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.

Tyel wrote:

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.

You mean it would effectively be dead.

I think a few people might be misunderstanding how balance changes work. In general you want to change the game not the faction if needed, and then after your happy go through and fix the faction.

Allies are game, Guard is faction.

While all drama posts of never going to happen on ally posts are relevant, history has shown that GW has done it before.

I do not expect it. I do expect them to continue to change allies till you reach a point that they don’t give you more, or are burdened with “taxes” to take them.

Further real talk is I expect GW to release an organize play at some point. Something limiting Match games to points, and to a few detachments, and a few missions and a few lists, and in that, I can see them easily putting in a No Allies clause.

 Asmodai wrote:


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

ok ok ... so if we disregard their history of amazing decisions ... now looking at the 'New & slightly improved' GW

do you think banning 'Allies' is either good for the game or ever going to be a card they would play ?

 Crimson wrote:
You mean it would effectively be dead.

I live in hope.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:


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

ok ok ... so if we disregard their history of amazing decisions ... now looking at the 'New & slightly improved' GW

do you think banning 'Allies' is either good for the game or ever going to be a card they would play ?

Banning allies in what game? The Casual PL game? No. The Historical Narrative campaign? No. The Match play tournament game? Maybe.

 Crimson wrote:

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.

It's a small sample size because the FAQ just released..... funny thing is its more factual data then you have provided in this entire thread

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

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.

It's a small sample size because the FAQ just released..... funny thing is its more factual data then you have provided in this entire thread

No. You intentionally chose top five instead of top 16, so that you could include that one UM soup and omit all except one of those IG soups. That was intentionally misleading. Fruthermore, I think I'm done with you. At this point it is crystal clear that you're not trying to have a honest debate.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

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.

It's a small sample size because the FAQ just released..... funny thing is its more factual data then you have provided in this entire thread

No. You intentionally chose top five instead of top 16, so that you could include that one UM soup and omit all except one of those IG soups. That was intentionally misleading. Fruthermore, I think I'm done with you. At this point it is crystal clear that you're not trying to have a honest debate.

The top 16 included guard in 4 lists all that were soup
There were also 4 eldar including 1 that wasn't soup (interesting it was ono eldar and not IG considering how "obviously" broken IG is)
There were 3 soup thousand sons lists just 1 short of those crazy guard
There were 4 mono lists not one of them being the "obviously broken" imperial guard

Tyel wrote:

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.

I could definitely get behind that.

It would also be very helpful in terms of figuring out what needs adjustment. For example, it's frequently been said that IG Infantry are so amazing that they'd still be taken as allies even if they provided no CPs. Well, this would be a perfect way to test that particular theory, as well as many others (e.g. are Ravagers still an issue when not backed up with Doom, are Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems an issue when they have limited CPs to use them with etc.).

So IG was well presented in those armies.

But soup is not a thing in itself, I wish people would stop pretending it is. IG/Knight soup has a lot of common with pure IG and nothing in common with SM/SoB soup.

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:

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.

I could definitely get behind that.

It would also be very helpful in terms of figuring out what needs adjustment. For example, it's frequently been said that IG Infantry are so amazing that they'd still be taken as allies even if they provided no CPs. Well, this would be a perfect way to test that particular theory, as well as many others (e.g. are Ravagers still an issue when not backed up with Doom, are Imperial Knight or Blood Angel stratagems an issue when they have limited CPs to use them with etc.).

Already been tested in proxy. During index 40k conscripts were spammed and we had no access to any real stratagems. Conscripts are nerfed now but infantry are actually just as good as conscripts were. Practically ever imperial tournament army was using them then!

 Crimson wrote:
So IG was well presented in those armies.

But soup is not a thing in itself, I wish people would stop pretending it is. IG/Knight soup has a lot of common with pure IG and nothing in common with SM/SoB soup.

So wait what you get out of 12 of the top 16 lists being soup
4 of 16 being mono factions that arent guard
is that IG is somehow broken...... I'm going to need you to show me on the model exactly where IG touched you so bad that you feel this way

Because IG soup is powered by IG being OP, end of story.

