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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Except you leave out the part where those troops are balanced fine when being contained to a mono codex and that nuking them because of there ability to generate CP in soup will barely affect soup but absolutely gut mono IG players

But they're not balanced! Guard tanks and superhevies backed up by infantry can beat any monobuild, maybe sans Alaitoc Eldar. They can also beat 99% of soup builds. That this is even better if you replace the tanks with Knights doesn't change fact that the IG are OP.

ZOMG they can beat 99% of soup builds.... finishes behind tau at most tournaments.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Except you leave out the part where those troops are balanced fine when being contained to a mono codex and that nuking them because of there ability to generate CP in soup will barely affect soup but absolutely gut mono IG players

But they're not balanced! Guard tanks and superhevies backed up by infantry can beat any monobuild, maybe sans Alaitoc Eldar. They can also beat 99% of soup builds. That this is even better if you replace the tanks with Knights doesn't change fact that the IG are OP.

Really this...
Change a Castellan to a shadowsword / or a bane hammer / or even a baneblade / or 3 command russ
and take orgryns or scions or artillery in place of smash captains

That list beats most of the same armies - it's really only at risk of facing the castellan itself. FFS that lists wins tournaments already.

That list does not win tournaments lol maybe 1 in 100 or your local RTT but no real tournaments. The data simply does not back up your ridiculous claims

I mean if you want to argue facts be my guest but it just makes you look foolish. Mono Guard do really well in ITC events. Mono Guard won warzone atalanta.

You are talking about the Warzone Atlanta...... The tournament that takes place on November 10th...... you are talking about a tournament from 2017 almost a year ago...... wow you really got me with that one

This game is in a constant state of flux. Guess what armies were exactly the same then? Ynnari, CWE. Plus turn 1 deepstrike was legal. AKA - bad for gun lines. Magnus starts the game with -1 to hit from changeling. It was honestly more impressive then to take the win than now.

Hey guys this tournament that happened a year ago before 2 major FAQs and half the armies in the game getting codexes is super relevent..... I guess i should start pulling up results from 2nd edition they are just about as useful


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Translate
:the fact that you don't understand that guard is broken does not change the fact i feel they are broken so they are clearly broken and need to be nerfed:
yeah sorry this has to be the absolute worst argument I've ever seen

I mean we could go ever the math again, but there is no point. It has been done many times, and you keep ignoring it.

Or we could look at actual tangible data..... but that doesn't fit your narrative of "trust me guys they are super broken i lost my local RTT of 6 player to an IG mono list this weekend REEEEEEEEEEEEE"

Asmodios wrote:

Or we could look at actual tangible data..... but that doesn't fit your narrative of "trust me guys they are super broken i lost my local RTT of 6 player to an IG mono list this weekend REEEEEEEEEEEEE"

We have looked at that data too. Completely predictably the Guard is present in pretty much all well placing Imperium lists. It is literally the unifying element.

Also, I have no personal grudge against Guard, I play them. I also have armies or detachment of many other factions, and when you do, and you use them and analyse their performance, do the math even, it is pretty easy to see which units are good and which are not.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Or we could look at actual tangible data..... but that doesn't fit your narrative of "trust me guys they are super broken i lost my local RTT of 6 player to an IG mono list this weekend REEEEEEEEEEEEE"

We have looked at that data too. Completely predictably the Guard is present in pretty much all well placing Imperium lists. It is literally the unifying element.

Also, I have no personal grudge against Guard, I play them. I also have armies or detachment of many other factions, and when you do, and you use them and analyse their performance, do the math even, it is pretty easy to see which units are good and which are not.

Yeah everyone knows guard are taken for CP generation.........

It's very easy to see what's good and what's not. Soup dominates ever event and has dominated every event since the rule of 3. Soup needs to have a drawback or this will continue to be the data just like it was our first post FAQ GT with the battle for salvation where the top for lists was 2 Eldar soup and 2 Imperium one of which didn't have IG

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah everyone knows guard are taken for CP generation.........

Mainly yes. And that is form of power. For which they should pay fairly.
In addition they can outlast and outshoot the other troop units, though that's just the icing on the cake.

It's very easy to see what's good and what's not. Soup dominates ever event and has dominated every event since the rule of 3. Soup needs to have a drawback or this will continue to be the data just like it was our first post FAQ GT with the battle for salvation where the top for lists was 2 Eldar soup and 2 Imperium one of which didn't have IG

So if soup in itself is so powerful, where is all that Imperial soup without Guard? Why are they not dominating the tournaments?

