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.
Spoletta wrote: By the way, i did some math and the top CP you can have while sporting a Castellan now is 20 CP, by using a Brigade and a battalion from Astra Militarum.
2 IG brigades simply do not fit together with a Castellan at 2000 points, let's not even talk about 1750 games.
Here, this is an example list trying to fit 2 IG brigades with a Castellan. This list is 2275 points, and you can see that even like this i had to take a lot of bad units. You can probably do it with 2000 by using a lot of FW models, but then the full extent of your firepower is literally only the castellan.
20 CP isn't that many when you need to fuel a Castellan. Also, this list has a lot of counters, so i'm actually starting to think that the era of the CP fueled castellans is gone from top tables.
You can get 33cp and a Castellan. You just have to use Battalions instead!
You can get 33cp and a Castellan. You just have to use Battalions instead!
Sure. And find opponent that allows it. most players meanwhile are limited at 3 dets so 13 CP for you. Especially true for tournaments where this sort of minmaxing is even a thing
You can get 33cp and a Castellan. You just have to use Battalions instead!
Sure. And find opponent that allows it. most players meanwhile are limited at 3 dets so 13 CP for you. Especially true for tournaments where this sort of minmaxing is even a thing
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
If one unit is better at generating CP, then they're not of equal power for their points! Granted, this is due the decision to tie CPs to troop slots being filled, which was probably a bad idea to begin with.
Yes, but we are not going to get a fundamental rewrite of a core rule of 8th edition. Also, it would be a daunting task to balance CP generation across armies. So for this example, my point still holds firm that no matter how perfect balance becomes with the current system the cheaper unit will always be picked do to CP generation. So even if SM became perfectly balanced with guardsmen the guardsmen is always going to be taken. The only solution is to make it so that IG can only spend CP on IG. This change would still give soup the benefit of unit flexibility but have the downside on worse army cohesion (multiple small pools of CP).
Or do the simple thing and base CP on game size. Say; 3 CP per 500 points, -1 per detachment that isn't at least a battalion and -1 for each faction after the first. Solves all the issues with CP batteries, gives mono-builds an advantage to compensate for not covering their faction's weaknesses out of an allied book, and doesn't penalize either elite or horde armies.
I just don't see a better answer to the problem.
Except that this solution is truly terrible.
So if i make a list out of a single outrider i get just one CP less compared to someone that organized his force in a brigade? Right now that difference is 11CP. It would defeat the concept of CPs, which are a way to reward organic forces.
The best solutions are 2:
1) Tie the CPs to the detachments
2) Detachments do not give a set amount of CPs, but it depends on the type of detachment and on the points you spent in it. So a brigade of SM gives the same CP per point as a brigade of IG.
So the CP penalty for Outriders and Spearheads and what-not needs to be bigger. I still say it's a better starting point than anything that lets a horde benefit from being able to squeeze two Brigades into a list and penalizes elite armies for not being able to do the same under a rule set that already favors hordes.
Especially since whatever system you devise for handing out CP based on the points invested in a detachment will encourage goofy gymnastics trying to get right on the division between one CP value and the next. 3rd had a similar problem with the "1 victory point per full 100 points in the unit" rule, it forced everyone to target unit builds at 199, 299, etc to avoid giving away VPs and resulted in weird scenarios where army A that lost five out of ten 200 point units would lose on VPs unless it completely tabled army B built out of 199 point units.
I don't know, maybe I should just accept that soup is working as GW indended and go buy the loyal 32 for the CPs. That feels like admitting defeat though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 10:09:52
Technically not, if someone wants to use that restriction it's up to them to request it.
But I take your point, mileage varies by meta.
And of course, this is a thought experiment anyway. I don't think this is a good list either, even with a Castellan!
So you bring that list. Good luck finding opponent. Might want to bring in REAL examples for the discussion. Might just as well bring in 3k list if you are making lists that don't follow the same rules as others.
Technically not, if someone wants to use that restriction it's up to them to request it.
But I take your point, mileage varies by meta.
And of course, this is a thought experiment anyway. I don't think this is a good list either, even with a Castellan!
So you bring that list. Good luck finding opponent. Might want to bring in REAL examples for the discussion. Might just as well bring in 3k list if you are making lists that don't follow the same rules as others.
Sigh.
We were having a discussion about the theoretical maximum Guard can bring.
So you bring that list. Good luck finding opponent. Might want to bring in REAL examples for the discussion. Might just as well bring in 3k list if you are making lists that don't follow the same rules as others.
