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.

 Jidmah wrote:

Uh, my argument is that this is a problem? Having more access to more things is a form of power.

So how is my space marine army that does not include Guilliman because there is Guilliman in the codex? Sorry, this is just crazy, it's not how it works and definitely how it should work. You pay points for the stuff you actually take and those points should reflect the power of the thing regardless of the source book.

For harlequins as a very limited mono-army to be just as powerful as an all-round mono-army like CSM, their units need to be more powerful than comparable units from Codex: CSM - because they don't have psyker to buff them/debuff the enemy, daemon princes to flip some tanks or predators and helbrutes to blow up tanks from a distance.

Harlequins have psykers. So let's assume we balance this in your way. CSM biker and other fast units as well as their psykers are worse for their points than Harlequin equivalents, because the CSM have access to other units too. So now a CSM player makes some sort of fast moving army with those elements, lead by a psyker. That's their theme, it's the sort of army they want to make. So now they go against Harlequins, which have similar sort of units. The points are equal, but the harlequin army is much better, because the CSM player could have chosen different units but didn't. Sorry, this is bad design.

In a perfect WH40k game, the power budget of each codex is the same, and it is allocated to multiple aspects of the game, creating the unique feel of each army.
Let's do a quick example, based on the Chaos faction. I assume the total budget for each codex is 30, each mono-army is assumed to be balanced against each other mono-army, higher values are better than lower ones.
DISCLAIMER: The number do not reflect my opinion of the current state of the game in any way, they are just used to prove a point.

Spoiler:

CSM
Light Infantry 6
Elite Infantry 5
Big guns 4
Monsters 6
Titanic 3
Psykers 6

TS
Light Infantry 5
Elite Infantry 6
Big guns 4
Monsters 8
Titanic 0
Psykers 9

DG
Light Infantry 5
Elite Infantry 7
Big guns 5
Monsters 8
Titanic 0
Psykers 5

Orks
Light Infantry 10
Elite Infantry 4
Big guns 3
Monsters 5
Titanic 3
Psykers 5

Harlequins
Light Infantry 7
Elite Infantry 10
Big guns 6
Monsters 0
Titanic 0
Psykers 7

So, all those mono-codices are balanced against each other.

Now I go and optimize my CSM army with DG and TSM detachments:

Chaos Space Marine Soup:
Light Infantry 6 (from CSM)
Elite Infantry 7 (from DG)
Big guns 5 (from DG)
Monsters 8 (TS/DG Primarch)
Titanic 3 (from CSM)
Psykers 9 (from TS)
Total: 38
Neither Harlequins, nor Orks with their measly power budget of 30 can compete with that, despite being perfectly balanced against all single codices. The only way to prevent this is either equalizing TS, DG and CSM (removing the reason to have different codices in the first place) or making allying cost something worth 8 power-budget.

Just no. Points, do you understand what they're for? Sure, some army can have better units for certain role, but those units should cost more points than weaker units from another army! You're arguing the armies should intentionally designed with crap internal balance. This is lunacy. As I said, in your example if the CSM make elite infantry focused army and go against Harlequins they get crushed, because they could have taken powerful monsters but didn't!

 Ordana wrote:
Brigades have a use if your playing 5k points. For 2k they only matter to Guard bring even more CP while giving 2 possible detachments to Allies.
I don't see a problem with removing Brigades and Supreme Commands from the game (the latter used almost only to 'cheat' in powerful allies for minimal cost)

Edit:
And yes we can lose the Airwing aswell for tournament games.

Primaris MSU also likes Brigades, though it's not a competetive subfaction it's one of its better builds.

The Newman wrote:


Doesn't a spearhead or outrider only grant 1 CP as it is? A -4 or -5 point penalty is actually making them comparatively stronger, and your alternative would give an army comprised of a single spearhead only one CP less than a battalion. That said I was just spit-balling numbers, and I see nothing wrong with the end product being -3 for a spearhead or outrider and -2 for some of the others that currently grant 3-5 CPs or something

CSM Battallion with a Daemons Spearhead

Your version - ends up with 3CP ((2+8) -5 -2)

My changes to your version - 7CP ((2+8) -2 -1)

Current version - 9CP (3+5+1)

You're right though, that an army with a single spearhead would only have one less CP than an army with a brigade. This is why a detachment/CP system based on negating points is going to be tricky to balance. Your version (of having spearheads give -5) kind of works if you only have a single spearhead, but some armies need to run a battallion+spearhead+vanguard to be competitive, but this would then leave them with ... 0 CP.

