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.

See? It looks like in Spain we are 5-6 months behind in our meta. Here everyone is still rocking Coldstars with fusions.
Now the new Tau hotness are Riptides, Stormsurge, Commanders and like 30-50 drones.

But yeah, a Commander with 4 missile pods calling Kauyon turn 1 sounds actually very sweet. I'll try it next tournament, thanks Xenomancer. I play Vior'la, both for thematic and for list reasons (I ran a TON of assault weapons. I even ran piranhas. I know they suck but what can I do, they are my favourite models alongside stealth suits)

 Galas wrote:
See? It looks like in Spain we are 5-6 months behind in our meta. Here everyone is still rocking Coldstars with fusions.
Now the new Tau hotness are Riptides, Stormsurge, Commanders and like 30-50 drones.

I don't think there is an actual tau meta. There are a bunch of ways to build their lists.

You can go 2+ to hit spam (commanders/longstrike and hammerheads)
Surge spam (3 surges/markerlights/ and commanders)
Tigershark spam (I don't know anyone that owns 3 Tigersharks but that is just scary...)

or you can take the combines arms approach with lots of marker lights(drones) riptides/boradsides/ and drones.

I can't tell you which is better - it's all reasonable strong.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.

Fusion isnt good when everything you want to shoot has a 4++ or better

And Tau are beating Mono Guard because the good Guard players are not bringing Mono Guard.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.

Exactly. I try to make this argument over and over but really you said it best.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.

Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.

Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.

Mono vs Soup is a very valid distinction to make.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.

Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.

Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.

Mono vs Soup is a very valid distinction to make.

^ this

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.

Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.

Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.

Mono vs Soup is a very valid distinction to make.

Yeah it's certainly valid but we are really only talking about the distinction between the shadowsword and the castellan at this point. OFC - the castellan is better.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.

Exactly. I try to make this argument over and over but really you said it best.

I disagree completely. "Everything guard except a knight" is not mono-guard. That model accounts for a sizable portion of the army's points and comes from a completely different codex. Nerfing the guard codex because knights are good and have good synergy with guard completely misses where the problem lies.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.

Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.

Mono vs Soup is a very valid distinction to make.

Exalted.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.

 Smirrors wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.

This is the kind of post that makes me laugh. There is no report out there that tracks mono Guard. This is made up data. And no one is playing Nids, because you can't beat Knights with Nids.

"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.

This is the kind of post that makes me laugh. There is no report out there that tracks mono Guard. This is made up data. And no one is playing Nids, because you can't beat Knights with Nids.

"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.

Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.

I'd love to hear how chimeras are better than the best units in the Tau/Eldar/Tyranid/ etc codices...

 Marmatag wrote:
"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.

That is an extreme example, but it is still correct. A guard army with one assassin ceases to be mono-guard by definition... unless you are misunderstanding what mono-guard means.

You can make the argument that it is "close enough" to mono-guard not to matter but that definition shouldn't extend to say, a guard army with a knight... because that changes things considerably more than a single assassin.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.

And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.

Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance

For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.

This is the kind of post that makes me laugh. There is no report out there that tracks mono Guard. This is made up data. And no one is playing Nids, because you can't beat Knights with Nids.

"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.

Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.

*snort* yeah, lemme know how Vanquishers, Armored Sentinels and Chimeras are better than the best units of any other codex.

I'll wait, this should be good.

w1zard wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.

I'd love to hear how chimeras are better than the best units in the Tau/Eldar/Tyranid/ etc codices...

 Marmatag wrote:
"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.

That is an extreme example, but it is still correct. A guard army with one assassin ceases to be mono-guard by definition... unless you are misunderstanding what mono-guard means.

You can make the argument that it is "close enough" to mono-guard not to matter but that definition shouldn't extend to say, a guard army with a knight... because that changes things considerably more than a single assassin.

You have your own LOW you shouldn't be allowed knights.
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.

I'd love to hear how chimeras are better than the best units in the Tau/Eldar/Tyranid/ etc codices...

 Marmatag wrote:
"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.

That is an extreme example, but it is still correct. A guard army with one assassin ceases to be mono-guard by definition... unless you are misunderstanding what mono-guard means.

You can make the argument that it is "close enough" to mono-guard not to matter but that definition shouldn't extend to say, a guard army with a knight... because that changes things considerably more than a single assassin.

You have your own LOW you shouldn't be allowed knights.
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.

Knights should be nerfed into being dependent on allies. Fighting 4+ knights freaking sucks unless you tool out specifically for it at which point you've effectively conceded your matches against anybody who brought a TAC list or even slightly skewed horde. Screw Knights.

Just to emphasize how freaking stupid Imperial Knights are, ELEVEN of the "OP" Leman Russes (9 regular + 2 tank commanders, or 1762 points worth) with Cadian re-roll 1's and the +1 to hit stratagem will fail to kill a 3++ Knight with average rolls in a single round of shooting.

Ice_can wrote:

You have your own LOW you shouldn't be allowed knights.

...lol?

Knights have their own special rules for fielding LoW Detachments. They shouldn't be allowed Guard!

You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.

