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.

The soup situation still exists and adding the basic 32 Guard to any elite Imperial force that doesn't generate a lot of CP is cheap (180pts) and does a secondary role of holding objectives in your own deployment zone and screening your elite troops. I don't have any but I'm starting to think I really should!

If Soup is to be fixed I think it's time that the big tourny organizers need to step up and send a message. You have the power to modify rules to your events, so step up and stamp out the worst offenders. What good does it do to host an event and then afterwards harp on about seeing so many of the same builds in your videos and podcasts (which you knew damn well you would)? Step up to the plate and place restrictions in army builds that limits this kind of stuff instead of waiting for GW to do so.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Talk about being dishonest!

Mono armies were almost untouched by this FAQ, while the top Soup lists were completely destroyed!

Completely destroyed? Because the Imperial Soup list will have to struggle through with around 25 CP in a game rather than 35~?

You can still pretty much do what you like for 2-3 turns and then you run dry. That is a reasonable period of time to win the game.

Yeh, Poletta is just straight wrong on this.

Imperial soup is still by far the strongest option. This hasn't changed at all. It was nerfed slightly, but not much, as it still has masses of CP to play with.

Several Mono armies were nerfed more than the IG soups were, making the power gap even wider.

Ice_can wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So,

Couple of questions to take away from the FAQ.

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.

Dumpster firing space marines has been a common theme in these FAQ. Stealth Buffing IG - also very common.

Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

Soup is still a thing, tarpits, nerfed melee, forcing those who have turn two to burn as many cps and AM battery loving the limelight - summation, weak.

Soup won't get nerfed as it will hurt sales most likely (I don't have stats to back that up unfortunately)

 SHUPPET wrote:

Audustum wrote:

The TSons list did make it to the finals. It was neck and neck with the winning list until the final round, and after losing that final round, dropped down to 5th on points. So once again, you're factually and objectively wrong.

Hey, guess how NOVA does rankings? For a 'competitive player' you might want to actually read the primer. NOVA doesn't care what order your W/L are, but how many followed by battle points to split up people with same W/L..

I'm sorry, at what point did a single thing I say conflict with this? YOU said TSons didn't make it to the finals, when they did. The entire point about battlepoints supports my stance... not yours lol.

Because NOVA doesn't have a finals in the GT. There is a final round, but there isn't a 'finals'. Everyone plays in the final round.

But it's O.K., I think we're pretty used to you using your own definitions and caveats in other peoples' conversations.

Audustum wrote:

Sixth time. I said Thousand Sons were doing fine competitively. The debate was, always, about the Tzaangoer bomb and whether it was a critical component of the list. That's your original sin you keep tangling yourself up over. Maybe 7th time will be the charm.

Except the post I responded to you was claiming that a Tzaangor bomb making it to the finals, and multiple other places of that same unit composition in the top 30, DID NOT COUNT as examples of this build doing good, in direct response to it being said that they had.

Nooooot quite. I didn't say it didn't get, I actually didn't get to say much about Tzaangoer bombs at all before you barged in and detailed the whole tangent. What I did say was that the Tzaangoer bomb was an ancillary element of this NOVA list and that Tzaangoer bombs, in general, weren't doing all that great.

I disagreed with this,

Oof, so close. You jumped in yelling that Thousand Son's is great, which isn't entirely the same. This is the first post you really distinguished between the two (to which I was going to give you a gold internet star but I have to retract it in light of the below).

at which point your point start to slide,

and you built a strawman that said, and I quote, "the topic was whether they were breaking the game, OP, in need of a fix, however you want to phrase it. Just because something is successful doesn't mean it should be nerfed. Only when it is unreasonably successful", when it was quite clear that no, nobody had said that at all.

You're getting there, inch by inch. We'll make it up Mt. Doom eventually. Please refer back a couple posts ago to when I was talking about you missing context. Yes, you have a subjective definition of doing good. That's great. None of us we're talking about your definition (you weren't even part of the conversation at the time).

our stance has slowly warped and adjusted to the backpedaling you've made over the course of your ranting, but make no mistake, your initial post absolutely disputed the claim that TSons, or the Tzaangor bomb specifically, has done any good in the tournament scene,

And we've regressed to the imaginary point that I said something about Thousand Son's doing poorly in general again. And we we're so close!

and to do this you discounted the evidence of it's placing that were given.

