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.

 vipoid wrote:

I see you're burning the same strawman you use every time anyone brings up Soup.

I'm surprised it isn't a pile of ash at this point.

Not a strawman. Guardsmen are flat out the best troops for their points Imperium has. People are not allying Skitarii or Tactical Marines, it is always guardsmen. If those other Imperial factions would have troops worth taking, then they wouldn't need to bring the guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mew28 wrote:

Lets be real here that's not happening and it would not be a good thing even if it did. It would destroy faction identity, some factions like Tau are just made not to have good assault units just like how on the other hand some factions like deamons are not made to have good shooting.

Units being equally good doesn't man they need to be the same, merely that they have appropriate point cost for their capabilities.

Even if guardsmen were not head and shoulders above every other troop choice in the game soup would still be a problem simply because Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari will always have more options than Orks, Tau, and Necrons (and to a lesser extent Tyranids). It's simply impossible to balance three factions that have real weaknesses and limitations due to their unit pool with factions that have a peg for every possible hole.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.

If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.

Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:

1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.

The super heavies should all get looked at too.

Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.

As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.

Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.

As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units

On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.

Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.

Karol wrote:

Trollbert wrote:

Karol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.

But if IG works right now, wouldn't it be better to fix all the other armies and not destroy what IG have? When someone has a car with 10+ damaged parts and a good engine, the fixing does not start with breaking he engine.

I have no idea what GW would have to do make IG stop being good though. Even if they buff the cost by 1 they are still great. It would have to be some sort of special rule that they can't block stuff, being just unarmored frail humans and all across points hikes, debuff to Ld and only God knows what else.

If GW tried to make other armies as good as the currently best army, after 3 CA releases, some armies would end up having troops costing 1 ppm.

Points aren't everything. They could give them extra rules. For example tacticals could get a buff to their fire power, or defense.

All I was trying to say is that I prefer downscaling strong units over upscaling bad units.
IMO the longer a game takes and the longer it takes to lose 3/4 of your army, the more fun it is. For both players.
More upscaling bad armies means that reducing the average number of turns it takes for at least one player to lose 3/4 of their army.

Ideally, tabling shouldn't occur until turn 6 or 7 IMO. It should be nearly impossible to table decent infantry-heavy Necrons or Death Guard list.
But what we got and will get even in lower tiers is games that will basically be decided by the end of game turn 3.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Even if guardsmen were not head and shoulders above every other troop choice in the game soup would still be a problem simply because Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari will always have more options than Orks, Tau, and Necrons (and to a lesser extent Tyranids). It's simply impossible to balance three factions that have real weaknesses and limitations due to their unit pool with factions that have a peg for every possible hole.

And Space Marines have way more options that the Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard has more options than Ad Mech. The exact same issue exist without the soup too.

It doesn't matter how many options you have if they are all crap. See: Blood angel or vanilla codices.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Even if guardsmen were not head and shoulders above every other troop choice in the game soup would still be a problem simply because Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari will always have more options than Orks, Tau, and Necrons (and to a lesser extent Tyranids). It's simply impossible to balance three factions that have real weaknesses and limitations due to their unit pool with factions that have a peg for every possible hole.

Amd Space Marines have way more options that the Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard has more options than Ad Mech. The exact same issue exist without the soup too.

Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.

But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.

I suppose that if instead of guardsmen getting a 1pt increase, company commanders could get a 10pt increase to bring guard closer in line with Ad Mech (200pts with orders or 190 without) and have less of an effect on mono-codex IG when running larger squads. The thing then would be that conscripts are still useless.

Also, I say no to cheaper Hammerheads or Fire warriors. Tau is my main and the set of 3HH+longstrike is almost too good as is.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.

But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.

I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.

Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.

A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.

But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.

That's not how it works. That's not how it has ever worked

The problem with soup is that it makes appropriately costing units even harder than it would already be.

The point of soup is to stack buffs and beneficial interactions - to get an army that is more than the sum of its parts. Arguably this is true of any list, but there is a clear difference between picking from a single, sometimes limited codex and picking from about half of them.

I'd say a single Castellan in Imperial Soup is worth considerably more than one in a mono Knights list. Same for a smash captain. Which figure is right?

You could try and remove all these interactions - but I think you would struggle. Even in a world where say 120 points of Marines had the same probability curves on damage output and defence as 120 points of guardsmen.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.

Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.

A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.