It's funny, we had this exact same situation happening with the Knights+Cult Mechanicus and Skitarii. It ended up with Skitarii getting rolled into Cult stuff and losing their unique rules to instead be frigging Stratagems.

So yeah. Screw Knights! NERF 'EM INTO THE GROUND!

Ice_can wrote:
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.

And I would rather mono-guard remain a viable force outside of being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger soup armies. Nerfing the guard codex only hurts mono-guard and does nothing to effect the worst of the soup lists because it misses the reason WHY soup lists take guard detachments.

Is some stuff in the guard codex too good? Absolutely. But the same can be said for the Eldar/DE/Tau/Tyranid codices.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.

And I would rather mono-guard remain a viable force outside of being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger soup armies. Nerfing the guard codex only hurts mono-guard and does nothing to effect the worst of the soup lists because it misses the reason WHY soup lists take guard detachments.

Is some stuff in the guard codex too good? Absolutely. But the same can be said for the Eldar/DE/Tau/Tyranid codices.

I mean one of the reasons people take guard in soup is because you can put together a hyper-mobile infantry force that punches as hard as a marine for much less points that can be used to push aggressively for mid-field objectives. If you think Guardsmen are being used solely to generate CP then you have a very serious lack of understanding of your own army.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.

And I would rather mono-guard remain a viable force outside of being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger soup armies. Nerfing the guard codex only hurts mono-guard and does nothing to effect the worst of the soup lists because it misses the reason WHY soup lists take guard detachments.

Is some stuff in the guard codex too good? Absolutely. But the same can be said for the Eldar/DE/Tau/Tyranid codices.

I mean one of the reasons people take guard in soup is because you can put together a hyper-mobile infantry force that punches as hard as a marine for much less points that can be used to push aggressively for mid-field objectives. If you think Guardsmen are being used solely to generate CP then you have a very serious lack of understanding of your own army.

Exactly. For my Deathwatch I basically can't hold home objectives and have no CP. Guard alleviate the issue so that, even though I WANT to run pure Deathwatch, I can at least put a majority of points into them still and have a solid backline. Vostroyan and Cadian work well for what I want to do whereas people like being aggressive with Catachan.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I mean one of the reasons people take guard in soup is because you can put together a hyper-mobile infantry force that punches as hard as a marine for much less points that can be used to push aggressively for mid-field objectives. If you think Guardsmen are being used solely to generate CP then you have a very serious lack of understanding of your own army.

They are there to generate CP, serve as cheap screens for more important things, and act as meatshields on backfield objectives... Am I missing anything?

Infantry squads are too cheap per wound, but nobody takes a guard battalion for its killing power. (Maybe catachan battalion, but that requires a larger point investment to work).

Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

GhostRecon wrote:
Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

Interestingly, that already is a thing with Rogue Trader 'armies' - the Eluterian Starstriders from Kill Team: Rogue Trader.
Vhane's warlord trait gives you a bag of CPs that can only be spent on her own faction's stratagems, all of which namecheck either her faction keyword or named characters from the faction.

GhostRecon wrote:
Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.

GhostRecon wrote:
Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

It is, but enough people kept screaming the "it's tooooooo complicated nonsense", pretending that tracking three different CP pools would be too much for 40K players, who have no issue tracking wounds on three or four different models along with a flurry of mission conditions in tournament games in particular, that it seems it stuck with Robin Cruddace.

IMO it would certainly be more elegant, more in tune with the existing CP regen rules and wouldn't need so many hamfisted exceptions and extra-rulings as the current version.

That said, the current version is better than nothing at all.

Spoletta wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.

But if only "fixs" CP abuse when two or three good different detachments are used. If someone has to use ally, because his army does not work, the limitation to CP, will mean they may just as well not play ally at all, or play the ally without their main army.

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

That is not true. If you have an army that is elite and non efficient as far as CP goes, and it is your main army, you were taking the IG dudes to supply it with CP it could not generate on its own. And there is no replacment for that CP generation for those armies. GK for example do not have a cheap battalion or brigade, neither do tney have CP regenaration of their own which seems to be the staple of all good armies, among other things of course.

There's no single silver bullet that's going to fix the issue of soup and CP and make every single codex that's already been written equal in footing.
GK need more than a silver bullet to fix them. They at the very least need heavy point adjustments and at worst an extensive rework.

Spoletta wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.

I think that's probably the best way to go even if it sacrifices Knights in competitive play. Will still see them in matched play games and lower levels, but they'll be pretty weak without at least a dozen CP for turn 1 and 2, which they can't acquire themselves.

Lemondish wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?

Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.

It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.

I think that's probably the best way to go even if it sacrifices Knights in competitive play. Will still see them in matched play games and lower levels, but they'll be pretty weak without at least a dozen CP for turn 1 and 2, which they can't acquire themselves.

IMO there's no need to "sacrifice" codexes like knights and BA. If after a change like this, these codexes struggle, they can simply have their strategems reduced in cost. If CP was limited per the detachment that generated it you would no longer have to price the strats as if they might benefit from soup. It would actually give GW another good tool for balance that isn't points or stats adjustment.

I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.