FAQ is here! What do we think?

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.

**Ice_can**

Kdash wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

Stux wrote:
An army with a minimum battalion of Guard is not a Guard army. I am not playing Guard at that point.
I agree but as my original post that you quoted; people are taking more points of Guard than any other faction in their army and winning. They are winning a lot. So much that they are the second highest performing faction last month and have had one of (if not the) best streak since their codex dropped.

Again though, 970 points of Brigade and then the rest of the points split between 2 other “powerhouse” factions isn’t an indication of Guard themselves being the reason why they are in the top 3. They simply provide the CP and bodies required for the Castellan and BA to carry the game.
If Admech could supply the same, for the same cost (costs them 1032 points if you go cheapest everything – for 42 models lol) then you’d see them appearing as well. But, prior to the FAQ you can’t get an Admech brigade alongside a Blood Angels battalion and a Castellan.

If you took away the 3++, alongside the faq changes, then, I’d argue that you’d see Guard drop out of the top 3 list pretty quickly.

Nope the FAQ changes made guard more mandatory than ever for Imperium armies as knights especially and custodes need that cheap CP. Guard are still the cheapest CP in Imperium soup.
Qith the nerf to fly keyword thise cheap 5+sv dudes just became a wall of no charging for you.
The FAQ didn't make guard weaker it made them more necessary than before for an imperium army.

**Stux**

An Actual Englishman wrote:

Stux wrote:
I don't really have the option if I want to be competitive though, that's my point. It's not an option in a competitive game if it's a bad option. Fluffy choices WITHIN a faction, fair enough. But taking a faction mono shouldn't be just written off as a fluff choice.

Yes, Orks are in a bad place right now hah. But I'm talking about balance philosophy going forward. Also hopefully you'll get some good toys in the new book to help that!

I was referring more to past editions. Orks are better now (as bad as that is) than they have been in a long time.

Apologies, as I've said above I think "fluffy" is probably the wrong terminology. It has too many other and existing connotations. What I mean is that, as above, you're choosing not to take the most efficient option for the points if you go mono (most likely, currently), for that reason, you shouldn't expect to win every GT you attend with your "fluffy" (might not actually be fluffy) IG list. In the same way that if I took a Warbiker spam list to a GT, I wouldn't expect to win.

Right, but by the same token if you take Orks at all, you're choosing not to take the most efficient option for the points. You should have taken Imperium Soup or Aeldari Soup.

**An Actual Englishman**

Stux wrote:
Right, but by the same token if you take Orks at all, you're choosing not to take the most efficient option for the points. You should have taken Imperium Soup or Aeldari Soup.

It's not the same token though? Not IF (as my proposal) Orks and other factions that HAVE to be mono are balanced against those that don't.

**Stux**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Stux wrote:
Right, but by the same token if you take Orks at all, you're choosing not to take the most efficient option for the points. You should have taken Imperium Soup or Aeldari Soup.

It's not the same token though? Not IF (as my proposal) Orks and other factions that HAVE to be mono are balanced against those that don't.

But if mono Guard doesn't have to be balanced why does mono Orks? Why not just say 'if you're playing Orks, it's for fluff reasons because they aren't competitive?'.

I think we just have to agree to disagree here, as it's just going in circles at this point.

We have the same issue with the current system, just different ideas on how it should be approached.

**Kdash**

Ice_can wrote:
Kdash wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:

Stux wrote:
An army with a minimum battalion of Guard is not a Guard army. I am not playing Guard at that point.
I agree but as my original post that you quoted; people are taking more points of Guard than any other faction in their army and winning. They are winning a lot. So much that they are the second highest performing faction last month and have had one of (if not the) best streak since their codex dropped.

Again though, 970 points of Brigade and then the rest of the points split between 2 other “powerhouse” factions isn’t an indication of Guard themselves being the reason why they are in the top 3. They simply provide the CP and bodies required for the Castellan and BA to carry the game.
If Admech could supply the same, for the same cost (costs them 1032 points if you go cheapest everything – for 42 models lol) then you’d see them appearing as well. But, prior to the FAQ you can’t get an Admech brigade alongside a Blood Angels battalion and a Castellan.

If you took away the 3++, alongside the faq changes, then, I’d argue that you’d see Guard drop out of the top 3 list pretty quickly.

Nope the FAQ changes made guard more mandatory than ever for Imperium armies as knights especially and custodes need that cheap CP. Guard are still the cheapest CP in Imperium soup.
Qith the nerf to fly keyword thise cheap 5+sv dudes just became a wall of no charging for you.
The FAQ didn't make guard weaker it made them more necessary than before for an imperium army.