They don't have that specific solution, but they can have other solutions. Mono BA won't beat IG+BA simply because BA are bad. (And after the fly nerf, it is likely that pure Guard is just stronger than BA+Guard.) If the codices were properly written, a pure BA jump assault army should have a decent change of overwhelming their souped brethren in melee, as the soup BA would have diluted that strengths by bringing squishy guardsmen. However this doesn't happen because marines are bad and Guardsmen are crazy resilient.

If Marines with cheap chaff would inherently be a brokenly good combination, then certainly we would see the Chaos Marine armies dominating? They have the most tools the regular Marines have and addition have in built cheap chaff in form of the cultists. Why does this not break the game, but loyalist marines taking similar chaff from different codex does? If factions have these carefully built strengths and weakness that balance out each other, what is the weakness of the Chaos Marines compared to the loyalists, as they have that cheap chaff part covered?

 Crimson wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.

Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.

A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.

They don't have that specific solution, but they can have other solutions. Mono BA won't beat IG+BA simply because BA are bad. (And after the fly nerf, it is likely that pure Guard is just stronger than BA+Guard.) If the codices were properly written, a pure BA jump assault army should have a decent change of overwhelming their souped brethren in melee, as the soup BA would have diluted that strengths by bringing squishy guardsmen. However this doesn't happen because marines are bad and Guardsmen are crazy resilient.

If Marines with cheap chaff would inherently be a brokenly good combination, then certainly we would see the Chaos Marine armies dominating? They have the most tools the regular Marines have and addition have in built cheap chaff in form of the cultists. Why does this not break the game, but loyalist marines taking similar chaff from different codex does? If factions have these carefully built strengths and weakness that balance out each other, what is the weakness of the Chaos Marines compared to the loyalists, as they have that cheap chaff part covered?

You're missing the forest for the trees. Stop focusing on the individual units and see the bigger balance issue that is being highlighted. I'll use an even simpler example:

Having the ability to alpha strike a multi wound model in T1 and T2 is critical to winning. Currently with the rules the only way of doing that is with multi damage shooting because it is highly unlikely that melee can perform the task. BA have atrocious ranged anti-tank options. A soup'ed BA that takes IG shadowswords, a knight, whatever, is at a MASSIVE advantage to ANY BLOOD ANGELS LIST THAT YOU CAN MAKE.

TLDR:
1. You need ranged anti tank to win.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
3. Therefore soup will always win.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
5. You can do this for other armies. See - World Eaters and psychic attack/defense.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.

Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.

A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.

Don't BA have access to Predators, devastators, scouts, and whirlwinds? Unless your stipulation is that those options are bad therefore they don't exist.

Besides, Crimson's main point is that some factions DO have a solution to every problem. Should Harlequins/Custodes etc... suffer because they can't match the versatility of Guard? Restricting soup will just shift the power balance in favor of the largest and most powerful single-factions. And BA will still suck compared to Guard or Eldar, unless GW nerfs/buffs individual units and abilities.

Also, GW's current design philosophy is to encourage allied detachments. To them "soup" only refers to internal detachment mixing (eg. celestine and assassins). As far as they are concerned soup is now dead, and we are simply left with allies. And allies are not going away. The entirety of 8th was designed to allow allies, between detachments, keywords and cross-faction buffs everything works to allow and encourage allies.
So, no, you cannot declare that "soup" breaks internal balance because the codexes were designed with "soup" in mind. Any bad balance is not the fault of the existence of allies, but rather mistakes on the part of the designers, and quite frankly their naiveté when it comes to competitive mindsets.

You can disagree with GW's current policy, and maybe attempt to persuade them otherwise, but to claim that "soup" interactions were not intended or balanced around is false.

I personally love the ally system and I don't play competitively. It's simple and easy to use and let's me dabble in multiple factions without being too committed. It's the best scenario for the hobbyist, but maybe not the competitive gamer. Maybe ask GW to suggest tournament rules or something to limit soup, but leave casual players out of it.

Dandelion wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.

Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.

A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.

Don't BA have access to Predators, devastators, scouts, and whirlwinds? Unless your stipulation is that those options are bad therefore they don't exist.

Besides, Crimson's main point is that some factions DO have a solution to every problem. Should Harlequins/Custodes etc... suffer because they can't match the versatility of Guard? Restricting soup will just shift the power balance in favor of the largest and most powerful single-factions. And BA will still suck compared to Guard or Eldar, unless GW nerfs/buffs individual units and abilities.

