Unpopular opinion- In defense of soup

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.

**Crimson**

SHUPPET wrote:

Wait so your dex gave you the tools to build to cover the weaknesses of a glass cannon list, but because you wanted to keep a "theme" you left literally every single one of them at home, and yet you want that dumber style of play to just as powerful as every well built list from other dexes for the sake of your fluff, and at the cost of propelling other people's sensibly well built list from your own dex into a state of overpoweredness as a result? Each faction has it's identity. If you want to play PURE GLASS CANNONS, play the army that is designed around that style of play. This is like complaining that you built an all-shooty Ork army, and expecting it to be as powerful as an all shooty Tau army. Each faction needs to do certain things well and certain things poorly, to have an identity. I'm quite certain you don't understand game design as strong as you think you do pal.

Restricting army to monobuild is bad design. Lets make a concrete example. In Space Marines you can make an assualty Black Templar crusade, should this be automatically inferior than a Khorne Daemon army, because in theory Marines could have taken Fireraptors and Sicaran Battletanks? Should Imperial Fists gunline be automatically inferior to Tau Gunline? Should only viable way to play marines to be a combined arms style drawing equally from all elements? How is this good design?

**SHUPPET**

Crimson wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:

Wait so your dex gave you the tools to build to cover the weaknesses of a glass cannon list, but because you wanted to keep a "theme" you left literally every single one of them at home, and yet you want that dumber style of play to just as powerful as every well built list from other dexes for the sake of your fluff, and at the cost of propelling other people's sensibly well built list from your own dex into a state of overpoweredness as a result? Each faction has it's identity. If you want to play PURE GLASS CANNONS, play the army that is designed around that style of play. This is like complaining that you built an all-shooty Ork army, and expecting it to be as powerful as an all shooty Tau army. Each faction needs to do certain things well and certain things poorly, to have an identity. I'm quite certain you don't understand game design as strong as you think you do pal.

Restricting army to monobuild is bad design. Lets make a concrete example. In Space Marines you can make an assualty Black Templar crusade, should this be automatically inferior than a Khorne Daemon army, because in theory Marines could have taken Fireraptors and Sicaran Battletanks? Should Imperial Fists gunline be automatically inferior to Tau Gunline? Should only viable way to play marines to be a combined arms style drawing equally from all elements? How is this good design?

That's not restricting it to a mono build. In fact it does the definitive opposite. Can you slow down, read, and think about the meaning of the posts that you are replying to? You can run a heavily assaulty BT list, and unlike a similarly assaulty from a race like say Tyranids, who's iconic weakness in almost every edition has always been a lack of reliable heavy AT, you could take a squads or two of Lascannon Devs. You are not a weaker list, your strength is that your assault army does not have this massive exploitable hole, which is a concession that a different army may have to make. Versatility is a strength, and not having access to certain tools IS a weakness that holds back almost every army in the game in some way, and the ones that don't need to be balanced as such. Assuming there was perfect balance between all units, of course.

**Crimson**

Yes. You are suggesting that an army which has access to wide variety of units should for some reason be punished for it, even though they cannot actually use all those units at once.

You think that Black Templar melee build should be inferior to Khorne Daemon melee build because Sicaran Battletanks exist.

This is basically the exact example you gave, just using the actual units in the game.

**SHUPPET**

Crimson wrote:
Yes. You are suggesting that an army which has access to wide variety of units should for some reason be punished for it, even though they cannot actually use all those units at once.

You think that Black Templar melee build should be inferior to Khorne Daemon melee build because Sicaran Battletanks exist.

This is basically the exact example you gave, just using the actual units in the game.

I just explained definitively how it wasn't any of those things at all, but okay.

**Crimson**

SHUPPET wrote:

I just explained definitively how it wasn't any of those things at all, but that's okay, I suspected you stopped actually reading a while ago.

I stopped reading when there was no more text. You edited in more later.

You can run a heavily assaulty BT list, and unlike a similarly assaulty from a race like say Tyranids, who's iconic weakness in almost every edition has always been a lack of reliable heavy AT, you could take a squads or two of Lascannon Devs. You are not a weaker list, your strength is that your assault army does not have this massive exploitable hole, which is a concession that a different army may have to make. Versatility is a strength, and not having access to certain tools IS a weakness that holds back almost every army in the game in some way, and the ones that don't need to be balanced as such. Assuming there was perfect balance between all units, of course.