Not everyone plays with those tournament houserules all the time. That it is case in your area doesn't mean it is everywhere.
Technically not, if someone wants to use that restriction it's up to them to request it.
But I take your point, mileage varies by meta.
And of course, this is a thought experiment anyway. I don't think this is a good list either, even with a Castellan!
So you bring that list. Good luck finding opponent. Might want to bring in REAL examples for the discussion. Might just as well bring in 3k list if you are making lists that don't follow the same rules as others.
Sigh.
We were having a discussion about the theoretical maximum Guard can bring.
If you aren't adding into CONTEXT...Well theoretical maximum is actually infinite. Without even factoring in regenerative abilities etc.
Calculating maximum is impossible if you don't know context. How many detachements and how many points for example...
According the previous list i posted, the maximum number of CPs at 2000 points with 3 detachments and no regeneration for an IG list that wants to bring a Castellan, is 20 CP.
Do you think that these CPs would be enough to fuel both the castellan and the IG? Do you think it could be competitive?
Honestly i don't see it winning anything serious. Folds to Aeldari and to anything that can shutdown the Castellan. You are basically banking on the firepower of the Castellan, which even with the Raven buff is still quite randomic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 11:12:34
Technically not, if someone wants to use that restriction it's up to them to request it.
But I take your point, mileage varies by meta.
And of course, this is a thought experiment anyway. I don't think this is a good list either, even with a Castellan!
So you bring that list. Good luck finding opponent. Might want to bring in REAL examples for the discussion. Might just as well bring in 3k list if you are making lists that don't follow the same rules as others.
Sigh.
We were having a discussion about the theoretical maximum Guard can bring.
If you aren't adding into CONTEXT...Well theoretical maximum is actually infinite. Without even factoring in regenerative abilities etc.
Calculating maximum is impossible if you don't know context. How many detachements and how many points for example...
According the previous list i posted, the maximum number of CPs at 2000 points with 3 detachments and no regeneration for an IG list that wants to bring a Castellan, is 20 CP.
Do you think that these CPs would be enough to fuel both the castellan and the IG? Do you think it could be competitive?
Honestly i don't see it winning anything serious. Folds to Aeldari and to anything that can shutdown the Castellan. You are basically banking on the firepower of the Castellan, which even with the Raven buff is still quite randomic.
I don't think anything that will slag primaris tank and leman russ a turn without even full gun is randomic. More of it can only deal 2 units a turn that's issue and that's for vehicles.
For CP...Well castellan will at full usage eat 6 a turn so pretty thin for IG if you plan to use 3 turns. For 2 turns it should be. IG needs just few rerolls for 2 turn plans.
So basically making quick mock up for example catachan brigade with 2xcommander, 1xpsyker, 6 squads of infantry(4xplasma gun, 2xmortar), 10 crusaders, priest, harker, 3 artemia hellhounds, 3 basilisk. cadian bat with 1xcommander, 1xpsyker, 3xinfantry(heavy bolters) and castellan. Needs 10 pts trimming somewhere.
I know my orks would hate that list but orks hate pretty much anything that's not Grey Knights Not used to super competive builds as my lists are more for casual(lot more...) but how would that sounds? The worry I have is it's rather static and apart from castellan how much AT it has...
In all honesty I suspect it will be Guard brigade, Guard battalion and Castellan as it gices the Guard a bit more flexibility in unit choice.
Thats still not exactly a slouching in the CP department with 17 CP.
-2 for knight and plus 6 over the game. So the main ingredient for Imperium soup stays the same.
10 crusaders after the nerf could be not that good.
Artemis hellhounds are utterly broken, but they are also FW, so i don't expect GW to go easy on them.
alextroy wrote: No. You can only deploy a unit once, and the that is when you use the stratagem on them.
That's not technically true, there is still no rule stopping you from declaring two stratagems (even the same one) when something happens. And the rules have no concept of an MTG like stack.
However regardless no event is ever going to allow this. and I don't think anyone is going to successfully argue its use without looking like a degenerate ab-human.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 12:00:14
Edit: gave this another look and I think your saying that units from books that cannot generate as many CP must be statistically improved the exact ratio of effectiveness per lack of CP generation..... if this is what you're trying to argue then it would require an entire repointing of ever unit in 40k and add another layer for GW to attempt to balance.
Yes, that's what I meant. Balance is never perfect, doesn't mean it could not be improved.