'Discounted' being a nice way of papering 'link blank bro'. Tell you what, how about you go to www.Itotallymadethisup.com. They've got eeeevery stat proving all my points. Totally. Honest.

Humor aside, see below.

Don't confuse your backpedalling with my stance, which has remained static this entire time -

the Tzaangor bomb is a good strategy, has been shown to be quite good in the tournament, but not overpowered, nor do I think it deserved a nerf.

This is actually the first time you've really articulated this instead of just ranting about a perceived insult to Thousand Sons or being belligerent. I'd change 'good' to 'meh' but otherwise we're in agreement! Hurray!

At all stages I have been referring to these claims. If your argument has somehow come around to mirror my own over the course of your misdirection based arguments, then I can see how that may have happened, but don't begin to confuse your own arguments starting to trip over themselves with my own.

Sadly our post history disproves this one.

Audustum wrote:

also lol @ the statistics you requested of TSons win-rate still not being proof enough

examples of them placing well wasn't enough either

You're just setting ridiculous expectations towards any possible outcome that could prove you wrong, while speaking from a self-admitted place of total ignorance concerning the placings of the army you are debating the success of.

I like how "Hey, the link you provided is blank" equates to "isn't proof enough". The content of your posts repeatedly indicates that you are either not actually reading what people write or under some type of delusion.

You literally discounted the statistics you requested before even reading them. It was after you had discounted them that you then added "BTW it's also blank". I didn't miss that you hadn't read them, it was the FACT that you hadn't read them and still discounted them that I was laughing at. Try to keep up.

I didn't discount anything. Here is the post:

Snip! I addressed this above. You seem to be conflating Tzaangoer Bomb and Thousand Sons as synonyms when they're not. To finally get back to something akin to the original point before you jumped in, the Tzaangoer bomb is an ancillary element to the success of Thousand Sons.

Also, that link is not what you think it is. Three tabs, two with nothing on them and the third just having 19 Death Guard entries (that don't show their actual lists).

The data is all there. Click the download button and boot it in Excel, as you have to do with many google drive docs. Have fun!

Yeah, no, not pressing download on a random internet flame guy's Google Doc. There's a million clean ways you can host that data that are free. Go ahead and grab one.

Audustum wrote:

I think this is the most absurd debate I've ever had on this forum, but I guess you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

That's probably because you don't really debate so much as hurl vitriol and then act completely incapable of handling any pushback in return.

Actually everyone single one of my posts has been based heavily on logic and reason. I'd suspect the actual reason that this is the most absurd, illogical debate is because you long stopped arguing for the sake of what is right, and instead are just arguing to try to win, as I've seen you done numerous times before on here.

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

The primary use for allies it because the command point system is heavily biased towards cheap troops and HQ's. It is a very easy problem to fix. Make everyone start with the same starting CP. The incentive to take allies then drops to only synergy and more access to strats and spells (though - this is not an inherent disadvantage to not take allies) You can build the army you want - if your own synergies and strats are good enough to win with - you really don't need access to more.

Going after regen but keeping the core system makes no sense. Plenty of other armies also use regen that aren't IG/castellan. The relative balance of CP between armies currently did not change. IG still makes the most and is mandatory in every imperial army. It's really not hard to see how nothing has really changed.

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

Exactly.
I actually love the idea of allies, seeing a mix of Imperial forces on the table (that makes sense) has an epic feel to it. I just think the rules need to limit the interaction. Stop allowing allied detachments to use CPs generated by other cheaper detachments. Simple fix.
If you take the standard list....Guard Brigade, Castellan, BA battalion, you get 20 CPs total. However, things get a little tougher if the Guard has to use it's 12 CP contribution, BA their 5 and the knight zero, with the exception of the Battle Forged points (3CP) which can be used by all 3. Also, if any farming takes place, the CP farmed (under new rules) can only be returned to the pool that spent the CP, or to the Battle Forged pool if it came from farming enemy CPs.
This would stop some of the ridiculous interactions we have currently, so you can still take an allied knight in your list, but if you want to go all strat heavy with them, you need to bring a proper knight detachment.