So basically you're saying what I said you were saying. BT melee should be weaker, because they could take lascannons. How about it is not, except if you spend some point on those lascannons, thus having less points for melee, thus weakening it? That is how to properly balance a game. You pay for what you actually take, not for what you could have taken.

**Hollow**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Hollow wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
You see how bad greyknights are?

Laurence from Table Top Tactics just won the London War-gaming Guild's, Fun and Fluffy 40k tournament with them.

Oh, I heard about that tournament. The list building rules are... bizarre, and seem specifically designed to push away anyone playing the game seriously. Every non-troop or dedicated transport is a 0-1 model, for example.

Sounds great! The more GW and tournament organisers can do to push away "serious" gamers the better!

**ccs**

Martel732 wrote:
Soup is irrelevant as long as guardsmen are miscosted.

Unless the soup you're facing isn't Imperial.

**SHUPPET**

Crimson wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:

I just explained definitively how it wasn't any of those things at all, but that's okay, I suspected you stopped actually reading a while ago.

I stopped reading when there was no more text. You edited in more later.

I immediately edited and fixed it must have been the way it was for like 20 seconds, but fair enough, it's possible thats when you clicked on it.

Crimson wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
You can run a heavily assaulty BT list, and unlike a similarly assaulty from a race like say Tyranids, who's iconic weakness in almost every edition has always been a lack of reliable heavy AT, you could take a squads or two of Lascannon Devs. You are not a weaker list, your strength is that your assault army does not have this massive exploitable hole, which is a concession that a different army may have to make. Versatility is a strength, and not having access to certain tools IS a weakness that holds back almost every army in the game in some way, and the ones that don't need to be balanced as such. Assuming there was perfect balance between all units, of course.

So basically you're saying what I said you were saying. BT melee should be weaker, because they could take lascannons. How about it is not, except if you spend some point on those lascannons, thus having less points for melee, thus weakening it? That is how to properly balance a game. You pay for what you actually take, not for what you could have taken.

Because it's not that simple, and this is what you keep missing. That 2000 points of BT's without AT is simply a weaker list than 2000 points of BTs with AT support. If I have 1750 points of Broodlords and Genestealers in a list, and I have a choice, to spend that last 250 points on some more Genestealers, or some Hive Guard to sit in a ruin out of LoS and crack open vehicles for them, even though both lists now have 2000 points, one is a lot stronger than the other, and it doesn't take a genius to work out which. This is how list building works, and having a broader selection of good units to pick from/never having limitations to your toolkit is a real strength, and why even when rule of 3 wasn't a thing, the strongest list was never ever taking nothing but the strongest unit in a dex, and why even the most OP units needed to be supported in different ways by much weaker units, when your logic would state that the only smart thing would be to dedicated every single last point towards taking that underpriced unit. It astounds me that someone can actually play this game and not realise that the strength of units can go past itself on an individual level on paper in a vacuum, and the exact same model can be worth more or less depending on what the dex needs.

**Crimson**

SHUPPET wrote:

Because it's not that simple, and this is what you keep missing. That 2000 points of BT's without AT is simply a weaker list than 2000 points of BTs with AT support. If I have 1750 points of Broodlords and Genestealers in a list, and I have a choice, to spend that last 250 points on some more Genestealers, or some Hive Guard to sit in a ruin out of LoS and crack open vehicles for them, even though both lists now have 2000 points, one is a lot stronger than the other, and it doesn't take a genius to work out which. This is how list building works, and having a broader selection of good units to pick from/never having limitations to your toolkit is a real strength, and why even when rule of 3 wasn't a thing, the strongest list was never ever taking nothing but the strongest unit in a dex, and why even the most OP units needed to be supported in different ways by much weaker units, when your logic would state that the only smart thing would be to dedicated every single last point towards taking that underpriced unit. It astounds me that someone can actually play this game and not realise that the strength of units can go past itself on an individual level on paper in a vacuum, and the exact same model can be worth more or less depending on what the dex needs.