This would be impossible to do and even if done perfectly would still not stop the issues that soup would always be 100% better not to mention you could now still have your statistically underwhelming units with cheap CP super charging now buffed units that don't gain CP as well
But then you would have spent part of your point for those crap troops, thus weakening your army this way. The situation now is as Karol says, the Guard is just cheaper, better and generates more CP. Limiting soup will not fix that, it just hurts armies that are not guard, as they cannot even compensate their lameness by allying some guard.
I really do not agree that soup is inherently a problem and always better. Yes, there is some extreme soup builds that are better than most (or even all) monobuilds, but I'd argue that most soup combinations are actually weaker than mono guard. If you punish soup in general while leaving guard as it is, then it just widens that gap.
Your not seeing the issue with your idea though. If you simply make unit B better because of there lack of CP generation and unit A worse with the assumption of generating CP for army B then you're once again disproportionately harming army A. You would need to make the strategems of equal power for both army A and B for this to become valid.
So to balance the game the way you want you need to
1. A rebalance the cost of every unit in the game to also account for its ability to generate CP 2. Rebalance every stratagem in the game so that they are of equal value
This is a huge task that let's be honest would never be done till a new edition and they're not going to do this big of a change to 8th considering how well its selling
Instead, you could simply make army A and army B not be able to share CP then do small points adjustments as needed.
Also not sure how you can not agree that soup is inherently more powerful....... look at the number of soup armies in the top of tournaments and the number of mono guard...... there's a reason why all the top players for all the top factions are bringing soup and not mono guard lists. Take one look at nova and explain to me how soup isn't the issue 10/10 of the top lists are soup
They have already started in the right direction by making powerful stratagems cost more.
With Stratagems having a proper cost - can you give me a legitimate reason why command points shouldn't be equally granted across whatever army you take?
OFC you can't - because it is unfair for armies to have unequal access to command points.
That really just ends the discussion - whatever GW is doing - they clearly aren't trying to make a balanced game. They seem to like it unbalanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 14:21:47
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
They have already started in the right direction by making powerful stratagems cost more.
With Stratagems having a proper cost - can you give me a legitimate reason why command points shouldn't be equally granted across whatever army you take?
OFC you can't - because it is unfair for armies to have unequal access to command points.
That really just ends the discussion - whatever GW is doing - they clearly aren't trying to make a balanced game. They seem to like it unbalanced.
If by equally granted you mean "everyone starts the game with x CP"it's not bad but there is one issue with it. The entire detachment system is designed to reward you for taking a more fleshed out army. For example, just taking 3 LOW will not grant you as much CP as taking a brigade that gives a more accurate description of what a force would typically look like in the fluff. If everyone gained equal CP then there would need to be some new detachment system. But i am not necessarily against an equal CP pool id just have to be sold on what the replacements for detachments would be
The general premise was that you start out with a set number of command points, and depending on your choices, you lose command points, not gain them.
So if you bring brigades and battalions you still have 15.
But if you bring anything else, your count goes down.
It's not a bad idea, but the big thing it does is create a CP cap, and also give elite armies a functional amount of CP whether they bring guard or not. I personally think it needs some work but it's also an improvement on the current system.
Ultimately, armies like guard aren't just a battery. People saying this (ad nauseam) clearly don't play competitively, because the utility of cheap bodies that can receive orders, and the ability to slap on a primaris psyker, as well as season to taste with the rest of the ridiculously good guard range, is massive.
It's standard to run it as Cadian and bring the loyal 32. You'll see it at every tournament. I encountered a list running the loyal 32 at my last tournament, and we had a good laugh about it. He's a super nice guy, played him a couple times before, and it's always a fun game. His exact comment was, "yeah, it's stupid, but it's also the current game. I'm going to use it until i can't." The fact of the matter is, the value is too great. Even if Guard offered 0 CP, it's impossible to pass up mortars, bodies, psychic denial, objective holding, for about 180 points. For the cost of 1 Armiger you get all of that?
I've encountered quite a few lists that (intelligently) expand on the guard they bring. Basilisks are a no brainer, people still deep strike plasma, IG vehicles are still present in lists (especially hellhounds), mortar teams will always be represented, Catachan straken is also there for forward leaning objective holders, etc.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: Xeno's suggestion was detailed in another thread.
The general premise was that you start out with a set number of command points, and depending on your choices, you lose command points, not gain them.
So if you bring brigades and battalions you still have 15.
But if you bring anything else, your count goes down.
It's not a bad idea, but the big thing it does is create a CP cap, and also give elite armies a functional amount of CP whether they bring guard or not. I personally think it needs some work but it's also an improvement on the current system.