Also, GW's current design philosophy is to encourage allied detachments. To them "soup" only refers to internal detachment mixing (eg. celestine and assassins). As far as they are concerned soup is now dead, and we are simply left with allies. And allies are not going away. The entirety of 8th was designed to allow allies, between detachments, keywords and cross-faction buffs everything works to allow and encourage allies.
So, no, you cannot declare that "soup" breaks internal balance because the codexes were designed with "soup" in mind. Any bad balance is not the fault of the existence of allies, but rather mistakes on the part of the designers, and quite frankly their naiveté when it comes to competitive mindsets.

You can disagree with GW's current policy, and maybe attempt to persuade them otherwise, but to claim that "soup" interactions were not intended or balanced around is false.

I personally love the ally system and I don't play competitively. It's simple and easy to use and let's me dabble in multiple factions without being too committed. It's the best scenario for the hobbyist, but maybe not the competitive gamer. Maybe ask GW to suggest tournament rules or something to limit soup, but leave casual players out of it.

What wins in a straight up fight?

A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.

If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.

The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.

edit: I deliberately ignored the entire part about the intentions of GW and how they want to keep soup around. I entirely agree, they do intend to keep it around. I'm just making the argument that mono codexes cannot compete with soup with this framework.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.

Not true: to take an extreme example, a 50 pt predator is vastly better than a castellan. Adjusting tactics and point costs can easily adjust power.

4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.

But you just said that your ranged options are bad, if they were good then internal balance would be good and you would be able to overcome other good options. it's also not an inherent weakness. It's just a badly balanced unit.
That's sort of like suggesting poor Crisis Suits are an inherent weakness to Tau because they're kinda bad right now.

Dandelion wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.

Not true: to take an extreme example, a 50 pt predator is vastly better than a castellan. Adjusting tactics and point costs can easily adjust power.

4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.

But you just said that your ranged options are bad, if they were good then internal balance would be good and you would be able to overcome other good options. it's also not an inherent weakness. It's just a badly balanced unit.
That's sort of like suggesting poor Crisis Suits are an inherent weakness to Tau because they're kinda bad right now.

A 50 point predator as BA will be vastly worse than a 50 point RG predator with it's minus 1 to hit. Soup stands.

Crisis suits aren't an inherent weakness to tau, melee is an inherent weakness to tau. Unless GW intends on making tau a strong melee army it will continue to be an inherent weakness for tau.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


Having the ability to alpha strike a multi wound model in T1 and T2 is critical to winning. Currently with the rules the only way of doing that is with multi damage shooting because it is highly unlikely that melee can perform the task. BA have atrocious ranged anti-tank options. A soup'ed BA that takes IG shadowswords, a knight, whatever, is at a MASSIVE advantage to ANY BLOOD ANGELS LIST THAT YOU CAN MAKE.

TLDR:
1. You need ranged anti tank to win.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
3. Therefore soup will always win.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
5. You can do this for other armies. See - World Eaters and psychic attack/defense.

Yeah, sorry, you're not making sense. If there is an capability that is critical to winning and the BA do not possess it, then the army is broken. Mind you, they did posses such an capability before the fly nerf in form of the smash captain. And of course they do have access to superheavy tanks from FW, such as Falchion. And if BA tanks are worse than Castellan (for their points) then it just means the points are wrong! Either Castellan is too chap or BA tanks too expensive. It is simple as that.

Furthermore, I concentrate on specific units, because those actually exist in the game, I'd really like you to address the Chaos Marine vs. loyalist Marine comparison.

 Crimson wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


Having the ability to alpha strike a multi wound model in T1 and T2 is critical to winning. Currently with the rules the only way of doing that is with multi damage shooting because it is highly unlikely that melee can perform the task. BA have atrocious ranged anti-tank options. A soup'ed BA that takes IG shadowswords, a knight, whatever, is at a MASSIVE advantage to ANY BLOOD ANGELS LIST THAT YOU CAN MAKE.

TLDR:
1. You need ranged anti tank to win.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
3. Therefore soup will always win.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
5. You can do this for other armies. See - World Eaters and psychic attack/defense.

Yeah, sorry, you're not making sense. If there is an capability that is critical to winning and the BA do not possess it, then the army is broken. Mind you, they did posses such an capability before the fly nerf in form of the smash captain. And of course they do have access to superheavy tanks from FW, such as Falchion. And if BA tanks are worse than Castellan (for their points) then it just means the points are wrong! Either Castellan is too chap or BA tanks too expensive. It is simple as that.

Furthermore, I concentrate on specific units, because those actually exist in the game, I'd really like you to address the Chaos Marine vs. loyalist Marine comparison.