Of course all armies need to be able to deal with various sorts of foes, and usually they can. And of course proper melee list would still have to deal with heavy armour; even without lascannons. Marines have deep striking assault terminators and thunder hammer armed vanguard veterans that the hypothetical BT list could utilise. It is just happens those units suck, so it is better to take lascannons, but that is a failure at balancing. All armies in the game have several units with different roles in their disposal, and armies should be designed so that they have sufficient toolbox against all foes, at least in theory. Extreme rock paper scissors does not result a good play experience. If for example Tyranids were just inherently unable to deal with tanks (they aren't) then that would be bad design. But these soup complaints really are not about that. For example the common complaint is that Castellan allied with IG is too strong. But it is not that IG doesn't have unit of similar role in their disposal. They do, Shadowsword. It just happens that Castellan is more point optimal in that role and thus is taken instead. But again, that is a problem with unit balancing not with the allies existing in the first place.

**Xenomancers**

SHUPPET wrote:
Crimson wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
Crimson wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:

Yeah, you said it, but that strawman argument doesn't actually disprove any of the overwhelming logic you've been hit with as to why YOUR perspective doesn't work.

You haven't displayed any logic. Your idea that you should intentionally write badly balanced units because of some other units they happen to share a faction with is just bonkers. It is terrible game design.

What? I didn't say that at all. This is just you building a strawman.

How then you're suggesting balancing factions with larger selection of units with armies of smaller selection of units? Please explain what you actually mean.

There's multiple ways to do it. If you have a faction that has glass cannons, bricks, artillery, CC units, psykers, etc, and you compare them to an army that has just glass cannons and speedy units, like say imagine DE (at least in past editions), well you would give the army with more limited choice in units, better choices in things like stratagems, army rules, etc, to power them up in other ways. SM's strength should be in it's versatility in units that was always the design philosophy. But that is a real strength, and you have to recognise that. Just because you can't take them all at once doesn't mean it offsets the fact that you will likely have a perfect tool in kit for every role you need in your army, where other armies will have holes and weak matches as a result. Regardless, what you say, if there's an army with 10x as many options as everyone else and is OP as a result, as it has to be, bringing it back down to balanced by tweaking the points costs isn't bonkers, or terrible game design as you claim. It's just you not understanding game design at all.

Regardless I'm unsure how your argument is currently trying to prove what you claim at all. Even if it wasn't perfect, why would we default to a completely unbalanced game instead of something much better? :S it doesn't make sense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Changes to the game do not need to be prefect. They just need to lead to better game play than we have currently.

Agreed with this part. If we could get enough units from each army in a good enough shape that each dex could all compete with each other on a similar level, that would be great. However for that to work, soup has to be nerfed, or else it's free picks from all the strong stuff from each faction and those balanced mono dexes are all back to being underpowered. It's as simple as that.

Absolutely agree soup should be nerfed.
CP system needs to be reworked to be fair to all types of armies. (You've all seen my suggested system - it encourages mono army by docing commpand points for allied detachments)
unintended interactions like Doom with DE/ harliquens need to be removed.
Improper pointed units need to be fixed.

We agree on that. Crimson is arguing soup needs to remain unchanged, and that it doesn't create imbalances. Which is absurdity. I understand the argument that someone may prefer to be able to run multiple armies, or that it's better for GW sales and thus boosts the community, or whatever. But to say it doesn't create an imbalance is just rejection of reality.

I feel like people who really don't want soup to be banned (they really enjoy playing with allies) are afraid of the slippery slope. Or really just afraid of GW overreacting about a problem. What I am saying and I think you agree - is that soup is much less of a problem when you make the changes in my last post. Yeah there might be some other unintended consequences of allied units being used together but just like in other games (LOL, starcraft) they make continuous balancing changes when issues like that arise. The game will never be in a perfect state of balance but it can continuously get better with each change.

It has been quite disappointing so far for me in the CA's and Erratas - so many missed opportunities to improve the game. Plus a lot of knee jerk reactions (like nerfing Nids out of the top teir, nerfing smite, ect) I can understand where crimson is coming from.

**SHUPPET**

Exactly. There's this slippery slope fallacy being brought into play, that we "shouldn't balance soup because everyone should be able to take allies". These things aren't mutually exclusive. You and I are on the same page Xenomancers

**Daedalus81**

Xenomancers wrote:
Plus a lot of knee jerk reactions (like nerfing Nids out of the top teir, nerfing smite, ect)

....seriously? You don't think smite spam or mega-tyrants weren't a problem - at all? Even after tournaments clearly demonstrated it?