Even with my version of your rule, they'd end up with only 6CP (assuming at least one detachment is a daemons soup), which is pretty low.

It might work, as the most a CP battery army can get is 10 so the min/max difference isn't too bad. But it also means that barely any stratagems can be played, and some armies require stratagems to be even vaguely competitive.

Tricky balance. And again, I think the simpler solution is to leave the system as it is and just play "CP only works on their own stratagems".

Some armies can (even less do) bring Brigades. The point is, do any of them suffer greatly if they no longer can do so?

I will argue no. MSU Primaris would function just as well in a battalion (or 2 at worse). Same for Nids, Orks and Guard and everyone else.

I think some units, like Girliman, and others with buff Aura should be priced differently.

they get a base cost, which is them alone, then they have a percentage cost, for the Aura.

so (warning! example!) MArine Captain Serious McCoolname costs 100 points, he also costs a further 5% of your force budget for his aura.

in a 2k game he thus costs 100 + (2000 * 5%) = 200 points, in a 3k game he would be 250 points etc

Balance. Its all about balance.

- Things need to cost an appropriate amount of points for their abilities/functions.

- Stratagems need to cost an appropriate amount of CP for their effect.

- Allied detachments need to have a cost built in. You want Soup, pay a CP tax. Part of this also relates back to my first point, detachments need to be properly costed as to not give "cheap/easy" access to CP.

- Rules need tweaking. This is a constant that evolves over time.

With these four key points I believe GW can go a great distance in making a fair and competitive game that is fun.

I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

Drager wrote:
I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

It's a terrible rule. It effectively bans allies.

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:
I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

It's a terrible rule. It effectively bans allies.

Not at all!

You can take as many allies as you like. They just won't give you any CP and you can't use their Strats.

Sounds good to me.

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:
I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

It's a terrible rule. It effectively bans allies.

Yeh, it goes too far. Again using the CSM/Daemons example I've used before, this would mean that you couldn't deepstrike any of the daemons units, nor could you use any of the daemons relics.

I mean if daemons were overpowered that might be balanced, but they're not, they barely manage to hang on to average (and that's assuming you use their stronger relics and stratagems).

Once again, this would be a solution that would give Imperials a slap on the wrist, while severely crippling other armies. Which is the same thing that most of the previous nerfs have done.

There needs to be a change that -only- effects Imperials. Or, at worst, effects imperials mostly but slightly effects Aeldari too.

 Stux wrote:

Not at all!

You can take as many allies as you like. They just won't give you any CP and you can't use their Strats.

Sounds good to me.

Right. Thus effectively banning. They would be completely useless in any even semi competitive setting.

Niiru wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:
I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

It's a terrible rule. It effectively bans allies.

Yeh, it goes too far. Again using the CSM/Daemons example I've used before, this would mean that you couldn't deepstrike any of the daemons units, nor could you use any of the daemons relics.

I mean if daemons were overpowered that might be balanced, but they're not, they barely manage to hang on to average (and that's assuming you use their stronger relics and stratagems).

Once again, this would be a solution that would give Imperials a slap on the wrist, while severely crippling other armies. Which is the same thing that most of the previous nerfs have done.

There needs to be a change that -only- effects Imperials. Or, at worst, effects imperials mostly but slightly effects Aeldari too.

Or the less pessimistic view is that it actually gives summoning a purpose!

 Stux wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:
I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

It's a terrible rule. It effectively bans allies.

Yeh, it goes too far. Again using the CSM/Daemons example I've used before, this would mean that you couldn't deepstrike any of the daemons units, nor could you use any of the daemons relics.

I mean if daemons were overpowered that might be balanced, but they're not, they barely manage to hang on to average (and that's assuming you use their stronger relics and stratagems).

Once again, this would be a solution that would give Imperials a slap on the wrist, while severely crippling other armies. Which is the same thing that most of the previous nerfs have done.

There needs to be a change that -only- effects Imperials. Or, at worst, effects imperials mostly but slightly effects Aeldari too.

Or the less pessimistic view is that it actually gives summoning a purpose!

How? Summoning would be exactly as worthless and terrible as it is now.

It would still be better to use a detachment and have no relics and stratagems, than to summon anything. As you would get no relics or stratagems either way, but at least you are guaranteed to have the units you need on the table when you need them.

Summoning would only become worthwhile in this situation, if you were able to use daemons stratagems and relics on summoned units. Even then, it would only make summoning "better than the alternative", and not actually good or competitive.

Niiru wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:
I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

It's a terrible rule. It effectively bans allies.