Soup is not a thing, it is a mere descriptor, there are no soup units, soup stratagems or soup warlord traits.

Didn't we decide that BFS was a silly tournament to draw balancing conclusions from because if you won your first 3 games you were in the top 8 regardless of how you then did?

I ask because if so talking about the top 16 is a bit meaningless. The first 8 and second 8 likely didn't interact.

 Crimson wrote:
Because IG soup is powered by IG being OP, end of story.

Soup is not a thing, it is a mere descriptor, there are no soup units, soup stratagems or soup warlord traits.

but a top 5 list was soup SM/assassins.... do we need to nuke SM that fueled that list. What about eldar having just as many top list and a mono list.... surely they must be nuked..... Thousand sons was in 3 top lists guess they need a good nuke too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Didn't we decide that BFS was a silly tournament to draw balancing conclusions from because if you won your first 3 games you were in the top 8 regardless of how you then did?

I ask because if so talking about the top 16 is a bit meaningless. The first 8 and second 8 likely didn't interact.

Its currently the only post FAQ tournament we have for data. Also being able to play inside of any tournaments bracketing system is part of the game. All they really did is a day 1 bracket system which is similar to what many e-sports do

I'll be honest, I almost feel like that if the regular Guardsman goes to 5ppm people will go back to Conscripts because they only cost 4ppm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Didn't we decide that BFS was a silly tournament to draw balancing conclusions from because if you won your first 3 games you were in the top 8 regardless of how you then did?

I ask because if so talking about the top 16 is a bit meaningless. The first 8 and second 8 likely didn't interact.

I thought it was a silly tournament to count on because the lists were due the day after the FAQ dropped and most people had already set their army in stone before they could go meaning that optimization for the changes hadn't occured yet.

Asmodios wrote:

but a top 5 list was soup SM/assassins.... do we need to nuke SM that fueled that list.

If that kept constantly happening, then yes. But it doesn't.

What about eldar having just as many top list and a mono list.... surely they must be nuked..... Thousand sons was in 3 top lists guess they need a good nuke too?

Possibly. There is no doubt that Eldar at least have some overly good builds.

Except that you keep talking about 'nuking.' I really don't want anything to get nuked, merely slightly tweaked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll be honest, I almost feel like that if the regular Guardsman goes to 5ppm people will go back to Conscripts because they only cost 4ppm.

Well at least then we're in a situation where there is genuine choice between bad troops and a lot of CP and better troops with less CP, instead of current situation where the Infantry Squads get the best of both worlds.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

but a top 5 list was soup SM/assassins.... do we need to nuke SM that fueled that list.

If that kept constantly happening, then yes. But it doesn't.

What about eldar having just as many top list and a mono list.... surely they must be nuked..... Thousand sons was in 3 top lists guess they need a good nuke too?

Possibly. There is no doubt that Eldar at least have some overly good builds.

Except that you keep talking about 'nuking.' I really don't want anything to get nuked, merely slightly tweaked.

Ok its settled anything that performs top of tournaments will be swiftly nuked. Screw mono players we need to start whacking anything that gets used in soup..... Ignore the fact that this makes those codexes further reliant on soup to be competitive

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll be honest, I almost feel like that if the regular Guardsman goes to 5ppm people will go back to Conscripts because they only cost 4ppm.

Well at least then we're in a situation where there is genuine choice between bad troops and a lot of CP and better troops with less CP, instead of current situation where the Infantry Squads get the best of both worlds.

The difference would be 30 points. Not exactly hard to shave out of most lists that currently exist to take the better troops if you really want them.

Besides, if you're using the chaffe to hold ground and hide all the time then it's less of an issue if they shoot and fight like crap when their job is to take up space on the board or to screen out assault units for cheap.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The difference would be 30 points. Not exactly hard to shave out of most lists that currently exist to take the better troops if you really want them.