It's IG soup, not just Imperial soup. The undercosted units are critical to the mix.

Martel732 wrote:
It's IG soup, not just Imperial soup. The undercosted units are critical to the mix.

Yes.

If Ynnari and Alaitoc didn't exist, Eldar wouldn't be doing anything at this point.

It's a Guard + Knights world.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah everyone knows guard are taken for CP generation.........

Mainly yes. And that is form of power. For which they should pay fairly.
In addition they can outlast and outshoot the other troop units, though that's just the icing on the cake.

It's very easy to see what's good and what's not. Soup dominates ever event and has dominated every event since the rule of 3. Soup needs to have a drawback or this will continue to be the data just like it was our first post FAQ GT with the battle for salvation where the top for lists was 2 Eldar soup and 2 Imperium one of which didn't have IG

So if soup in itself is so powerful, where is all that Imperial soup without Guard? Why are they not dominating the tournaments?

So you are arguing that mono IG need to be nerfed despite the fact that they aren't prevalent in the tournament scene because that only affects 1% of players
and
IG need to be nerfed because of the tournament scene that includes the loyal 32 in most lists

thanks for your consistency

Asmodios wrote:

So you are arguing that mono IG need to be nerfed despite the fact that they aren't prevalent in the tournament scene because that only affects 1% of players
and
IG need to be nerfed because of the tournament scene that includes the loyal 32 in most lists

thanks for your consistency

No, the tournament thing was your obsession. And please understand, that by nerfing the Guard all those top Imperial soups you're worried about are nerfed too, because they're IG soups. So you wanted the problematic soup nerfed, that's exactly what I'm suggesting!

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So you are arguing that mono IG need to be nerfed despite the fact that they aren't prevalent in the tournament scene because that only affects 1% of players
and
IG need to be nerfed because of the tournament scene that includes the loyal 32 in most lists

thanks for your consistency

No, the tournament thing was your obsession. And please understand, that by nerfing the Guard all those top Imperial soups you're worried about are nerfed too, because they're IG soups. So you wanted the problematic soup nerfed, that's exactly what I'm suggesting!

No mono guard (that isn't winning anything) takes a kick to the teeth while imperium soup laughs. That's the problem with your "fix" its barely affects soup but kills the already uncompetitive mono guard.

Asmodios wrote:

No mono guard (that isn't winning anything) takes a kick to the teeth while imperium soup laughs. That's the problem with your "fix" its barely affects soup but kills the already uncompetitive mono guard.

All of your statements are wrong. That soup is powered by the IG and the IG is already very powerful. And yes, the Knights need nerfing too, that's the Imperial soup handled.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

No mono guard (that isn't winning anything) takes a kick to the teeth while imperium soup laughs. That's the problem with your "fix" its barely affects soup but kills the already uncompetitive mono guard.

All of your statements are wrong. That soup is powered by the IG and the IG is already very powerful. And yes, the Knights need nerfing too, that's the Imperial soup handled.

IG is not already "powerful" or the data would reflect it..... lets put it this way at the BFS the first GT after the FAQ 4 mono armies made the top 16 Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons and Orks..... no guard. 2 top 5 lists were imperial soup 50% of which included no guard. 3 of the top 5 included Eldar but no let's keep harping on guard.

I mean this entire argument is pointless because you have 0 data to back up your claims and are preaching them as truth because "muh local meta". Come back with some actual data once IG isnt taken as a token unit and when mono guard are competing at least as well as other mono armies that can soup like eldar and nids

Asmodios wrote:

IG is not already "powerful" or the data would reflect it..... lets put it this way at the BFS the first GT after the FAQ 4 mono armies made the top 16 Eldar, Tyranids, Necrons and Orks..... no guard. 2 top 5 lists were imperial soup 50% of which included no guard. 3 of the top 5 included Eldar but no let's keep harping on guard.

Yeah, that was not misleadingly selected sample size at all... There were many IG soups in top 16, most having well above the minimum battalion of IG and no other Imperial lists besides that Guilliman spam list.

It is really bizarre to fixate on the soup. Soup is not a thing in itself, it is merely made out of its ingredients. It is utter lunacy to think that performance of an army that is 50% IG and 50% Knights is somehow more similar in performance, and indicative of strengths of an army that is 50% Space Marines and 50% Ad Mech, than it is indicative of strength and performance of of an army that is 100% IG.