Ultimately, armies like guard aren't just a battery. People saying this (ad nauseam) clearly don't play competitively, because the utility of cheap bodies that can receive orders, and the ability to slap on a primaris psyker, as well as season to taste with the rest of the ridiculously good guard range, is massive.
It's standard to run it as Cadian and bring the loyal 32. You'll see it at every tournament. I encountered a list running the loyal 32 at my last tournament, and we had a good laugh about it. He's a super nice guy, played him a couple times before, and it's always a fun game. His exact comment was, "yeah, it's stupid, but it's also the current game. I'm going to use it until i can't." The fact of the matter is, the value is too great. Even if Guard offered 0 CP, it's impossible to pass up mortars, bodies, psychic denial, objective holding, for about 180 points. For the cost of 1 Armiger you get all of that?
I've encountered quite a few lists that (intelligently) expand on the guard they bring. Basilisks are a no brainer, people still deep strike plasma, IG vehicles are still present in lists (especially hellhounds), mortar teams will always be represented, Catachan straken is also there for forward leaning objective holders, etc.
Obviously, they are more than just a CP batteries... But that does not change the fact that that has been their main point in the recent meta. They simply screen/ hold objectives while BA smash captains and Knights remove the board. But what you are expanding into is not the top common theme at tournaments. Top lists have taken catachans in minimal numbers. Most top lists do not bring basilisks, deep striking plasma or vehicles outside of FW hellhounds. Actually if you go look at the BAO stats posted on the FLG website the more points of guard you brought your win percentage as well as points per round actually fell. This as well as looking at the top lists show that guard was mainly taken as CP regeneration and backfield objective holders and sometimes small elements were added in. I suspect this will change now that you need to bring more to gain more CP but I highly doubt that the main focus of using guard to generate CP and funneling them into a different codexes strategems is going to change much.
... I highly doubt that the main focus of using guard to generate CP and funneling them into a different codexes strategems is going to change much.
with the regen nearly extinct, I think it's going to be channelled into as much of a T1/T2 alpha as possible, can't afford a long drawn out engagement .. so better to annihilate as much as possible asap
Screening, Holding objectives, psychic denial, these are all more valuable than people give them credit for. And I don't agree in regards to the minimum guard. Look at the top 5 BAO.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: Screening, Holding objectives, psychic denial, these are all more valuable than people give them credit for. And I don't agree in regards to the minimum guard. Look at the top 5 BAO.
Like i said you will see every once in a while someone will bring slightly more guard but that doesnt take away from the actual stats of the tournament. Lists that brought majority guard had a lower win percentage and points per round then list that brought minimum batteries at BAO. This was then shown to be effective once again at nova where guard was not the majority of the tp lists
... I highly doubt that the main focus of using guard to generate CP and funneling them into a different codexes strategems is going to change much.
with the regen nearly extinct, I think it's going to be channelled into as much of a T1/T2 alpha as possible, can't afford a long drawn out engagement .. so better to annihilate as much as possible asap
It's always been this way. Games rarely last longer than 4 turns. EVER. The only way that happens is if both armies are playing passive.
Marmatag wrote: Screening, Holding objectives, psychic denial, these are all more valuable than people give them credit for. And I don't agree in regards to the minimum guard. Look at the top 5 BAO.
Like i said you will see every once in a while someone will bring slightly more guard but that doesnt take away from the actual stats of the tournament. Lists that brought majority guard had a lower win percentage and points per round then list that brought minimum batteries at BAO. This was then shown to be effective once again at nova where guard was not the majority of the tp lists
LOL you are talking about people bringing GAKING BRIGADES man. This isn't "MIN GAURD" Min gaurd is a battalion with no mortars.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 15:31:45
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Top 5 at any tournament is. Weak sample size, and it ignores the one thing Dakka hates to admit - sometimes it's not about the list, it's about the general.
They have already started in the right direction by making powerful stratagems cost more.
With Stratagems having a proper cost - can you give me a legitimate reason why command points shouldn't be equally granted across whatever army you take?
OFC you can't - because it is unfair for armies to have unequal access to command points.
That really just ends the discussion - whatever GW is doing - they clearly aren't trying to make a balanced game. They seem to like it unbalanced.
If by equally granted you mean "everyone starts the game with x CP"it's not bad but there is one issue with it. The entire detachment system is designed to reward you for taking a more fleshed out army. For example, just taking 3 LOW will not grant you as much CP as taking a brigade that gives a more accurate description of what a force would typically look like in the fluff. If everyone gained equal CP then there would need to be some new detachment system. But i am not necessarily against an equal CP pool id just have to be sold on what the replacements for detachments would be
Funny how this exact conversation happened in this very thread not 20 posts back.