Besides, if you're using the chaffe to hold ground and hide all the time then it's less of an issue if they shoot and fight like crap when their job is to take up space on the board or to screen out assault units for cheap.

Sure. But at least you're paying something more for better troops than for worse ones. That you currently don't is insane.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll be honest, I almost feel like that if the regular Guardsman goes to 5ppm people will go back to Conscripts because they only cost 4ppm.

They could but its a fairly clear nerf.

Are you kidding me? Have you heard the level of squak from IG players about conscripts? Hard to imagine they would ever consider them. Then again - we are talking about really disingenuous people here that cant admit the most obviously OP units in the game are OP.

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The difference would be 30 points. Not exactly hard to shave out of most lists that currently exist to take the better troops if you really want them.

Besides, if you're using the chaffe to hold ground and hide all the time then it's less of an issue if they shoot and fight like crap when their job is to take up space on the board or to screen out assault units for cheap.

Sure. But at least you're paying something more for better troops than for worse ones. That you currently don't is insane.

I wouldn't say it's "insane" as much as a problem of how we points cost just about everything. Most base points costs are basically the same going into 8th as we had in previous editions with little real understanding of how the changes to the game changed the value of those models.

Also it's quite clear to pretty much everyone that 5 point infantry are still the best choice in the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'll be honest, I almost feel like that if the regular Guardsman goes to 5ppm people will go back to Conscripts because they only cost 4ppm.

Well at least then we're in a situation where there is genuine choice between bad troops and a lot of CP and better troops with less CP, instead of current situation where the Infantry Squads get the best of both worlds.

The difference would be 30 points. Not exactly hard to shave out of most lists that currently exist to take the better troops if you really want them.

Besides, if you're using the chaffe to hold ground and hide all the time then it's less of an issue if they shoot and fight like crap when their job is to take up space on the board or to screen out assault units for cheap.

failing Move Move Move half the time would probably stop people from actually using Conscripts in their soup.
Its a very important order for maneuvering and being in the right place at the right time.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also it's quite clear to pretty much everyone that 5 point infantry are still the best choice in the game.

I feel like the game needs to bump Infantry costs up in general. If a Sister of Battle is 10, then a Scion should be 9, a Guardsman 7 or 8 and a Conscript 1 point below that. Put a grot at a point even lower than that and we're basically were I feel that spread should be.

Which in turn would cue the rage of everyone who runs Guard or Orks I'm sure, but I feel like that's about how much those models should cost before wargear in the current edition.

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Because IG soup is powered by IG being OP, end of story.

Soup is not a thing, it is a mere descriptor, there are no soup units, soup stratagems or soup warlord traits.

but a top 5 list was soup SM/assassins.... do we need to nuke SM that fueled that list. What about eldar having just as many top list and a mono list.... surely they must be nuked..... Thousand sons was in 3 top lists guess they need a good nuke too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Didn't we decide that BFS was a silly tournament to draw balancing conclusions from because if you won your first 3 games you were in the top 8 regardless of how you then did?

I ask because if so talking about the top 16 is a bit meaningless. The first 8 and second 8 likely didn't interact.

Its currently the only post FAQ tournament we have for data. Also being able to play inside of any tournaments bracketing system is part of the game. All they really did is a day 1 bracket system which is similar to what many e-sports do

If you actually watched the game on stream you'd know that unbeatable UM assassin list only won it's third game because the guy playing against it doesn't know how to play his own army. (forgot about the original d3 mortal wounds from deathgrip when used on Gulliman with one wound left and failed the str roll-off). He loses that game and he is out of the top 8-16 whatever the weird paring system would have done. Even then, one player not knowing how one of their meat and potato strats works up against arguably one of the best players in the US 40k scene probably presents a mismatch in player skill that has a significant effect on how the game plays out.

This is the problem relying on one off tournament results. You have to look at enough games where outliers like this are not skewing your perception of the meta...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Already been tested in proxy. During index 40k conscripts were spammed and we had no access to any real stratagems.

Sorry but that's just not a valid comparison.

