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.

Because maybe you want some boots on the ground to support your Imperial Knight?

Or maybe you want a boat of raiding Kabs to add some firepower to your Ynnari or Harlequin force? Maybe you just want one unit of clowns to support your Craftworld Warhost?

Or maybe you want some traditional cultists to hide your Thousand Sons behind?

Someone in another thread convinced me that limiting stratagems to the Warlord isn't ideal, but there are plenty of reasons to take units that don't bring stratagems.

The thing that convinced me it's not great: Why would a Chaos Lord be unable to deepstrike Bloodletters in his army?

Drager wrote:

 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.

Well - I don't think hes suggesting what you are saying about kabal/covens. The argument is basically for only units stratagems from your warlords codex. Adding an auxiliary farseer is a really rare type of allied list. Most allied lists include good portions of 2 or more armies. Plus I honestly believe the doom interaction across all eldar lines (technically if eldar could ally with Tau - tau could use doom the way it is written) is an oversight and needs to be fixed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Because maybe you want some boots on the ground to support your Imperial Knight?

Or maybe you want a boat of raiding Kabs to add some firepower to your Ynnari or Harlequin force? Maybe you just want one unit of clowns to support your Craftworld Warhost?

Or maybe you want some traditional cultists to hide your Thousand Sons behind?

Someone in another thread convinced me that limiting stratagems to the Warlord isn't ideal, but there are plenty of reasons to take units that don't bring stratagems.

The thing that convinced me it's not great: Why would a Chaos Lord be unable to deepstrike Bloodletters in his army?

At the competitive level - losing tactical flexibility with units is not a good thing. Gaurdsmen that can't use +1 armor stratagem could cost you a game. Kabs in a venom that you can't deepstrike with a stratagem aren't as valuable. Across the board it will basically make allies undesirable if the important changes are made that make allies problematic.

It's not problematic that you can pay points to have gaurdsmen screen your knight. It's not. What is problematic is gaurdsmen (are undercosted) give that knight buckets CP for essentially free (because they do still screen for the thing too) Or like in the case of doom you have rerolling wounds with haywire producing insane numbers of mortal wounds.

I *highly* doubt the Doom interaction is an oversight. It's been like that for many editions. Most rules that shouldn't be that way are very explicit about not being that way. Doom working that way has been an iconic part of the Eldar army for a long time, despite being just one power that one unit can take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"At the competitive level - losing tactical flexibility with units is not a good thing. Gaurdsmen that can't use +1 armor stratagem could cost you a game. Kabs in a venom that you can't deepstrike with a stratagem aren't as valuable. Across the board it will basically make allies undesirable if the important changes are made that make allies problematic. "
Guardsmen in an IK list sure don't have the tactical flexibility of using their own stratagems. That'll hurt. But IK lists with Guardsmen have a *lot* more tactical flexability than pure-IK lists.

I agree that tactical flexibility is important. Which is why IK would still take some Guardsmen when they need boots on the ground. Even if they didn't have stratagems. Stratagems aren't the only form of tactical flexibility.

So remove allies' Strats, and you'll see less allies, sure. But you wont see 0 allies. Allies won't always be a bad idea.

Loss of stratagems don't hurt farseers casting doom or guardsmen providing CP and screening for knights. It however kills any balanced alliances of roughly equal sized forces. So it won't affect problematic cheese builds whilst invalidating many casual flyffy builds.

Honestly, I don't have many Strats for my Space Marines I cast. So my Marine/IK would continue the way it does, other than stealth nerf that I wouldn't be using Adept of the Codex.

And I think this continues with my proposed Deathwatch force I'm working on.

And really I never see someone bother to use Guard Stratagems in the BA/Guard/Castellan army.

So Yeah, I don't think it would kill Soup. Its not a Hater plan. Its a real fix that make stuff very even.

Reemule wrote:
Honestly, I don't have many Strats for my Space Marines I cast. So my Marine/IK would continue the way it does, other than stealth nerf that I wouldn't be using Adept of the Codex.

And I think this continues with my proposed Deathwatch force I'm working on.

And really I never see someone bother to use Guard Stratagems in the BA/Guard/Castellan army.