Personally, i don't know why the TOs themselves can't step up to the plate and implement this rule. If it was more widespread that GW could see people playing the game this way and enjoying it, they would possibly follow suit.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

Exactly.
I actually love the idea of allies, seeing a mix of Imperial forces on the table (that makes sense) has an epic feel to it. I just think the rules need to limit the interaction. Stop allowing allied detachments to use CPs generated by other cheaper detachments. Simple fix.
If you take the standard list....Guard Brigade, Castellan, BA battalion, you get 20 CPs total. However, things get a little tougher if the Guard has to use it's 12 CP contribution, BA their 5 and the knight zero, with the exception of the Battle Forged points (3CP) which can be used by all 3. Also, if any farming takes place, the CP farmed (under new rules) can only be returned to the pool that spent the CP, or to the Battle Forged pool if it came from farming enemy CPs.
This would stop some of the ridiculous interactions we have currently, so you can still take an allied knight in your list, but if you want to go all strat heavy with them, you need to bring a proper knight detachment.

Personally, i don't know why the TOs themselves can't step up to the plate and implement this rule. If it was more widespread that GW could see people playing the game this way and enjoying it, they would possibly follow suit.

I can understand the desire to minimize bookkeeping though...

Lammia wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

Exactly.
I actually love the idea of allies, seeing a mix of Imperial forces on the table (that makes sense) has an epic feel to it. I just think the rules need to limit the interaction. Stop allowing allied detachments to use CPs generated by other cheaper detachments. Simple fix.
If you take the standard list....Guard Brigade, Castellan, BA battalion, you get 20 CPs total. However, things get a little tougher if the Guard has to use it's 12 CP contribution, BA their 5 and the knight zero, with the exception of the Battle Forged points (3CP) which can be used by all 3. Also, if any farming takes place, the CP farmed (under new rules) can only be returned to the pool that spent the CP, or to the Battle Forged pool if it came from farming enemy CPs.
This would stop some of the ridiculous interactions we have currently, so you can still take an allied knight in your list, but if you want to go all strat heavy with them, you need to bring a proper knight detachment.

Personally, i don't know why the TOs themselves can't step up to the plate and implement this rule. If it was more widespread that GW could see people playing the game this way and enjoying it, they would possibly follow suit.

I can understand the desire to minimize bookkeeping though...

Agreed. I actually prefer the slightly more extreme option of only unlocking Strats for the faction of your warlord.

Lemondish wrote:
I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

The issue is that, as it stands, allies are all benefit and no drawback.

I'm fine with people wanting to include allies. What I'd like it for it to come with an actual downside, so that allied armies aren't just outright better than mono-armies.

Being able to cherry-pick the best units from every codex in your faction is already a massive benefit. It should have some downside to balance it (maybe all units in an allied army should lose their equivalent of Chapter Tactics?), and it certainly shouldn't be able to generate more CPs than a mono-army.

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Yeah, many people are not satisfied until allies are dead and are upset that Knights need (or can) still bring allies. To me it seems absurd, Knights and Custodes are armies that were always intended and designed to work with allies. Sure, you can play them mono, but that is the anomalous option.

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

Yeah, that's what most of us wanted, but it didn't happen. Maybe that it is too big a step and GW doesn't want to risk that.
Removing the insane CP regeneration though is still a decent fix for now,

Yes, guards are still the best at gaining CPs and it's not correct to use those on IK stratagems, but at least the amount of points you have to invest in guard to gain a CP has increased to about 3 times as much. (From 9 pts/CP to about 28-29).

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, many people are not satisfied until allies are dead and are upset that Knights need (or can) still bring allies. To me it seems absurd, Knights and Custodes are armies that were always intended and designed to work with allies. Sure, you can play them mono, but that is the anomalous option.

Why do you think that?

Tyel wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, many people are not satisfied until allies are dead and are upset that Knights need (or can) still bring allies. To me it seems absurd, Knights and Custodes are armies that were always intended and designed to work with allies. Sure, you can play them mono, but that is the anomalous option.

Why do you think that?

Knights were recently in same book with Ad Mech, and regardless it's effectiveness a full knight army is very dull to play and play against. Custodes have special rules which sole purpose is to boost allies.

 Crimson wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Yeah, many people are not satisfied until allies are dead and are upset that Knights need (or can) still bring allies. To me it seems absurd, Knights and Custodes are armies that were always intended and designed to work with allies. Sure, you can play them mono, but that is the anomalous option.

This basically states that you are not paying attention to what others are saying.
People don't want allies dead, they just don't want allies to be superior to taking a mono army.