I wouldn't be stressing about Guard or Knight nerfs just yet. If GW hits the points increases in CA that'd move us past this and the game would be better for it. Guard don't need to get hit twice with a points bump and a major nerf on top of the loss of CP regeneration unless we're going to go back to the old platoon system, and if we do that then it'd likely not happen until they get a new codex to work out of.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I wouldn't be stressing about Guard or Knight nerfs just yet. If GW hits the points increases in CA that'd move us past this and the game would be better for it. Guard don't need to get hit twice with a points bump and a major nerf on top of the loss of CP regeneration unless we're going to go back to the old platoon system, and if we do that then it'd likely not happen until they get a new codex to work out of.

Tough before the CP regen nerf all the Guard apologists kept saying that the mono-Guard doesn't use the CP regen trait or relic anyway, so if they are to be believed effectively the regen nerf hit only the soup-Guard!

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I wouldn't be stressing about Guard or Knight nerfs just yet. If GW hits the points increases in CA that'd move us past this and the game would be better for it. Guard don't need to get hit twice with a points bump and a major nerf on top of the loss of CP regeneration unless we're going to go back to the old platoon system, and if we do that then it'd likely not happen until they get a new codex to work out of.

Tough before the CP regen nerf all the Guard apologists kept saying that the mono-Guard doesn't use the CP regen trait or relic anyway, so if they are to be believed effectively the regen nerf hit only the soup-Guard!

I never heard that arguement, but honestly the change to Guard as a whole is mostly that they need a points hike on some key things (others need to get cheaper, but the point stands: things need fixing), but the same can be said about every army. Frankly I don't mind points in every army going up and down as needed every year to shake the meta up before it gets too stale.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I never heard that arguement, but honestly the change to Guard as a whole is mostly that they need a points hike on some key things (others need to get cheaper, but the point stands: things need fixing), but the same can be said about every army. Frankly I don't mind points in every army going up and down as needed every year to shake the meta up before it gets too stale.

Yeah, agreed.

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I wouldn't be stressing about Guard or Knight nerfs just yet. If GW hits the points increases in CA that'd move us past this and the game would be better for it. Guard don't need to get hit twice with a points bump and a major nerf on top of the loss of CP regeneration unless we're going to go back to the old platoon system, and if we do that then it'd likely not happen until they get a new codex to work out of.

Tough before the CP regen nerf all the Guard apologists kept saying that the mono-Guard doesn't use the CP regen trait or relic anyway, so if they are to be believed effectively the regen nerf hit only the soup-Guard!

Well they said that because it was true. GS and KA nerf didn't do much to mono IG lists, they took those only because the alternatives were useless. When i have no less than 20 CP and only the stratagems from one faction (cheap and mild ones), GS and KA just means that i will still have CPs to use in turns 5 and 6.

For imperial soups instead it was a dramatic nerf, they now require much more "battery" points and can inlcude less "Punch" points.

Spoletta wrote:
For imperial soups instead it was a dramatic nerf, they now require much more "battery" points and can inlcude less "Punch" points.

Which is one of the reasons I feel the game is moving in a good direction. Assuming that we'll see some points increases on some of the other parts of the pattern (Castellan namely) in CA 2018 the game should end up healthier for it.

I do hope they make some corrections in the next round of FAQs for fixing flyers a bit more, but considering we play a game where you can hit a flyer with a flamer without rolling....flyers probably need a lot of work to fix.

I'll be honest, I kind of miss the days were all the "flyer" like things we had in regular 40k were skimmers while the rest were apoc only units meant for much bigger tables.

So, can it be agreed that one of the main reasons (outside of fluff reasons) for imperial soup is for CP? How about remove the link of CP to detachments and make it a resource that regens every turn.

Each player gains 3 CP at the start of each Battle Round. For each objective you are holding at the start of your turn, it allows you a roll and on a 5+ gain an additional CP. Relics and Traits that currently grant CP still function as they are, granting extra chances. Unused CP at the end of the Battle Round are discarded.

Would remove the "need" for CP batteries and give equal footing to elite armies and horde armies.

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah everyone knows guard are taken for CP generation.........

Mainly yes. And that is form of power. For which they should pay fairly.
In addition they can outlast and outshoot the other troop units, though that's just the icing on the cake.

It's very easy to see what's good and what's not. Soup dominates ever event and has dominated every event since the rule of 3. Soup needs to have a drawback or this will continue to be the data just like it was our first post FAQ GT with the battle for salvation where the top for lists was 2 Eldar soup and 2 Imperium one of which didn't have IG

So if soup in itself is so powerful, where is all that Imperial soup without Guard? Why are they not dominating the tournaments?

