on CP regeneration. The only difference is that, unlike Soup armies, they can't just ally in cheap units to start with as many CPs as possible.
3) CP abuse is just *one* advantage of Soup. It is not the only advantage and, as shown by points 1 & 2, it hasn't even been properly addressed. Hence, Soup will continue to dominate because, as you yourself have stated, it's outright better than not Souping.
Spoletta wrote: This FAQ reduced the gap between a mono codex list and a soup list. It isn't zero yet, correct, but better than previously.
How? If anything it's widened the gap by making those CP from cheap Battalions/Brigades even more necessary than they were before.
If GW want to close the gap, then they need to punish Soup armies and only Soup armies. Punishing mono armies and soup alike does nothing to reduce the gap.
Havn't moved any goal man, read again what i was saying.
In any case, i have no reason to argue with you, you clearly have your ideas and won't change them.
Time will tell if those changes will create more soups or many mono codici lists. My opinion is that the number of soups will be reduced by this FAQ, but as i just said, time will tell who is right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/30 14:50:12