Personally, I would like to see GW release a new type of "formation" set that rewards certain builds (more stereotypical) with CPs to encourage their use. For example, let's take the Dark Angels, a pure Ravenwing or Deathwing army should be rewarded, and maybe bring back the demi-company (but instead of free vehicles, they just get an increase in CPs...say +9 CPs if they have 2 HQs, 3 tac sqds, 1 Assault sqd, 1 Dev sqd). Let's see something other than Scouts for God's sake!

 bullyboy wrote:
The soup situation still exists and adding the basic 32 Guard to any elite Imperial force that doesn't generate a lot of CP is cheap (180pts) and does a secondary role of holding objectives in your own deployment zone and screening your elite troops. I don't have any but I'm starting to think I really should!

If Soup is to be fixed I think it's time that the big tourny organizers need to step up and send a message. You have the power to modify rules to your events, so step up and stamp out the worst offenders. What good does it do to host an event and then afterwards harp on about seeing so many of the same builds in your videos and podcasts (which you knew damn well you would)? Step up to the plate and place restrictions in army builds that limits this kind of stuff instead of waiting for GW to do so.

Unfortunately players are very distrusting of house rules. More so that bans their armies.

So Soup is a Ton of Guard and 1 IK now ? ...jeeze people

Audustum wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

I'm sorry, at what point did a single thing I say conflict with this? YOU said TSons didn't make it to the finals, when they did. The entire point about battlepoints supports my stance... not yours lol.

Because NOVA doesn't have a finals in the GT. There is a final round, but there isn't a 'finals'. Everyone plays in the final round.

But it's O.K., I think we're pretty used to you using your own definitions and caveats in other peoples' conversations.

Wait up, didn't this all start because your argument is that "people talk about top 10's and 15's the most so you can assume when someone asks for examples of something being good you can assume", and everyone who disagreed wasn't using common sense?

And now you're acting like you don't know what "finals" means in non-elimination events like 40k tournaments?

You're bull gaking hard anyway and once again, trying to backpedal. These were literally your words:

Audustum wrote:
Even the posts that weren't yours were specifically discussing the NOVA Finals Only as Sunny Side Up said:

Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb.

To which I posted the NOVA lists to show the first Tzaangoer bomb at all doesn't show up until fifth, not the finals.

If finals don't exist, then what the hell were you talking about here? You were literally the one who was shouting that the NOVA finals had to be a Tzaangor bomb for it to count, haha. That's why we are talking about finals right now, you were refering to it as such yourself? Lol.


At some point it's time to take a step back and realise, that you are no longer arguing on the sake of logic, though I doubt you ever were, your entire argument has devolved into ad hominem fallacies and emojis, you are arguing for the sake of not wanting to admit you were wrong. You could not look worse right now.

But it's O.K., I think we're pretty used to you using your own definitions and caveats in other peoples' conversations.

Awww, the irony of this statement after what we just saw. I almost feel bad for you deciding to try throw this barb in there, considering how badly it just backfired.

FAQ Feedback from the glasshammer lads:

https://www.facebook.com/GlasshammerGamingUK/videos/vb.2013607128911005/284378855504668/?type=2&theater¬if_t=page_post_reaction¬if_id=1538322377636157

Audustum wrote:

The data is all there. Click the download button and boot it in Excel, as you have to do with many google drive docs. Have fun!

Yeah, no, not pressing download on a random internet flame guy's Google Doc. There's a million clean ways you can host that data that are free. Go ahead and grab one.

It's data is a resource that has had countless hours put into it purely for the sake of the community, is literally hosted and delivered by Chapter Tactics (the podcast owned by the guy who literally writes the ITC rules), so yeah this "untrustworthy source" is just going to be another bs excuse that you stick to, but it's like your 5th excuse running when the examples you demanded were provided so I'm sure there's more to come. Will a screenshot suffice or will that make your harddrive explode too?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So,

Couple of questions to take away from the FAQ.

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.

Dumpster firing space marines has been a common theme in these FAQ. Stealth Buffing IG - also very common.

So, i've been trying to think of ways to make the new Raven Guard strat work... What i have currently is...