So you are arguing that mono IG need to be nerfed despite the fact that they aren't prevalent in the tournament scene because that only affects 1% of players
and
IG need to be nerfed because of the tournament scene that includes the loyal 32 in most lists

thanks for your consistency

Except your being misleading by quoting the "loyal 32"
It's more like the Guard 90 as the soup lists arn't taking battalion of guard they are taking brigades of guard so it's not just about the CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
So, can it be agreed that one of the main reasons (outside of fluff reasons) for imperial soup is for CP? How about remove the link of CP to detachments and make it a resource that regens every turn.

Each player gains 3 CP at the start of each Battle Round. For each objective you are holding at the start of your turn, it allows you a roll and on a 5+ gain an additional CP. Relics and Traits that currently grant CP still function as they are, granting extra chances. Unused CP at the end of the Battle Round are discarded.

Would remove the "need" for CP batteries and give equal footing to elite armies and horde armies.

This has been covered multiple times but your suggestion doesn't allow fir any of tge pregame strategums to work.
Your over thinking it and going against GW's interests in your "fixes".

It seems to me a simple, non-sledgehammer fix would be to limit the free 3CP for Battleforged to armies who have an army-wide keyword other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI or TYRANID.

Allies are still an option, no ten pages of rules revamping detachments, and taking allies from another codex is effectively a 3CP stratagem. Somewhat balances out the "Loyal 32" by functionally making them worth 2CP instead of 5.

Squiiddish wrote:
It seems to me a simple, non-sledgehammer fix would be to limit the free 3CP for Battleforged to armies who have an army-wide keyword other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI or TYRANID.

Allies are still an option, no ten pages of rules revamping detachments, and taking allies from another codex is effectively a 3CP stratagem. Somewhat balances out the "Loyal 32" by functionally making them worth 2CP instead of 5.

Except it will just make me bring 2 Guard detachments for CP, still cheaper then any other Imperial army can and a 3e detachment, probably Knights.

The answer to 'I will give you less CP' is to bring more Guard because the non-Guard elements of Soup only do so well because of the CP they get funneled and the bodies provided by Guard.
Remove the CP and you just get more Guard.

Squiiddish wrote:
It seems to me a simple, non-sledgehammer fix would be to limit the free 3CP for Battleforged to armies who have an army-wide keyword other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI or TYRANID.

Allies are still an option, no ten pages of rules revamping detachments, and taking allies from another codex is effectively a 3CP stratagem. Somewhat balances out the "Loyal 32" by functionally making them worth 2CP instead of 5.

I quite like this, mostly for the simplicity.

There have been some pretty good ideas for how to completely rework CP distribution that could really work. HOWEVER, most of these systems are too big a change for me to see it actually happening within the edition.

This idea though, it could be enough.

I do think people would still often take the loyal 32 though, because even without much CP advantahe it's still the best way Imperium has of getting cheap bodies on the table for screening and objectives. Marines in particular are clearly better for having some Guardsmen as their disposal.

Squiiddish wrote:
It seems to me a simple, non-sledgehammer fix would be to limit the free 3CP for Battleforged to armies who have an army-wide keyword other than IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI or TYRANID.

Allies are still an option, no ten pages of rules revamping detachments, and taking allies from another codex is effectively a 3CP stratagem. Somewhat balances out the "Loyal 32" by functionally making them worth 2CP instead of 5.

Why Tyranid ? other than a misguided attempt to nail the lid on the coffin for GSC allies that are so OP all the cool kids are taking them .. you just killed my Kraken / Behemoth Tyranid list!

 Stux wrote:
I quite like this, mostly for the simplicity.

There have been some pretty good ideas for how to completely rework CP distribution that could really work. HOWEVER, most of these systems are too big a change for me to see it actually happening within the edition.

This idea though, it could be enough.

I do think people would still often take the loyal 32 though, because even without much CP advantage it's still the best way Imperium has of getting cheap bodies on the table for screening and objectives. Marines in particular are clearly better for having some Guardsmen as their disposal.

Agreed, a simple proposal is the right one ... not a hammerblow or a reworking of the whole system

I believe we need a solution that still allows the loyal 32, .. it's a legit ally that fits narrative and anyone Screeching for killing Allies in entirety is in for a crushing disappointment.

just purely from model sales alone .. but the PR nightmare that would be GW saying "All you that bought guard or Eldar armies and painted them lovingly .. yeah you're not welcome playing them no more!!"