Yeh, it goes too far. Again using the CSM/Daemons example I've used before, this would mean that you couldn't deepstrike any of the daemons units, nor could you use any of the daemons relics.

I mean if daemons were overpowered that might be balanced, but they're not, they barely manage to hang on to average (and that's assuming you use their stronger relics and stratagems).

Once again, this would be a solution that would give Imperials a slap on the wrist, while severely crippling other armies. Which is the same thing that most of the previous nerfs have done.

There needs to be a change that -only- effects Imperials. Or, at worst, effects imperials mostly but slightly effects Aeldari too.

Or the less pessimistic view is that it actually gives summoning a purpose!

How? Summoning would be exactly as worthless and terrible as it is now.

It would still be better to use a detachment and have no relics and stratagems, than to summon anything. As you would get no relics or stratagems either way, but at least you are guaranteed to have the units you need on the table when you need them.

Summoning would only become worthwhile in this situation, if you were able to use daemons stratagems and relics on summoned units. Even then, it would only make summoning "better than the alternative", and not actually good or competitive.

Because summoning lets you put them on the table where you need them. Deploying daemons on the table gets them shot to pieces turn 1.

I agree that summoning is undertuned though, I'd be happy to tweak the mechanic to make it more reliable in this instance.

Niiru wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:
I love my mixed forces (Inquisition, Aeldari Soup, GSC with Guard etc.) however I would be fine with a rule like the following, how does this strike people?

Battle Brothers

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. Furthermore, you may only use Stratagems from the Faction to which your Warlord belongs or general game stratagems (such as Prepared Positions) and only Detachments made up entirely of models with at least two Faction Keywords in common with your Warlord may generate CP. This has no effect on your Army Faction.

It's a terrible rule. It effectively bans allies.

Yeh, it goes too far. Again using the CSM/Daemons example I've used before, this would mean that you couldn't deepstrike any of the daemons units, nor could you use any of the daemons relics.

I mean if daemons were overpowered that might be balanced, but they're not, they barely manage to hang on to average (and that's assuming you use their stronger relics and stratagems).

Once again, this would be a solution that would give Imperials a slap on the wrist, while severely crippling other armies. Which is the same thing that most of the previous nerfs have done.

There needs to be a change that -only- effects Imperials. Or, at worst, effects imperials mostly but slightly effects Aeldari too.

The Eldar problem isn't an allies problem, it's a Farseer problem. Continually dancing around Doom saying "this thing is too good with Doom, maybe we should nerf the unit and leave Doom the way it is" just forces the Eldar into a smaller and smaller box where the tournament list designed around having the optimal usage of each Farseer power in play each turn is playable and nothing else is; price Ravagers assuming Doom and what are the Dark Eldar players who don't want to soup Craftworlders in supposed to do?

The problem with the Imperium similarly isn't an allies problem, it's a problem where the Codexes are written assuming allies are available to plug any hole in the book. People whine about Guard because the Marine books are only playable with Guard to screen and occupy space, but nerfing the Guard doesn't make the Marine books any more useful, it makes pure Guard less useful. Increasing the cost of Blood Angel stratagems just forces people to play soup to use them because BA can't get the CP to do their own stuff on their own.

Just because Allies are a big global lever you can pull with a rule spanning a couple of sentences doesn't mean pulling that lever is going to work; I'm having flashbacks to Proposed Rules back in 7e where the refrain was always "let's make the easiest change we can concerning the thing I dislike without considering any of the consequences." The easiest change to make isn't necessarily a good change to make.

Niiru wrote:



How? Summoning would be exactly as worthless and terrible as it is now.

It would still be better to use a detachment and have no relics and stratagems, than to summon anything. As you would get no relics or stratagems either way, but at least you are guaranteed to have the units you need on the table when you need them.

Summoning would only become worthwhile in this situation, if you were able to use daemons stratagems and relics on summoned units. Even then, it would only make summoning "better than the alternative", and not actually good or competitive.

Thousand Sons have no problem making summons work.

- CP to summon on 4 dice without mortal wounds
- Access to daemon spells
- Access to reroll 1s for daemons

Summon 20-30 horrors, summon herald, stack a mutalith, and give them flickering flames.
That's 60 to 90 BS4 S5 shots that wound infantry on 2s and tanks on 4s - helps me kill Orks quite easily.

Or I can drag in exalted flamers to help with vehicles. Or screamers to get a character behind a screen.

I get that not everyone can use them like that, but the flexibility is the part I value most. I would enjoy having access to their strats, but it's not a deal breaker.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Niiru wrote:



How? Summoning would be exactly as worthless and terrible as it is now.