No you're consistently focusing on units because it sidesteps my argument rather than addressing it.

BA rules such as stratagems and chapter tactics, do not lend to long range shooting. Even if you drop the points of all the tanks to 1, they will be better as ultramarines to benefit from Guilliman's rerolls. Or RG -1 to hit. Or literally anything that isn't a +1 to wound in melee. The tanks will be objectively better if they are in blue rather than red, and this cannot be avoided. Soup is objectively stronger.

THIS IS FINE. BA are not designed to be strong at shooting, it's part of the flavor. However you can sidestep this weakness through soup, and thus soup will always be superior.

You're saying I'm not making sense because it demolishes your argument. This is all very simple.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

What wins in a straight up fight?

A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.

If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.

RG tanks do not get -1 to being hit...

But even with ignoring your misunderstanding of the rules, and assuming that there are better tanks in one codex than there are in another, then those better tanks should cost more points! That's what the bloody points are for!

The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.

No, the existence of the soup helps in balancing the game, as it makes the disparity between the codices plain to see. It highlights things like the guardsmen just being flat out better than any other troops in any imperial codices.

 Crimson wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

What wins in a straight up fight?

A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.

If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.

RG tanks do not get -1 to being hit...

But even with ignoring your misunderstanding of the rules, and assuming that there are better tanks in one codex than there are in another, then those better tanks should cost more points! That's what the bloody points are for!

The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.

No, the existence of the soup helps in balancing the game, as it makes the disparity between the codices plain to see. It highlights things like the guardsmen just being flat out better than any other troops in any imperial codices.

If you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.

Woops on the RG tanks. Point stands for devs, dreads, etc.

when you see cultists and guardsmen cost the same but guardsmen have +2 D and +1 armor save... you understand something is wrong

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.


And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.

Chapter Tactics apply only to Infantry, Biker, and Dreadnought units.

It says so right in the Chapter Tactics rules next to the popout you're quoting from. P195 of the Space Marines Codex.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.


And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.

Chapter Tactics apply only to Infantry, Biker, and Dreadnought units.

It says so right in the Chapter Tactics rules next to the popout you're quoting from. P195 of the Space Marines Codex.

Yep! You're both right, I'll go back and edit.

Point stands for devs, dreads, etc.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

What wins in a straight up fight?

A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.

If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.

RG tanks do not get -1 to being hit...

But even with ignoring your misunderstanding of the rules, and assuming that there are better tanks in one codex than there are in another, then those better tanks should cost more points! That's what the bloody points are for!

The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.

No, the existence of the soup helps in balancing the game, as it makes the disparity between the codices plain to see. It highlights things like the guardsmen just being flat out better than any other troops in any imperial codices.

RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.


And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.

Edit: Several other people pointed out your foolishness before I could manage it.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.

Tanks are not Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts. How can you not know how chapter tactics work? This is lake absolutely basic thing about space marines.

And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.

They have equal long range shooting to most vanilla marines, so I guess they're the best (marine) army in the game then...

Their Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts are better at melee than those of many other chapters, while not receiving some other benefit as a trade-off.

 Crimson wrote:

If Marines with cheap chaff would inherently be a brokenly good combination, then certainly we would see the Chaos Marine armies dominating? They have the most tools the regular Marines have and addition have in built cheap chaff in form of the cultists. Why does this not break the game, but loyalist marines taking similar chaff from different codex does? If factions have these carefully built strengths and weakness that balance out each other, what is the weakness of the Chaos Marines compared to the loyalists, as they have that cheap chaff part covered?

If cultists had orders, and immunity to morale, then they would be a strong choice for csm.

As it is, they're the best option that csm have, but they're still not great.

 blackmage wrote:
when you see cultists and guardsmen cost the same but guardsmen have +2 D and +1 armor save... you understand something is wrong

Yep, that's the real problem. Marines being able to bring cheap chaff is not inherently a problem, Chaos Marines do it without it being broken. It is just that their chaff is appropriately costed, from which book the said chaff is drawn from is ultimately irrelevant.

 Crimson wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.

Tanks are not Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts. How can you not know how chapter tactics work? This is lake absolutely basic thing about space marines.

And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.

They have equal long range shooting to most vanilla marines, so I guess they're the best (marine) army in the game then...

Their Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts are better at melee than those of many other chapters, while not receiving some other benefit as a trade-off.

Yep I brain farted big time. I'm sorry I hurt you all in this way. Thankfully my point stands, just swap tanks for dreads or devs.

BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example. It's not equal to an RG DEV team (happy?)