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.

 Galas wrote:
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.

90% of these monodex advocates are Guard players that don't want their OP bullcrap to be nerfed and don't really care about anything else.

 Galas wrote:
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.

I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling after CP is limited to the Detachment generating it.

The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

90% of these monodex advocates are Guard players that don't want their OP bullcrap to be nerfed and don't really care about anything else.

Considering soup is the "OP bullcrap" (mono guard isn't running around winning tournaments left and right) and every pro mono build person is advocating for soup being nerfed it's kinda hard to argue that its mono players wanting to protect "OP bullcrap".... If anything advocating for soup being toned down is an advocate for every mono dex in the game that cannot soup receiving a buff (tau, necron, orks, ect). Actually, it's those defending soup that are wanting to protect every top list at NOVA and keep factions like tau, necrons ect from ever being able to consistently reach the top tables

Asmodios wrote:

Considering soup is the "OP bullcrap" (mono guard isn't running around winning tournaments left and right) and every pro mono build person is advocating for soup being nerfed it's kinda hard to argue that its mono players wanting to protect "OP bullcrap".... If anything advocating for soup being toned down is an advocate for every mono dex in the game that cannot soup receiving a buff (tau, necron, orks, ect). Actually, it's those defending soup that are wanting to protect every top list at NOVA and keep factions like tau, necrons ect from ever being able to consistently reach the top tables

And of course nerfing the soup while leaving the Guard untouched will let the Guard reign supreme. Soup is not inherently a problem, sure there are couple of specific powerful soup builds, and if those are even 1% more powerful than monobuilds, then that's what is used in tournaments. But please do understand that monoguard is more powerful than any imperial soup build that does not include Guard and many soups which do (I guess Knights + Ad Mech might be able to challenge mono guard, maybe.)

It's like this:
Tier 1: Guard + Knights, BA or Custodes
Tier 2: Monoguard
Tier 3: Guard + some other imperial army
Tier 4: Imperial soup without Guard
Tier 5: Mono non-guard Imperial

You want to nerf 1, 3 and 4; I want to nerf 1,2 and 3. My approach brings the power of these different builds closer together, your approach pushes them further apart, while crowning the monoguard as the top dog.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Considering soup is the "OP bullcrap" (mono guard isn't running around winning tournaments left and right) and every pro mono build person is advocating for soup being nerfed it's kinda hard to argue that its mono players wanting to protect "OP bullcrap".... If anything advocating for soup being toned down is an advocate for every mono dex in the game that cannot soup receiving a buff (tau, necron, orks, ect). Actually, it's those defending soup that are wanting to protect every top list at NOVA and keep factions like tau, necrons ect from ever being able to consistently reach the top tables

And of course nerfing the soup while leaving the Guard untouched will let the Guard reign supreme. Soup is not inherently a problem, sure there are couple of specific powerful soup builds, and if those are even 1% more powerful than monobuilds, then that's what is used in tournaments. But please do understand that monoguard is more powerful than any imperial soup build that does not include Guard and many soups which do (I guess Knights + Ad Mech might be able to challenge mono guard, maybe.)

It's like this:
Tier 1: Guard + Knights, BA or Custodes
Tier 2: Monoguard
Tier 3: Guard + some other imperial army
Tier 4: Imperial soup without Guard
Tier 5: Mono non-guard Imperial

You want to nerf 1, 3 and 4; I want to nerf 1,2 and 3. My approach brings the power of these different builds closer together, your approach pushes them further apart, while crowning the monoguard as the top dog.

1. There is no proof that removing soup will "let guard reign supreme". The fact is we have seen just as many mono g-man, tau, eldar, DE lists gain top spots at tournaments as mono guard. Until you have some sort of evidence to back this claim you shouldn't present it as some sort of obvious knowledge.
2. If guard was found to be broken after a soup fix then nerf guard plain and simple. If there is clear evidence of mono IG being too strong after this fix nobody will complain about a nerf.

You really don't need to be a genius (although naturally I am ) to realise that monoguard is far stronger than majority of soup builds. Do you honestly believe that for exampe Ad Mech + Iron Hands is somehow a powerful build that needs a nerf while a monoguard isn't?