Oh, I agree that Guard are even more of a mainstay for Knight support than they were before, but, the second half of my point was theoretical.
IF, in addition to the FAQ changes, Knights were capped at 4++, I firmly believe that we’d see a reduction in the amount of Guard in lists, below levels before the FAQ. This is simply because that single Castellan Knight no longer needs 6CP a turn, it only needs 3. This then opens up options for other things.
I also think, that at 4++ lone Knight soup lists will struggle more significantly, as a 4++ Knight is significantly easier to kill.

**An Actual Englishman**

Stux wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Stux wrote:
Right, but by the same token if you take Orks at all, you're choosing not to take the most efficient option for the points. You should have taken Imperium Soup or Aeldari Soup.

It's not the same token though? Not IF (as my proposal) Orks and other factions that HAVE to be mono are balanced against those that don't.

But if mono Guard doesn't have to be balanced why does mono Orks? Why not just say 'if you're playing Orks, it's for fluff reasons because they aren't competitive?'.

I think we just have to agree to disagree here, as it's just going in circles at this point.

We have the same issue with the current system, just different ideas on how it should be approached.

The reason is simple; under the current rules Orks can't soup while IG can. Its as simple as that. The player is CHOOSING not to soup so is choosing to nerf themselves. And again, I'll remind you of previous editions where we did play Orks for fluff reasons because they certainly weren't competitive.

Bear in mind also that I never said mono IG should not be competitive, I said they need to be balanced in the context of their ability to soup.

**Stux**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Stux wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Stux wrote:
Right, but by the same token if you take Orks at all, you're choosing not to take the most efficient option for the points. You should have taken Imperium Soup or Aeldari Soup.

It's not the same token though? Not IF (as my proposal) Orks and other factions that HAVE to be mono are balanced against those that don't.

But if mono Guard doesn't have to be balanced why does mono Orks? Why not just say 'if you're playing Orks, it's for fluff reasons because they aren't competitive?'.

I think we just have to agree to disagree here, as it's just going in circles at this point.

We have the same issue with the current system, just different ideas on how it should be approached.

The reason is simple; under the current rules Orks can't soup while IG can. Its as simple as that. The player is CHOOSING not to soup so is choosing to nerf themselves. And again, I'll remind you of previous editions where we did play Orks for fluff reasons because they certainly weren't competitive.

Bear in mind also that I never said mono IG should not be competitive, I said they need to be balanced in the context of their ability to soup.

And I want to approach it from the other angle. Armies should be balanced as separate factions, and then allies as a thing in itself needs to be balanced in a way that preserves that.

**Kdash**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Kdash wrote:

Sure, mono factions should be able to compete, and, I still think in some cases they can compete.
The only reason why we don’t see mono factions taking the top spots at big events like Nova etc, is because people want to win. The more people that want to win (or get close to winning) the more of the “meta” lists will be taken. This then has a negative impact on mono faction representation, as you’re more likely to see soup at the top if 75% of the players take it, than see someone from the 25% making it up there (percentages are there as an example).

As for Orkz, well, we know that 2 things hamper them currently. Chess clocks and no codex.

I’d also argue that the decision to play “fluffy” doesn’t exactly mean mono-faction. How many novels have you read – or even codex timeline events, that DON’T contain instances of “soup” forces taking on the enemy? And by this, you have to take into account that Blood Angels and Ultramarines fighting together (for example) is still “soup”. For example, the vast majority of codex timeline events in the Craftworlds codex tells of events where either several craftworlds have worked together, Drukari have helped, Harlequinns have helped or Ynnari have helped (sometimes all of them together).

Chess clocks are only a problem for a player who relies on the time running out to win games, not that this discussion is around Orks.

You missed my point here but I can see why, poor wording on my part. 'Fluffy' might be the wrong word so let's change that. Let's change the word 'fluffy' to 'not optimal'. My point is that, if you decide to take a list that is not optimal (because you want to run mono Guard and don't want to ally in any of the other factions' units at your disposal) you should understand that you are not playing an optimal list. Orks, Tau, and Necrons cannot ally with anyone. The rules of the game don't allow it in matched play. So those factions who cannot ally need to be balanced, not against "Codex: Adeptus Astartes" or "Codex: Astra Millitarum" or "Codex: Heretic Astartes" but against "Imperium", "Chaos", "Aeldari" and "Tyranid". This is to achieve actual game-wide balance. OR soup needs to be removed from the game.

In order to balance T’au etc against “soup” you need to define “soup”. Because, T’au can certainly beat a soup list of say, Guard, SoB and Salamanders. Necrons can beat a list of BA, DA and Guard etc etc. Just because T’au etc -currently- struggle to kill a 3++ Castellan that is buffed by 5 CP a turn, doesn’t mean they can’t compete with soup.

By "soup" I mean "the most competitive soup list that can be brought to the table for Aeldari, Chaos, Imperium and Tyranids".