It would still be better to use a detachment and have no relics and stratagems, than to summon anything. As you would get no relics or stratagems either way, but at least you are guaranteed to have the units you need on the table when you need them.

Summoning would only become worthwhile in this situation, if you were able to use daemons stratagems and relics on summoned units. Even then, it would only make summoning "better than the alternative", and not actually good or competitive.

Thousand Sons have no problem making summons work.

- CP to summon on 4 dice without mortal wounds
- Access to daemon spells
- Access to reroll 1s for daemons

Summon 20-30 horrors, summon herald, stack a mutalith, and give them flickering flames.
That's 60 to 90 BS4 S5 shots that wound infantry on 2s and tanks on 4s - helps me kill Orks quite easily.

Or I can drag in exalted flamers to help with vehicles. Or screamers to get a character behind a screen.

I get that not everyone can use them like that, but the flexibility is the part I value most. I would enjoy having access to their strats, but it's not a deal breaker.

If every CSM legion had access to all of this, then this would be a good answer.

They don't though, so it's not all that helpful.

It's like saying "The Imperium has mono-faction access to cheap CP brigades, because look the Imperial Guard can do it". Which is correct, but doesn't actually help UM/BA/DA/admech/etc etc.

GW seem to have made the decision to squat summoning from the game, except for very specific use cases (which is basically thousand sons). Which is a shame. I would argue that summoning was much fluffier when it was available to a lot more people. Anyone can fall to the temptations of chaos. But alas, neckbeards abused it in 7th and so now it has to be removed from the game.

Niiru wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Niiru wrote:



How? Summoning would be exactly as worthless and terrible as it is now.

It would still be better to use a detachment and have no relics and stratagems, than to summon anything. As you would get no relics or stratagems either way, but at least you are guaranteed to have the units you need on the table when you need them.

Summoning would only become worthwhile in this situation, if you were able to use daemons stratagems and relics on summoned units. Even then, it would only make summoning "better than the alternative", and not actually good or competitive.

Thousand Sons have no problem making summons work.

- CP to summon on 4 dice without mortal wounds
- Access to daemon spells
- Access to reroll 1s for daemons

Summon 20-30 horrors, summon herald, stack a mutalith, and give them flickering flames.
That's 60 to 90 BS4 S5 shots that wound infantry on 2s and tanks on 4s - helps me kill Orks quite easily.

Or I can drag in exalted flamers to help with vehicles. Or screamers to get a character behind a screen.

I get that not everyone can use them like that, but the flexibility is the part I value most. I would enjoy having access to their strats, but it's not a deal breaker.

If every CSM legion had access to all of this, then this would be a good answer.

They don't though, so it's not all that helpful.

It's like saying "The Imperium has mono-faction access to cheap CP brigades, because look the Imperial Guard can do it". Which is correct, but doesn't actually help UM/BA/DA/admech/etc etc.

GW seem to have made the decision to squat summoning from the game, except for very specific use cases (which is basically thousand sons). Which is a shame. I would argue that summoning was much fluffier when it was available to a lot more people. Anyone can fall to the temptations of chaos. But alas, neckbeards abused it in 7th and so now it has to be removed from the game.

But .. we're talking about making changes here anyway!

If we're changing how allies/soup work, why can't we change summoning at the same time if it helps?

Have a problem with Doom? Then bring something to counter it. Inquisitor Greyfax is actually a great addition. 2 denies and a +1 to deny, what's not to like? Simply spend a CP to bring her along. Either that or a Culexus. Other armies have to modify lists to counter specific threats, why should Imperium be different? It's not like they are short on options.

Denies are very unreliable.

 bullyboy wrote:
Have a problem with Doom? Then bring something to counter it. Inquisitor Greyfax is actually a great addition. 2 denies and a +1 to deny, what's not to like? Simply spend a CP to bring her along. Either that or a Culexus. Other armies have to modify lists to counter specific threats, why should Imperium be different? It's not like they are short on options.

change doom to 18" and i would agree. 24" gives them a nice 6" safety buffer to avoid those things typically

Doom 18" and up the WC by 1. It basically wipes a unit every time it goes off.

 bullyboy wrote:
Have a problem with Doom? Then bring something to counter it. Inquisitor Greyfax is actually a great addition. 2 denies and a +1 to deny, what's not to like? Simply spend a CP to bring her along. Either that or a Culexus. Other armies have to modify lists to counter specific threats, why should Imperium be different? It's not like they are short on options.