 Crimson wrote:
You really don't need to be a genius (although naturally I am ) to realise that monoguard is far stronger than majority of soup builds. Do you honestly believe that for exampe Ad Mech + Iron Hands is somehow a powerful build that needs a nerf while a monoguard isn't?

Have you played mono guard against mono admech stygies? One of my brothers plays mono stygies (the -1 hit admech) and let me tell you it is just as hard as every other -hit list i face and currently i have a negative record against it. Personally, I think it would not only be foolish but quite stupid to assume IG would be some unstoppable force considering the prevalence of -1 or -2 hit in the game. Having such an easy and obvious counter across multiple factions will imo keep mono IG from being dominant.

Asmodios wrote:

1. There is no proof that removing soup will "let guard reign supreme". The fact is we have seen just as many mono g-man, tau, eldar, DE lists gain top spots at tournaments as mono guard. Until you have some sort of evidence to back this claim you shouldn't present it as some sort of obvious knowledge.
2. If guard was found to be broken after a soup fix then nerf guard plain and simple. If there is clear evidence of mono IG being too strong after this fix nobody will complain about a nerf.

The problem is that no matter what, some people will find some new goalpost to shift it to for Guard to be broken instead of whatever the soup FOTM is.

We saw it at the launch of 8th with the Conscript+Commissar crying. Some people cried that they were too cheap for the board control and Command Points they granted, some people cried that they were "unbreakable" because of Commissars while being too "offensively capable" because of Orders, and some people just plain cried.

Fast forward to now, Conscripts are rarely if ever taken and Commissars are considered a joke unit. People predicted that Conscripts were going to get overnerfed for the soup crowd and rendered unplayable effectively for Guard players as a result and we got the Commissar errata'd to be absolutely awful(even in its now second errata'd state it's just bad for what it is supposed to be) for any metric that isn't someone covering their eyes from spite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
You really don't need to be a genius (although naturally I am ) to realise that monoguard is far stronger than majority of soup builds. Do you honestly believe that for example Ad Mech + Iron Hands is somehow a powerful build that needs a nerf while a monoguard isn't?

This is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
Neither one of those is taking the other to specifically generate CPs to power up one specific unit.
Neither one of those is being taken specifically to cover the gaps in the other's roster.

Conscripts+commisars where stupidly op. The fault is on GW, for making them so powerfull and then making them so bad. But most if other nerfs in 8th have been much more sensible. The nerfed units are weaker but not unusable.

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
Neither one of those is taking the other to specifically generate CPs to power up one specific unit.
Neither one of those is being taken specifically to cover the gaps in the other's roster.

So? That's kinda the point. There are crap ton of non-problematic soup builds which yet would be affected by any blanket soup nerfs. I just want fixes to specific issues, instead of blanket solutions which throw innocent parties under the buss. I want better balance between units. You're completely right that commissar nerf was a step too far and there are also many underperforming Guard units. Those are things that needs to be addressed too. It is also not that Guard is alone in having some OP units, OP units in all armies need to be addressed. But I just don't believe the soup is inherently a problem, if there was better balance between units and factions it would not be an issue.

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts+commisars where stupidly op. The fault is on GW, for making them so powerfull and then making them so bad. But most if other nerfs in 8th have been much more sensible. The nerfed units are weaker but not unusable.

And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. "Conscripts+Commissars were stupidly OP"--how? What made them such a gangbusters unit?

Conscripts saw a price bump, the addition of a 50:50 split on being able to receive an Order, and a reduction in squad sizes. They didn't get saddled with a reduction in their Armor Saves(something I'd advocated for), an inability to receive Orders(most people weren't even doing anything other than the "act normally after falling back" Order--which is admittedly huge, but still locks you out from other Orders on that unit) and Regimental Traits by giving them Auxilia.

But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

This is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
Neither one of those is taking the other to specifically generate CPs to power up one specific unit.
Neither one of those is being taken specifically to cover the gaps in the other's roster.