Ok, so, while I agree that the mono-dex factions need to be balanced against Soup possibilities, you also need to balance the individual dex’s that make up the soup possibilities in order for them to compete, as a mono faction, against everything else.

Unfortunately, this then becomes a never ending circle of the Soup dexs coming out on top and the mono-dexs struggling. As you rightly say, a mono-guard list shouldn’t be penalised for not taking soup, just as much as a dex that can’t soup shouldn’t be penalised.

Therefore, the issue lies with changing the concept of soup itself, not, the individual aspects within it.

The problem of the definition of soup being the “most competitive” version possible, is that, the other 99% of soup lists get hit with the same stigma. I should be able to run my idea of my Raven Guard being supported by the Admech of their forgeworld, alongside a House Mortan Knight Crusader (for example). This is the problem faced when people complain about “soup” in general. They look at the small percentage of possible lists at the expense of all the others and call for a nerf that would impact the 99% more than the 1%.

Yes, the Castellan/BA/Guard mix needs to be addressed (just as Ynnari does), and yes, the FAQ helps by removing the BA aspect of the mix, but, does nothing to prevent the remaining grouping from being top tier. So, we then have to look at addressing the remaining individual units within said configuration. Rumour has it the Castellan is getting a fairly reasonable points increase in CA (though the term “fair” is different for everyone). Once that is done, we then have to consider the “next steps” if CA doesn’t fix the problem.

Using the term “soup” to address certain, very specific builds, is part of the reason why there is a massive disconnect between what GW considers soup, what most players consider soup, and what individuals on here class as soup.

If we want to talk about specifically balancing codices against Guard/Castellan/maybe BA, then we need to keep that conversation clearly separate from the general interpretation of soup, which is “Imperium/Aeldari/Chaos/Tyranid”.

**An Actual Englishman**

Stux wrote:
And I want to approach it from the other angle. Armies should be balanced as separate factions, and then allies as a thing in itself needs to be balanced in a way that preserves that.

Apologies if I wasn't clear but this would be my preference too, I just think that it's less likely and much more difficult. I'm not sure GW would be capable if I'm honest.

**tneva82**

Stux wrote:

And I want to approach it from the other angle. Armies should be balanced as separate factions, and then allies as a thing in itself needs to be balanced in a way that preserves that.

Well pretty much only way for that would be to either restrict options you can ally with(no allying lone castellans) or add mandatory tax(no more loyal 32. Make it more like mandatory 5 squads, then couple leman russ, chimera etc). Both aiming to avoid cherry picking best parts.

Alternatively you need huge free bonuses for mono bonuses. Forget chapter trait level. Think bigger.

**Stux**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Stux wrote:
And I want to approach it from the other angle. Armies should be balanced as separate factions, and then allies as a thing in itself needs to be balanced in a way that preserves that.

Apologies if I wasn't clear but this would be my preference too, I just think that it's less likely and much more difficult. I'm not sure GW would be capable if I'm honest.

Ok, well that's totally fair!

Yes, I think it would be too seismic a change to happen mid-edition. Honestly I wouldn't be massively surprised if 9e was being talked about before the end of next year though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Stux wrote:

And I want to approach it from the other angle. Armies should be balanced as separate factions, and then allies as a thing in itself needs to be balanced in a way that preserves that.

Well pretty much only way for that would be to either restrict options you can ally with(no allying lone castellans) or add mandatory tax(no more loyal 32. Make it more like mandatory 5 squads, then couple leman russ, chimera etc). Both aiming to avoid cherry picking best parts.

Alternatively you need huge free bonuses for mono bonuses. Forget chapter trait level. Think bigger.

I would prefer the former, I think it's much easier to implement.

Something like limiting allies to Auxiliary detachments and a single patrol detachment, and making Super Heavy Auxiliary -1 CP if it's not your primary faction.

With some exceptions for things like Inquisitors of course.

**Reemule**

Andykp wrote:
The state this thread has descended to highlights exactly how toxic the tournament scene is. It needs separating from the casual game and given its own rule set.

Actually I see casual play as being far more toxic. At a tourney the expectation if your going to play by the rules. At casual play, there are no rules, and if you try to point out that there is and its in your favor, your being toxic, and expected to stop, and smile as they screw you over. Cause you don't want to be toxic do you?

**Sterling191**

Reemule wrote:

Actually I see casual play as being far more toxic. At a tourney the expectation if your going to play by the rules. At casual play, there are no rules, and if you try to point out that there is and its in your favor, your being toxic, and expected to stop, and smile as they screw you over. Cause you don't want to be toxic do you?

That's not casual play. That's playing with jackasses.

**vipoid**

Stux wrote:
And I want to approach it from the other angle. Armies should be balanced as separate factions, and then allies as a thing in itself needs to be balanced in a way that preserves that.