Shrike, 2 units of 6 Bolter Inceptors and 1 unit of 4 Plasma Inceptors... Then 1 Knight, 2 mini Knights and a Guard battalion... It just sucks that i realised as soon as i think of ways to take advantage of the free 9" move (still hoping it allows FLY units to... Fly...), it turns into costing so so so many points and you're then left with not a lot of options in the Marine dex to cover all the big gaps - thus leading you to needing something to hit a bit harder and some for of additional CP.

Right now, the only options for the Raven Guard strat imho is Jump Pack units. You could run a couple of big squads of Vanguard Vets (or assault marines lol) down the table with it for a turn 1 charge, but, now that you can't jump screens there is no real reason for you to spend all those points on the melee Marines when another unit can just do a whole lot more for you shooting.

 zedsdead wrote:
So Soup is a Ton of Guard and 1 IK now ? ...jeeze people

Up until this FAQ (not sure if it will change it) It was a single Guard battalion or a guard Brigade which functioned almost exclusively as a CP battery and Objective holder/chaff, a 600+pt IK and Blood Angels with their captains shenanigans. Add in details to boot. So yeah that would be soup.

Also possible BA just gets replaced with something else. Wonder if custodian bike captains will get resurface. They should be bit less CP intensive though also generate less so maybe not,.

tneva82 wrote:
Also possible BA just gets replaced with something else. Wonder if custodian bike captains will get resurface. They should be bit less CP intensive though also generate less so maybe not,.

They don't need CP to be really good, so I wouldn't be surprised.

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also possible BA just gets replaced with something else. Wonder if custodian bike captains will get resurface. They should be bit less CP intensive though also generate less so maybe not,.

They don't need CP to be really good, so I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not entirely sure why you would go with dawn eagles over just straight up more guard as they can bring the CP, firepower and the cheap bodies which with the fly nerf shut down CC hard.

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

That will resolve CP batteries, but not soup.

I'm sorry, but that's a really silly solution if you think it'll resolve soup. The 180 point 32 body IG detachment could bring 5 CP locked to IG only and it'll still show up for every elite army player. There might be a little bit of exploration away from it, perhaps to an Ad Mech Battalion, but cheap 1 wound bodies to sit in your deployment, secure objectives, screen, and bubblewrap will be a default feature of elite armies until it's outright banned (and with it, the competitive viability of a serious chunk of the Imperium's factions). Few of the smaller Imperial factions have an alternative to turn to internally, and given the superiority of massed firepower in an edition where everything can wound anything, IG will continue to have a place in every other army that lacks this resource.

Lemondish wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Still haven't understood the hatred for allies.

I can understand the hatred for feeling you have to ally in Guard specifically to win, but are we really upset that mono-Knights aren't a thing? That'd be horrid - both for the Knight player and their opponent.

Very few people are saying that.

My position is that allies in their current form are a problem. They shouldn't be removed entirely, but there should either be a disincentive to allying, or an incentive for being mono-faction.

The most common suggestion I've seen is segregating CP, so CP earned by one faction can't be used by a different faction.

That will resolve CP batteries, but not soup.

I'm sorry, but that's a really silly solution if you think it'll resolve soup. The 180 point 32 body IG detachment could bring 5 CP locked to IG only and it'll still show up for every elite army player. There might be a little bit of exploration away from it, perhaps to an Ad Mech Battalion, but cheap 1 wound bodies to sit in your deployment, secure objectives, screen, and bubblewrap will be a default feature of elite armies until it's outright banned (and with it, the competitive viability of a serious chunk of the Imperium's factions). Few of the smaller Imperial factions have an alternative to turn to internally, and given the superiority of massed firepower in an edition where everything can wound anything, IG will continue to have a place in every other army that lacks this resource.

Ok, so the main issue there isn't soup imo, it's the mechanics of 8e and their bias against elite infantry.

That is also something that needs dealing with absolutely!

 Stux wrote:


Ok, so the main issue there isn't soup imo, it's the mechanics of 8e and their bias against elite infantry.

That is also something that needs dealing with absolutely!

Absolutely. You want to see mono-armies? Then all armies need the same basic tools in their toolbox to build a decent foundation. Or the foundation needs to change.

The good thing is that the Fly change on charge is conceivably a decent first step. Don't need as many bodies to bubble wrap if the enemy is forced to engage the wrap anyway. Just need your army's flavour of screen to be as durable as the guard battalion for the points. Perhaps even more so, because they're giving up board control and screen replenishment opportunities that the guard gain from superior numbers.