**Spoletta**

I am of the same idea of xeno here, fix CP sharing, remove doom-like cross factions interactions (except the ones that are intended to be so, like the custodes banners), and fix the most obvious UP/OP models.

If you do that, soup is no longer a balance issue.
Yes there could be cases where it is optimal to soup into a model that covers a particular role, but that is not a problem. You are not dramatically increasing the effectiveness of a list, you are giving it a small bonus, That small bonus is within the realm of how much good list building should influence the result of a game (about 15-20% with the rest being luck/skill/matchup).
It is no different than knowing that a few shooting elements in your all assault army can synergize with it.

**Arachnofiend**

Hollow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Hollow wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
You see how bad greyknights are?

Laurence from Table Top Tactics just won the London War-gaming Guild's, Fun and Fluffy 40k tournament with them.

Oh, I heard about that tournament. The list building rules are... bizarre, and seem specifically designed to push away anyone playing the game seriously. Every non-troop or dedicated transport is a 0-1 model, for example.

Sounds great! The more GW and tournament organisers can do to push away "serious" gamers the better!

Man, what is it with casual gamers and hating people for the way they choose to have fun

**SHUPPET**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Hollow wrote:
Sounds great! The more GW and tournament organisers can do to push away "serious" gamers the better!

Man, what is it with casual gamers and hating people for the way they choose to have fun

It's a toxic attitude from toxic players, nothing else to it. My sig is inspired by it. It's incredible because even casual players have the time of their life at such events. It's just sour grapes in every community. And this is from someone who LOVES good narrative play.

**Not Online!!!**

SHUPPET wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Hollow wrote:
Sounds great! The more GW and tournament organisers can do to push away "serious" gamers the better!

Man, what is it with casual gamers and hating people for the way they choose to have fun

It's a toxic attitude from toxic players, nothing else to it. My sig is inspired by it. It's incredible because even casual players have the time of their life at such events. It's just sour grapes in every community. And this is from someone who LOVES good narrative play.

IF, and that is in caps for a reason, IF GW would propperly balance, then we would not have half the problems we have now?
IF the game would be propperly balnced there would not be that much difference between tournament lists and regular lists, or atleast not a difference span the lenghth of the goddamn wall of china.
And frankly blaming tournament players for beeing competitive is stupid. In fact there are lessons to be learned there, especially in regards to gamemechanics and balancing, especially in terms of ISSUES of the game. Optimaly the difference would not be that far off list wise, skillwise there would be a huge gap, but there isn't. It is more like you don't pick certain lists, oh you lost.

**SHUPPET**

If every unit was equally balanced, tournament players would still dominate as they understand better how to build a worthy list. I don't think balance is the issue on that one, just as Arachno said, people hating on others for having fun in a way that doesn't suit them.

**tneva82**

Of course if game was balanced games wouldn't be designed by list building but by what you do in game.

And games wouldn't be over before single dice is rolled

**Not Online!!!**

SHUPPET wrote:
If every unit was equally balanced, tournament players would still dominate as they understand better how to build a worthy list. I don't think balance is the issue on that one, just as Arachno said, people hating on others for having fun in a way that doesn't suit them. see

If you read propperly i pointed that allready out.
I also pointed out it is never bad to have a somewhat dedicated tournament scene for a game, since it shows flaws within the system, which also might go unnoticed.
However atm the difference between a tournament list and a fluffy list is insane, and should not be.

Edit:

And frankly blaming tournament players for beeing competitive is stupid. In fact there are lessons to be learned there, especially in regards to gamemechanics and balancing, especially in terms of ISSUES of the game. Optimaly the difference would not be that far off list wise, skillwise there would be a huge gap, but there isn't. It is more like you don't pick certain lists, oh you lost.

ATM there is no denying that lists are more deciding then individual skills.

**SHUPPET**

Not Online!!! wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
If every unit was equally balanced, tournament players would still dominate as they understand better how to build a worthy list. I don't think balance is the issue on that one, just as Arachno said, people hating on others for having fun in a way that doesn't suit them. see

If you read propperly i pointed that allready out.