^
This.

**Lemondish**

People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

**Xenomancers**

Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

Greyknights can be taken as allies...and they aren't.

Don't want more books like greyknights? Maybe don't write terrible rules for an army and continuously nerf it.

**Reemule**

Sterling191 wrote:
Reemule wrote:

Actually I see casual play as being far more toxic. At a tourney the expectation if your going to play by the rules. At casual play, there are no rules, and if you try to point out that there is and its in your favor, your being toxic, and expected to stop, and smile as they screw you over. Cause you don't want to be toxic do you?

That's not casual play. That's playing with jackasses.

is a Jackass kind of the Casual Play equivalent of the theoretical toxic tourney player?

**Jidmah**

Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

Does it really matter what people call the thing that is causing huge problems for cross-codex balance?

Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies. This is universally true for any kind of game where you have list-building from separate pools of game pieces. Therefore we need drawbacks for taking allies.

The hard part is making the drawbacks big enough to matter and small enough to not kill off allies.

**jaxor1983**

Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

We've not had a period of 40k that had no allies + this more responsive GW. They seem to be floundering at trying to balance multiple factions in the same army. Why not simplify and try to achieve something resembling balance?

**Reemule**

So I've not heard too many people say they want Allies dead.

But nearly universally, people seem to want Allies to not offer benefits over mono faction play.

**Karol**

Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

How does the ally system help the GK exactly? It doesn't make GK better. It sure does not make people want to play and buy GK, which maybe would have made GW fix their rules. All it does is make the GK mono list even worse, and give everyone playing GK an even greater feeling of being screwd, while their friends claim how their ravellan is there for guard regiment fluff.

If ally were droped GW would at least have to fix the bad factions. Now they can just wink at you and say that if you buy 1000pts of custodes and 800pts of knights, your GK army is going to be doing ok. In a casual open play setting of course.

**Stux**

Reemule wrote:
So I've not heard too many people say they want Allies dead.

But nearly universally, people seem to want Allies to not offer benefits over mono faction play.

Yes, basically this.

The position that is mildly more contentious is that being able to ally is inherently a benefit, and therefore needs a built in penalty to balance that.

**Crimson Devil**

Jidmah wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

Does it really matter what people call the thing that is causing huge problems for cross-codex balance?

Language has a huge affect on how people perceive a subject. So using the term "soup" in this context implies a negative and allies doesn't.

**Jidmah**

I somehow doubt that "soup" implies anything but hot, tasty liquid.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Karol wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

How does the ally system help the GK exactly? It doesn't make GK better.

Is that a serious post? They get several benefits with Allies like decent Anti-Tank for a reasonable price and CP to use on their already too expensive Stratagems or actual bodies to hold objectives, as the idea of Grey Knights holding out to do that is an absolute silly thought.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

Only because the internal balance of those codices is garbage. If they weren't, Guard wouldn't be the crutch they are for Imperial armies.

**Crimson Devil**

Jidmah wrote:
I somehow doubt that "soup" implies anything but hot, tasty liquid.

In the context of this thread "soup" is a negative term. In this context, it essentially means "unfair advantage".

**vipoid**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
I somehow doubt that "soup" implies anything but hot, tasty liquid.

In the context of this thread "soup" is a negative term. In this context, it essentially means "unfair advantage".

The only reason 'Soup' is a negative term is because GW has utterly failed to balance allies.

**Rulvek**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

How does the ally system help the GK exactly? It doesn't make GK better.

Is that a serious post? They get several benefits with Allies like decent Anti-Tank for a reasonable price and CP to use on their already too expensive Stratagems or actual bodies to hold objectives, as the idea of Grey Knights holding out to do that is an absolute silly thought.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

Only because the internal balance of those codices is garbage. If they weren't, Guard wouldn't be the crutch they are for Imperial armies.

Hmmm, so, to play with GK, what you have to do is play with IG.
Is that how you say the allies help to play GK?

**ClockworkZion**

A thought just struck me regarding the Imperium's poor faction to faction balance: isn't that the point of what Guilliman did following the Heresy. I mean, if we're speaking from a narrative standpoint, the fact that monofaction armies in the Imperium are so terrible actually lends well to the flavor of the game since they're supposed to be horribly lopsided to prevent another Horus Heresy situation.

That said, I wish we could have this AND good game balance so that you aren't hosed for latching onto a single faction over others, but if GW was trying to make narrative statements using rules for the Imperium they seem to have nailed it.

**Jidmah**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

Only because the internal balance of those codices is garbage. If they weren't, Guard wouldn't be the crutch they are for Imperial armies.

Tell me, how does one fix the internal balance of 10 imperial codices in a way that not one of them has something worse than any of the others?

Because as soon as someone has something even slightly better than another, you can bet your hat it will be allied in.