So? That's kinda the point. There are crap ton of non-problematic soup builds which yet would be affected by any blanket soup nerfs. I just want fixes to specific issues, instead of blanket solutions which throw innocent parties under the buss. I want better balance between units. You're completely right that commissar nerf was a step too far and there are also many underperforming Guard units. Those are things that needs to be addressed too. It is also not that Guard is alone in having some OP units, OP units in all armies need to be addressed. But I just don't believe the soup is inherently a problem, if there was better balance between units and factions it would not be an issue.

But therein lies the issue.

You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".


Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

Veterans will never be worth taking since they're Elites.
Conscripts were never worth taking to anyone except the soup players or the people who kept trying to theoryhammer Lasguns into the end all, be all weapon.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling after CP is limited to the Detachment generating it.

The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.

It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling after CP is limited to the Detachment generating it.

The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.

It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.

Who says you can't address soup AND lower-performing Codecs at the same time?

Limit CP to the generating faction.
Drop the BA Strats back down to the original amounts, and take a look at what's performing badly in them, and bring them up in power/down in points/both.
Take a long, hard look at GK and scrap the whole 'dex, then rewrite it better.
Remove Bobby G so Marines can be balanced properly, or change Bobby G to something that's not so skewy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling after CP is limited to the Detachment generating it.

The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.

It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.

I think we already know about BA and GK. We are just waiting for something meaningful to happen.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling after CP is limited to the Detachment generating it.

The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.

It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?

Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.

Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I've never once said anything about Grey Knights. I don't know their book well enough to comment, so I don't. If there's problems with Grey Knights then fix the damn book.

 Crimson wrote:
But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.

Moving them to Troops just creates another fun new target unit for the "NERF GUARD!" whiners when it comes to soup.

Veterans are an Infantry Squad that can take 3x Plasma Guns and a Mortar...

You know what? Yeah. Move 'em to Troops. I want to hear the internet after that nonsense starts getting souped in.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".

"Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do" are not corner cases. Corner cases are the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments. So if you stop ignoring the facts I stop accusing you of doing so.

Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.

Stellar argument mate! Soup is not a problem, end of story!

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".

"Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do" are not corner cases. Corner cases are the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments. So if you stop ignoring the facts I stop accusing you of doing so.

Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.

But hey. Keep shifting those goalposts!

Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.

Stellar argument mate! Soup is not a problem, end of story!

Better than most of your contributions to this thread.

"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling after CP is limited to the Detachment generating it.

The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.

It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.

Who says you can't address soup AND lower-performing Codecs at the same time?

Limit CP to the generating faction.
Drop the BA Strats back down to the original amounts, and take a look at what's performing badly in them, and bring them up in power/down in points/both.
Take a long, hard look at GK and scrap the whole 'dex, then rewrite it better.
Remove Bobby G so Marines can be balanced properly, or change Bobby G to something that's not so skewy.

Well according to Kan we can't.

However, there ARE clearly just problem units, so hitting problem units and buffing bad units helps fix the issues with allies. Remember how Eldar could ally with ANYBODY in 7th and they actually didn't need to. It was because of broken aspects of the codex yeah, but the few things they felt like bringing in they actually didn't need to


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling after CP is limited to the Detachment generating it.

The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.

It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?

Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.

Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I've never once said anything about Grey Knights. I don't know their book well enough to comment, so I don't. If there's problems with Grey Knights then fix the damn book.

 Crimson wrote:
But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)

As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.

Moving them to Troops just creates another fun new target unit for the "NERF GUARD!" whiners when it comes to soup.

Veterans are an Infantry Squad that can take 3x Plasma Guns and a Mortar...

You know what? Yeah. Move 'em to Troops. I want to hear the internet after that nonsense starts getting souped in.

1. So even though Slamguinus took the hit he needed to, is he still going to be allied in? Maybe on occasion, but now he's not broken, so you'll see him just some of the time. Funny how balancing a unit does that, huh?
2. If you aren't already having plans for codices that can't function, who are you to say which units and codices are the problems? Grey Knights are bad and rely on other codices to basically carry them.
So I want your proposed fixes for Codex Grey Knights to go along with your feelings on allies. I'm waiting.
3. As long as they pay the appropriate price for their weapons nobody is going to care. Once again part of their problem is transports being REALLY bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".

"Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do" are not corner cases. Corner cases are the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments. So if you stop ignoring the facts I stop accusing you of doing so.

Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.

But hey. Keep shifting those goalposts!

Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.

Stellar argument mate! Soup is not a problem, end of story!

Better than most of your contributions to this thread.

"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"

There are units that need to be hit, end of story. I'm sorry your favorite faction finally does something but they need to be reigned in. You're like Master of Ordnance without the flat admittance that they were happy Guard were broken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well according to Kan we can't.

No, according to Kan we should be targeting soup first and then looking at the follow-up results. We shouldn't be nerfing solo books we should be coming up with ways to address soup in a more comprehensive manner.

How many times have I suggested a rule disallowing Guard Warlords in soup? I know you're aware of it, because you argued against it.

However, there ARE clearly just problem units, so hitting problem units and buffing bad units helps fix the issues with allies. Remember how Eldar could ally with ANYBODY in 7th and they actually didn't need to. It was because of broken aspects of the codex yeah, but the few things they felt like bringing in they actually didn't need to

And this is wrong.

There are not "clearly just problem units". There's problem units in the context of soup thanks to this edition.

Remember how Eldar had to ally in Dark Eldar to power up their Wraithknights with Command Points? No? Oh right--it's because different editions are different.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.

Guard players are not bringing infantry squads and company commanders? That's news to me. At least I am talking about nerfing the specific units in the problem builds; when I'm talking about nerfing guard, I don't mean that sentinels need a point increase. That being said, the biggest issue, the CP regen has been addressed. Some units in the codex need point adjustments, but that is not so urgent. I hope we see some in CA though (including point decreases for underperforming units, of course.)

Better than most of your contributions to this thread.

"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"

Your continued use of kindergarden level argumentation doesn't do you any favours. You know very well that it was just one specific example, especially as I spelled it out for you. Non-problematic soup builds include majority of the soup builds, and I repeat it again and you can pretend not to see it: Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do are not a problem. Only the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments are a problem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. So even though Slamguinus took the hit he needed to, is he still going to be allied in? Maybe on occasion, but now he's not broken, so you'll see him just some of the time. Funny how balancing a unit does that, huh?

It's always cute how you assume he was the one being allied in, not the other way around.

2. If you aren't already having plans for codices that can't function, who are you to say which units and codices are the problems? Grey Knights are bad and rely on other codices to basically carry them.
So I want your proposed fixes for Codex Grey Knights to go along with your feelings on allies. I'm waiting.

Buy me a copy of C: Grey Knights and I'll totally give you my proposed fixes and feelings.

3. As long as they pay the appropriate price for their weapons nobody is going to care. Once again part of their problem is transports being REALLY bad.

No, "part of their problem" is they lost all of their other wargear options. Grenadier Vets(4+ saves) were a thing for a reason.

There are units that need to be hit, end of story. I'm sorry your favorite faction finally does something but they need to be reigned in. You're like Master of Ordnance without the flat admittance that they were happy Guard were broken.

The difference being that if I genuinely felt like something were broken, I'd admit it. I don't feel that way. I feel that people like you keep harping upon tournament standings and other garbage while flatout ignoring that SOUP IS THE PROBLEM.

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, according to Kan we should be targeting soup first and then looking at the follow-up results. We shouldn't be nerfing solo books we should be coming up with ways to address soup in a more comprehensive manner.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.

So when it is a BA unit in the soup causing a problem it is fine to nerf the unit, but when it is a guard unit the solution needs to be to nerf the soup instead. Good to see your hypocrisy being expressed this plainly and clearly.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.

Guard players are not bringing infantry squads and company commanders? That's news to me.

Serious question:
What the hell else are they supposed to bring? Tank Commanders and Conscripts? Company Commanders and Leman Russes? Tempestor Primes and Veterans?

Do you not understand the mechanics of how Guard works? Is that the problem?