...Great. What does the Tau or the Necron player do? Bring Greyfax?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Have a problem with Doom? Then bring something to counter it. Inquisitor Greyfax is actually a great addition. 2 denies and a +1 to deny, what's not to like? Simply spend a CP to bring her along. Either that or a Culexus. Other armies have to modify lists to counter specific threats, why should Imperium be different? It's not like they are short on options.

...Great. What does the Tau or the Necron player do? Bring Greyfax?

The Necron players has (had?) access to the Gloom Prism as a Tomb Spyder upgrade, which needs a serious buff since they're the masters of anti-warp tech. Right now it's pretty pants.

Give the Gloom Prism some sort better way to interfere with psykers. Would make them worth the points, and by extension an actual reason to take Spyders.

I would like to see any of the below (or a combination thereof)
- subtract 2 from enemy psychic tests when within 18"
- enemy pyskers will peril on any double when within 18"
- no limit to the DTW tests (also maybe a +1 to the roll)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Have a problem with Doom? Then bring something to counter it. Inquisitor Greyfax is actually a great addition. 2 denies and a +1 to deny, what's not to like? Simply spend a CP to bring her along. Either that or a Culexus. Other armies have to modify lists to counter specific threats, why should Imperium be different? It's not like they are short on options.

...Great. What does the Tau or the Necron player do? Bring Greyfax?

The Necron players has (had?) access to the Gloom Prism as a Tomb Spyder upgrade, which needs a serious buff since they're the masters of anti-warp tech. Right now it's pretty pants.

Great. So Necron solution is to take crappy unit that won't really help. So not really solution. And Tau?

Eldar players free to show eldar lists doing good and NOT having doom. If something is auto take it tells you it's generally too good.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

The Eldar problem isn't an allies problem, it's a Farseer problem. Continually dancing around Doom saying "this thing is too good with Doom, maybe we should nerf the unit and leave Doom the way it is" just forces the Eldar into a smaller and smaller box where the tournament list designed around having the optimal usage of each Farseer power in play each turn is playable and nothing else is; price Ravagers assuming Doom and what are the Dark Eldar players who don't want to soup Craftworlders in supposed to do?

The problem with the Imperium similarly isn't an allies problem, it's a problem where the Codexes are written assuming allies are available to plug any hole in the book. People whine about Guard because the Marine books are only playable with Guard to screen and occupy space, but nerfing the Guard doesn't make the Marine books any more useful, it makes pure Guard less useful. Increasing the cost of Blood Angel stratagems just forces people to play soup to use them because BA can't get the CP to do their own stuff on their own.

Just because Allies are a big global lever you can pull with a rule spanning a couple of sentences doesn't mean pulling that lever is going to work; I'm having flashbacks to Proposed Rules back in 7e where the refrain was always "let's make the easiest change we can concerning the thing I dislike without considering any of the consequences." The easiest change to make isn't necessarily a good change to make.

I wish I could exalt this multiple times.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Have a problem with Doom? Then bring something to counter it. Inquisitor Greyfax is actually a great addition. 2 denies and a +1 to deny, what's not to like? Simply spend a CP to bring her along. Either that or a Culexus. Other armies have to modify lists to counter specific threats, why should Imperium be different? It's not like they are short on options.

...Great. What does the Tau or the Necron player do? Bring Greyfax?

The Necron players has (had?) access to the Gloom Prism as a Tomb Spyder upgrade, which needs a serious buff since they're the masters of anti-warp tech. Right now it's pretty pants.

Great. So Necron solution is to take crappy unit that won't really help. So not really solution. And Tau?

Eldar players free to show eldar lists doing good and NOT having doom. If something is auto take it tells you it's generally too good.

Or the other options aren't viable in comparison. Guide, fortune, and executioner can be achieved to a lesser degree with an Autarch, Spirit Stones or Smite respectively. Mind war is too random to be reliable on its own (and too expensive to get the right combinations in place to make it effective). Will of Asuyan is kind of worthless in an army that promotes MSU or that has Psykers capable of rerolling deny tests. Doom stands alone as only CWE way to reroll any failed wounds. CWE don't have Lieutenants, veterans of the long war, or any other abilities to increase wound chances. It isn't doom per se that is the problem, but rather its synergy outside of CWE. Perhaps restricting Doom to only CWE or only allowing Harlequins/Drukhari to reroll 1's is an amenable solution.

Auto take exists in EVERY army. [Insert Army of your Choice Here] players feel free to show [army] lists doing good and NOT having [X].

Can't we just go to points based CP for everyone? And Stratagems limited to your Warlord's choices?

But some CP are more cost effective than others.

The rage about that on Dakka would be epic.