According the previous list i posted, the maximum number of CPs at 2000 points with 3 detachments and no regeneration for an IG list that wants to bring a Castellan, is 20 CP.
Do you think that these CPs would be enough to fuel both the castellan and the IG? Do you think it could be competitive?
Honestly i don't see it winning anything serious. Folds to Aeldari and to anything that can shutdown the Castellan. You are basically banking on the firepower of the Castellan, which even with the Raven buff is still quite randomic.
Brigade, Battallion, Super-Heavy Det with 2 Armigers and the Castellan = 23 cp. I won’t even bother debunking the rest of the nonsense in this thread when you can’t even get the most rudimentary facts straight.
They have already started in the right direction by making powerful stratagems cost more.
With Stratagems having a proper cost - can you give me a legitimate reason why command points shouldn't be equally granted across whatever army you take?
OFC you can't - because it is unfair for armies to have unequal access to command points.
That really just ends the discussion - whatever GW is doing - they clearly aren't trying to make a balanced game. They seem to like it unbalanced.
If by equally granted you mean "everyone starts the game with x CP"it's not bad but there is one issue with it. The entire detachment system is designed to reward you for taking a more fleshed out army. For example, just taking 3 LOW will not grant you as much CP as taking a brigade that gives a more accurate description of what a force would typically look like in the fluff. If everyone gained equal CP then there would need to be some new detachment system. But i am not necessarily against an equal CP pool id just have to be sold on what the replacements for detachments would be
Funny how this exact conversation happened in this very thread not 20 posts back.
Id have to quit my job if i wanted to keep up with every post in these threads
... I highly doubt that the main focus of using guard to generate CP and funneling them into a different codexes strategems is going to change much.
with the regen nearly extinct, I think it's going to be channelled into as much of a T1/T2 alpha as possible, can't afford a long drawn out engagement .. so better to annihilate as much as possible asap
It's always been this way. Games rarely last longer than 4 turns. EVER. The only way that happens is if both armies are playing passive.
Marmatag wrote: Screening, Holding objectives, psychic denial, these are all more valuable than people give them credit for. And I don't agree in regards to the minimum guard. Look at the top 5 BAO.
Like i said you will see every once in a while someone will bring slightly more guard but that doesnt take away from the actual stats of the tournament. Lists that brought majority guard had a lower win percentage and points per round then list that brought minimum batteries at BAO. This was then shown to be effective once again at nova where guard was not the majority of the tp lists
LOL you are talking about people bringing GAKING BRIGADES man. This isn't "MIN GAURD" Min gaurd is a battalion with no mortars.
go look at the lists and the data published by FLG on the BAO. Lists with guard as the main detachment (more points then other detachments) finished with a lower win percentage and points per round on average then with lists that did not take IG as a primary detachment. Actually, primary IG did not finish in the top 5 factions for either of those statistics. Statistics show that your list is more powerful the less guard you include. Until you provide actual statistics to back your claim your not going to change anyone's mind
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 16:20:41
If that is true (i'd like to see the source) but what does that mean if the winning undefeated list are sporting IG brigades as their primary and often include more IG than the minimum? It clearly can't mean that putting more IG in your list is bad for your win rate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/04 16:32:40
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: If that is true (i'd like to see the source) but what does that mean if the winning undefeated list are sporting IG brigades as their primary and often include more IG than the minimum? It clearly can't mean that putting more IG in your list is bad for your win rate.
I've posted the link plenty of times. Ill did through later in the day when I have more time and pull it up again for you. If you have time it was posted on the FLG website a couple days after the BAO
The problem is you can't look at the field and draw a conclusion in regards to balance. And, i've seen that data, it did not account for "percentage used," it just had if a faction was used, at all. You are flatly misrepresenting this data. I would suggest you provide what you have.
You have to filter out the players who lose all, or most of their games. There's a reason people look at the lists that finish in the top 20 or so. Because those lists performed well. I don't care if B. Billy Bumshoes brought a "fluffy" list and got stomped out. That doesn't mean anything in regards to game balance. And the bottom of any tournament has a ton of total crap lists, especially if it's a big event.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 16:44:18
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Not used to super competive builds as my lists are more for casual(lot more...) but how would that sounds? The worry I have is it's rather static and apart from castellan how much 