At least I am talking about nerfing the specific units in the problem builds; when I'm talking about nerfing guard, I don't mean that sentinels need a point increase. That being said, the biggest issue, the CP regen has been addressed. Some units in the codex need point adjustments, but that is not so urgent. I hope we see some in CA though (including point decreases for underperforming units, of course.)

Except you're not talking about nerfing those specific units. You're continually focused upon nerfing Infantry Squads for some moronic reason. You're continually focused upon nerfing the Guard element while ignoring that it literally only gets taken to provide a pool of Command Points for the actual heavy lifting.

Better than most of your contributions to this thread.

"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"

Your continued use of kindergarden level argumentation doesn't do you any favours.

"Kindergarten". If you want to play the insult game, I'll play the correcting your grammar game.

You know very well that it was just one specific example, especially as I spelled it out for you. Non-problematic soup builds include majority of the soup builds, and I repeat it again and you can pretend not to see it: Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do are not a problem. Only the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments are a problem.

And yet we see an overrepresentation of those "specific overperforming combos", now don't we?

You can continue to say that "it was just one specific example", but this is not the first time you've attempted this argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, according to Kan we should be targeting soup first and then looking at the follow-up results. We shouldn't be nerfing solo books we should be coming up with ways to address soup in a more comprehensive manner.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.

So when it is a BA unit in the soup causing a problem it is fine to nerf the unit, but when it is a guard unit the solution needs to be to nerf the soup instead. Good to see your hypocrisy being expressed this plainly and clearly.

Considering the BA unit is a single character build and not the basic frigging infantry unit of the army?

Yup. You're damn right it's fine to nerf the unit.

Oh and if you want to talk hypocrisy?

 Crimson wrote:

The cherrypicking complaint is pretty damn silly when some factions have only a handful units to choose from while others have way over hundred! How is that fair?

So yeah. Guard players are taking Company Commanders and Infantry Squads. Because there's not a whole hell of a lot of options for HQs that actually let the army function as intended(read: Orders) when selecting Infantry Squads.

So we can't hit a troop choice because of no reason?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So we can't hit a troop choice because of no reason?

It's like you constantly ignore the fact that I've made suggestions as to how to dramatically alter the Troop choice without simply hiking up the points.

Let's face a single fact here, people:
The Infantry Squad cannot be touched unless it is part of a comprehensive overhaul of the Guard book. It is basically the only functioning <Regiment> infantry(little i) unit in the Guard. Heavy Weapon Squads come close, but Special Weapon Squads? Who takes those? Conscripts? Veterans?

Ratlings, Bullgryns, Scions all function as they should be(and the Bullgryn change was needed IMO) but they are Auxilias not <Regiment>.

 Galas wrote:
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.

Or it's a recognition that GW's execution was really stupid and these should be handled in other ways. I don't see how that's hypocrisy...in fact, the Guard codex shows exactly how best it should be done with Stormtroopers, a distinct separate faction built into the larger Guard codex that integrates relatively seamlessly without needing to open *EVERYTHING* from all other armies. Things like Knights,Assassins, the Inquisition, etc shouldn't be treated as their own distinct forces, because largely they're not, they should be treated as plug-ins for Imperial armies the way Stormtroopers are for Guard. Same thing with stuff like Harlequins. When the game size is appropriate, some of these factions can be played as their own armies, but at many points levels they just can't be played independently, or lack enough units and capabilities to be played independently at any level.

At a minimum, restricting CP's to the factions that generated them is a no-brainer balance move, and one that makes sense from a background perspective as well. The logistics train and command structure of the Imperial Guard isn't something a Knight Household is going to be able to make direct use of for example.

So no love for making Voxes mandatory in Infantry Squads?

45 points for very little increase in power, as compared to 40 points as they are now.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So no love for making Voxes mandatory in Infantry Squads?

45 points for very little increase in power, as compared to 40 points as they are now.

People will still argue that "You can't really get nerfed if you get a buff too!" or that "Great, now Guard get free extra range on their Orders!".

There is no way to reasonably discuss Infantry Squads with people who do not think soup is the problem.