I've read and re-read your post, I still feel like you said the exact opposite

"IF the game would be propperly balnced there would not be that much difference between tournament lists and regular lists, or atleast not a difference span the lenghth of the goddamn wall of china. "

It sure seems like it

**Not Online!!!**

SHUPPET wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
If every unit was equally balanced, tournament players would still dominate as they understand better how to build a worthy list. I don't think balance is the issue on that one, just as Arachno said, people hating on others for having fun in a way that doesn't suit them. see

If you read propperly i pointed that allready out.

I've read and re-read your post, I still feel like you said the exact opposite

"IF the game would be propperly balnced there would not be that much difference between tournament lists and regular lists, or atleast not a difference span the lenghth of the goddamn wall of china. "

It sure seems like it

ATM Lists are more deciding off your chances then skill in the game itself. (that and preferably you play a faction that can soup in to avoid weaknesses and or get's access to bonkers op models like certain knights or psykers)

Yes there would still be differences in lists between a tournament player and your 08/15 player, but the differences in said lists would not be as extreme like they are now.
I mean compare a regular 08/15 IW list with a tournament CSM soup list, that's basically two whole separete worlds . That discrepancy is not showing a good understanding of list building imo but rather how much the choices are unbalanced compared to each other even in the same overall faction, not to mention the codex internal balance.
That is what i am getting at, tournament lists are on a whole other level of power, they are not optimized lists of factions, it's like a complete different game, and that is were i see the issue.
And frankly the whole listbuilding to maximize first turn dmg output and or durability to survive insane killing power is not healthy for the game itself. Basically it boils the whole game down to who get's the first turn with a faction that can kill off enough enemy pts in one go. Hence the whole Imperial soup shenanigans with Knights or doom.

**SHUPPET**

Not Online!!! wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
SHUPPET wrote:
If every unit was equally balanced, tournament players would still dominate as they understand better how to build a worthy list. I don't think balance is the issue on that one, just as Arachno said, people hating on others for having fun in a way that doesn't suit them. see

If you read propperly i pointed that allready out.

I've read and re-read your post, I still feel like you said the exact opposite

"IF the game would be propperly balnced there would not be that much difference between tournament lists and regular lists, or atleast not a difference span the lenghth of the goddamn wall of china. "

It sure seems like it

ATM Lists are more deciding off your chances then skill in the game itself. (that and preferably you play a faction that can soup in to avoid weaknesses and or get's access to bonkers op models like certain knights or psykers)

Yes there would still be differences in lists between a tournament player and your 08/15 player, but the differences in said lists would not be as extreme like they are now.
I mean compare a regular 08/15 IW list with a tournament CSM soup list, that's basically two whole separete worlds . That discrepancy is not showing a good understanding of list building imo but rather how much the choices are unbalanced compared to each other even in the same overall faction, not to mention the codex internal balance.
That is what i am getting at, tournament lists are on a whole other level of power, they are not optimized lists of factions, it's like a complete different game, and that is were i see the issue.
And frankly the whole listbuilding to maximize first turn dmg output and or durability to survive insane killing power is not healthy for the game itself. Basically it boils the whole game down to who get's the first turn with a faction that can kill off enough enemy pts in one go. Hence the whole Imperial soup shenanigans with Knights or doom.

You're right, but I'm just saying that tournament players are still going to squeeze significant advantage out of the list building stage. Taking any random combination of great units is not equivalent to taking a deliberate synergistic combination of units that also brings the right tools to deal with the maximum amount of things. This is the part Crimson doesn't understand either.

**Not Online!!!**

You're right, but I'm just saying that tournament players are still going to squeeze significant advantage out of the list building stage. Taking any random combination of great units is not equivalent to taking a deliberate synergistic combination of units that also brings the right tools to deal with the maximum amount of things.

That i agree on, and it should be that way, however atm it just boils down to this checklist i feel:

1. CP battery,(glorious 32 or any comparable cheapest possible combination) check
2. CP eaters and removal of big stuff (slamguinius,etc) Check
3. CP eater and main broken unit (castellan) Check

I don't think that should be the be all end all of list design, not to mention that it isn't particullary clever.

Then again 40k always had this spammable nature, for as far as i can remember, Daemonprinces with lashes, kyborgs, hellturkeys, riptides, eldar jetbikers,etc.

Frankly those were units which could have and should have been playtested before hand (oh wait i forgot the 8th start with malefics and brimstones, that was a shitshow.......)