In Index-40k, you could mix and match troops freely in detachments (so a SM detachment could have conscript troops rather than SM troops).

That is no longer possible.

What's more, with the suggested rules above, you'd likely be losing out on CPs by taking guard allies (since they wouldn't bring any CPs with them). This might not have mattered in the Index era, when there was little to spend CPs on, but it makes a lot more difference now.


Besides, what's the harm in testing it properly and finding out for certain? Unless you're afraid that the results will prove you wrong.

Asmodios wrote:

You always say "obvious stuff" while also never being able to provide any proof. The fact that we don't see 200 IG infantry lists dominating is proof in and of its self that they aren't OP. The loyal 32 just shows the importance of cheep CP for other factions.... not the dominance of IG

I think we have to take a step back for a moment here.

Do you remember when punisher and other LR variants were crushing it? They never got nerfed, so what changed?

Custodes and Knights came out. Smash Captain missiles were uncovered. These things hampered the ability for LRBTs to operate effectively and so they faded in favor of very CP hungry allies. That didn't make LRBTs not awesome - it just put them on the shelf. Now that screens can block smash captains I bet the LRBTs are going to come back in force.

Furthermore it's a lot easier to paint and play in 2.5-3 hours one model as opposes to 200. 200 IG are still great - they are just really stressful to get in under time.

bananathug wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Because IG soup is powered by IG being OP, end of story.

Soup is not a thing, it is a mere descriptor, there are no soup units, soup stratagems or soup warlord traits.

but a top 5 list was soup SM/assassins.... do we need to nuke SM that fueled that list. What about eldar having just as many top list and a mono list.... surely they must be nuked..... Thousand sons was in 3 top lists guess they need a good nuke too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Didn't we decide that BFS was a silly tournament to draw balancing conclusions from because if you won your first 3 games you were in the top 8 regardless of how you then did?

I ask because if so talking about the top 16 is a bit meaningless. The first 8 and second 8 likely didn't interact.

Its currently the only post FAQ tournament we have for data. Also being able to play inside of any tournaments bracketing system is part of the game. All they really did is a day 1 bracket system which is similar to what many e-sports do

If you actually watched the game on stream you'd know that unbeatable UM assassin list only won it's third game because the guy playing against it doesn't know how to play his own army. (forgot about the original d3 mortal wounds from deathgrip when used on Gulliman with one wound left and failed the str roll-off). He loses that game and he is out of the top 8-16 whatever the weird paring system would have done. Even then, one player not knowing how one of their meat and potato strats works up against arguably one of the best players in the US 40k scene probably presents a mismatch in player skill that has a significant effect on how the game plays out.

This is the problem relying on one off tournament results. You have to look at enough games where outliers like this are not skewing your perception of the meta...

Someone misplayed in a game so we are better off looking at no data and drawing conclusions....

Thanks for the solid advice


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

You always say "obvious stuff" while also never being able to provide any proof. The fact that we don't see 200 IG infantry lists dominating is proof in and of its self that they aren't OP. The loyal 32 just shows the importance of cheep CP for other factions.... not the dominance of IG

I think we have to take a step back for a moment here.

Do you remember when punisher and other LR variants were crushing it? They never got nerfed, so what changed?

Custodes and Knights came out. Smash Captain missiles were uncovered. These things hampered the ability for LRBTs to operate effectively and so they faded in favor of very CP hungry allies. That didn't make LRBTs not awesome - it just put them on the shelf. Now that screens can block smash captains I bet the LRBTs are going to come back in force.

Furthermore it's a lot easier to paint and play in 2.5-3 hours one model as opposes to 200. 200 IG are still great - they are just really stressful to get in under time.

So the people that were bringing 200 conscripts lost them in a few months and were unable to bring them now?
LRBT were never demolishing the meta. They are a good unit.... they are nowhere close to being OP. The fact is that on daka the "IG are obviously broken" is always brought up without a shred of evidence other than the appearance on the loyal 32 for CP generation. Until there is some kind of evidence posters need to stop claiming this as common knowledge