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.. I will right here and right now stake my entire fake internet points hoard on that fact. NEVER happening!

the trick is to allow allies and bring the rest of monofactions up to the same power level with tweaks and not dragging everyone else down to our level.

giving extra points for models or extra CP for every same faction / codex detachment to equalize the tools that allied detachments get is key.

For example a typical Necron 2k list can get approx 10CP ... of which I need to spend 20% to try and weather the 1st turn storm .. vs. an allied list that gets the firepower and close to 15 CP to empower it.

There's the disconnect.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

just purely from model sales alone .. but the PR nightmare that would be GW saying "All you that bought guard or Eldar armies and painted them lovingly .. yeah you're not welcome playing them no more!!"

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.. I will right here and right now stake my entire fake internet points hoard on that fact. NEVER happening!

I know, right.

I mean, imagine if Games Workshop just told Tomb King players that their army was null and void.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:



Agreed, a simple proposal is the right one ... not a hammerblow or a reworking of the whole system

I believe we need a solution that still allows the loyal 32, .. it's a legit ally that fits narrative and anyone Screeching for killing Allies in entirety is in for a crushing disappointment.

just purely from model sales alone .. but the PR nightmare that would be GW saying "All you that bought guard or Eldar armies and painted them lovingly .. yeah you're not welcome playing them no more!!"

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.. I will right here and right now stake my entire fake internet points hoard on that fact. NEVER happening!

the trick is to allow allies and bring the rest of monofactions up to the same power level with tweaks and not dragging everyone else down to our level.

giving extra points for models or extra CP for every same faction / codex detachment to equalize the tools that allied detachments get is key.

For example a typical Necron 2k list can get approx 10CP ... of which I need to spend 20% to try and weather the 1st turn storm .. vs. an allied list that gets the firepower and close to 15 CP to empower it.

There's the disconnect.

Ok, but this may work well for factions that are slightly behind the curve. I imagine a few fixs here and there could make necrons a really good codex. A few fixs, or stuff missed by GW, can make marines OP. The thing is, if FAQ do not change rules and points costs, and the new CA does not bring the proverbial big hammer blow of changes, what are people with factions which armies really lag behind suppose to do? Adding one or two stratagems, and some trait on a GK unit or HQ are not going to fix the faction.

 vipoid wrote:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

just purely from model sales alone .. but the PR nightmare that would be GW saying "All you that bought guard or Eldar armies and painted them lovingly .. yeah you're not welcome playing them no more!!"

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.. I will right here and right now stake my entire fake internet points hoard on that fact. NEVER happening!

I know, right.

I mean, imagine if Games Workshop just told Tomb King players that their army was null and void.

Dammit ... we don't speak of the 'other' game... or squats ..

Lightning surely can't strike twice

 vipoid wrote:
I know, right.

I mean, imagine if Games Workshop just told Tomb King players that their army was null and void.

I guess my 10,000 word ballad explaining why its totally fluffy for my Wraithknight to get along with this Riptide wing isn't going to wash.

I doubt allies will ever be hard-banned.

With that said if GW - or tournament organisers - were to instigate rules such as
A) You have to pick a primary faction.
B) You gain no CP for any detachments other than your primary faction.
C) You cannot use stratagems, warlord traits or relics other than from your primary faction.
D) (Probably the most extreme) psychic abilities such as buffs and debuffs do not work on units other than your primary faction. I.E. Doom does not grant DE/Harlie units rerolls to wound.

then Soup would be much less of a no-brainer.

This would effectively end CP leveraging. It would undermine superfriends (now in Eldar and Chaos flavours) - which I think is rapidly emerging from 7th edition as a main element of the meta after a year or so off. Which is kind of funny because in the run up to 8th this was something GW said they really wanted to see dead.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

just purely from model sales alone .. but the PR nightmare that would be GW saying "All you that bought guard or Eldar armies and painted them lovingly .. yeah you're not welcome playing them no more!!"

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.. I will right here and right now stake my entire fake internet points hoard on that fact. NEVER happening!

I know, right.

I mean, imagine if Games Workshop just told Tomb King players that their army was null and void.

Dammit ... we don't speak of the 'other' game... or squats ..

Lightning surely can't strike twice

Thrice? Or did Bretonnians come back while I wasn't paying attention.