**Crimson**

Spoletta wrote:
I am of the same idea of xeno here, fix CP sharing, remove doom-like cross factions interactions (except the ones that are intended to be so, like the custodes banners), and fix the most obvious UP/OP models.

If you do that, soup is no longer a balance issue.
Yes there could be cases where it is optimal to soup into a model that covers a particular role, but that is not a problem. You are not dramatically increasing the effectiveness of a list, you are giving it a small bonus, That small bonus is within the realm of how much good list building should influence the result of a game (about 15-20% with the rest being luck/skill/matchup).
It is no different than knowing that a few shooting elements in your all assault army can synergize with it.

Yep. Something like this would probably be fine. I don't really like the idea of separate CP pools, but if the massive disparities of the factions' ability to generate CP won't be fixed, then that is probably the only alternative.

**Reemule**

Isn't page 10 same at page 2?

1. Fix CP to Point size, not Detachments.
2. Limit Stratagems to Warlord Specific.
3. Profit!!

**Xenomancers**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Plus a lot of knee jerk reactions (like nerfing Nids out of the top teir, nerfing smite, ect)

....seriously? You don't think smite spam or mega-tyrants weren't a problem - at all? Even after tournaments clearly demonstrated it?

Tyrants obviously were undercosted.

The real issue with nids wasn't actually a nid problem though - It was an issue with how reserves worked. Being able to put 1800 points in reserve is just insanity. That army that was dominating with 7 tyrants and 3 malwocks in reserve would already be nerfed to the max by rule of 3 and reserve limits. Beta deep strike was a knee jerk reaction to that specific army - IMO. The game was better with turn 1 DS IMO. Smite is clearly an overreaction as you can still spam smite by spamming thousand suns...but not Tzeentch daemons for some reason.

Not really trying to argue these points - just that they were big time changes made by GW. No question they overdid it with each change. They could do the same thing here with allies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Isn't page 10 same at page 2?

1. Fix CP to Point size, not Detachments.
2. Limit Stratagems to Warlord Specific.
3. Profit!!

Warlord specific stratagems will KILL allies. What good are units you can't use stratagems on?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arachnofiend wrote:
Hollow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Hollow wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
You see how bad greyknights are?

Laurence from Table Top Tactics just won the London War-gaming Guild's, Fun and Fluffy 40k tournament with them.

Oh, I heard about that tournament. The list building rules are... bizarre, and seem specifically designed to push away anyone playing the game seriously. Every non-troop or dedicated transport is a 0-1 model, for example.

Sounds great! The more GW and tournament organisers can do to push away "serious" gamers the better!

Man, what is it with casual gamers and hating people for the way they choose to have fun

The answer is butthurt. Invisible 7th edition death-star hurt him really bad.

**Reemule**

Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Isn't page 10 same at page 2?

1. Fix CP to Point size, not Detachments.
2. Limit Stratagems to Warlord Specific.
3. Profit!!

Warlord specific stratagems will KILL allies. What good are units you can't use stratagems on?

Proof? I think they will be fine.

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Isn't page 10 same at page 2?

1. Fix CP to Point size, not Detachments.
2. Limit Stratagems to Warlord Specific.
3. Profit!!

Warlord specific stratagems will KILL allies. What good are units you can't use stratagems on?

Proof? I think they will be fine.

How can I prove it other than ask the question I just asked?

Why would I take units that can't use stratagems when I can take units that can use stratagems? Especially after the CP problem is fixed.

**Crimson**

Yeah, that is just typical soup hater 'fix' which is effectively banning the soup.

**Drager**

Xenomancers wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Isn't page 10 same at page 2?

1. Fix CP to Point size, not Detachments.
2. Limit Stratagems to Warlord Specific.
3. Profit!!

Warlord specific stratagems will KILL allies. What good are units you can't use stratagems on?

Proof? I think they will be fine.

How can I prove it other than ask the question I just asked?

Why would I take units that can't use stratagems when I can take units that can use stratagems? Especially after the CP problem is fixed.

I don't think I've ever used a strat on my Farseer, he's just in the list to add psychic bonuses to my DE. If he couldn't have strats used it wouldn't change my list a jot. Now if I couldn't use strats on my Coven, becuase my Warlord is Kabal that would be an issue. Especially as at least one strat can only be used on Coven if warlord is Kabal, so that strat would be invalidated completely.