So Yeah, I don't think it would kill Soup. Its not a Hater plan. Its a real fix that make stuff very even.

Wait - how does it make it even? If you weren't using strats for those portions of the army anyway doesn't that hurt others that do more?

The idea is that the game should be competitive for everyone and how they play.

The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?

Whats your idea?

Well they make armies mono armies strong in the first place. If possible with multiple ways to play out of a single codex, and not just 2-3 units per codex being valid options to take, and everything else being tax.

The even if some sort of ally soup system exists, it is not very different from what you would be doing with your own book. Sure some stuff will end up better and some stuff will end up worse. But if done right and no extrem of either end of the spectrum exist, everyone at every level of play would be happy.

The state when soup is just always better, with no draw backs to take and huge difference of power levels between books means people end up in very unfun situation, when they face each other. A for fun soup list made out of the eldar books, can roll over most mono books that aren't eldar or orcs, when clocks aren't used. On the flip side if someone takes a really bad book and just slaps in 30+IG in to it, the list doesn't suddenly become magicaly playable, but to an outsider it seems like it is one of those WAAC tournament lists.

Reemule wrote:
The idea is that the game should be competitive for everyone and how they play.

The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?

Whats your idea?

Sure, but you can't ban a piece of something and call it fair when you weren't using that piece anyway.

Are Castellan lists hurting from that? Certainly not.

One guy lives in a desert and has a lawn that needs no maintenance.
Another lives where he has grass.

The first guy calls for a ban on lawnmowers.

If you want to ban easy access to Vect or w/e then require a Battalion for stratagem access (or at least no AUX). A straight ban is bad for the game.

 Crimson wrote:
Loss of stratagems don't hurt farseers casting doom or guardsmen providing CP and screening for knights. It however kills any balanced alliances of roughly equal sized forces. So it won't affect problematic cheese builds whilst invalidating many casual flyffy builds.

A fluffy eldar list soup or not is well able to beat other faction cheese builds. So the argument is kind of a moot.

Reemule wrote:

The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?

This is common fallacy, that's not how it actually works. Many stratagems are tied to specific units. There are ten Space Marine stratagems (not counting chapter specific ones) that my marine army cannot use, as there are no corresponding units in the army. And yes, I could spend points on those units and I would get access to those stratagems. And if I use those points on Custodes units, I get access to some Custodes stratagems. Spend points on unit, get stratagems for that unit, regardless of from what book it was. Sounds fair to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Loss of stratagems don't hurt farseers casting doom or guardsmen providing CP and screening for knights. It however kills any balanced alliances of roughly equal sized forces. So it won't affect problematic cheese builds whilst invalidating many casual flyffy builds.

A fluffy eldar list soup or not is well able to beat other faction cheese builds. So the argument is kind of a moot.

But no because it is soup, but because Eldar have many undercosted units.

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:

The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?

This is common fallacy, that's not how it actually works. Many stratagems are tied to specific units. There are ten Space Marine stratagems (not counting chapter specific ones) that my marine army cannot use, as there are no corresponding units in the army. And yes, I could spend points on those units and I would get access to those stratagems. And if I use those points on Custodes units, I get access to some Custodes stratagems. Spend points on unit, get stratagems for that unit, regardless of from what book it was. Sounds fair to me.

The problem with Soup is it gives some factions so many more choices it allows for near endless min/maxing. Your idea that "sounds fair" exacerbates the situation by entailing not only the unit, but also any specific and any general Stratagems to the unit. This makes the problem worse, not better.

Reemule wrote:


The problem with Soup is it gives some factions so many more choices it allows for near endless min/maxing. Your idea that "sounds fair" exacerbates the situation by entailing not only the unit, but also any specific and any general Stratagems to the unit. This makes the problem worse, not better.

This is the same nonsense Shuppet has been spouting for pages, please stop. Marines have like 150 units, Harlequins have a handful. Some factions having insanely more choices than others is not a soup issue, it has existed in the game always and would exist even if soup was banned. I certainly welcome attempts to fix problems, but if you're misdiagnosing what the problem actually is, then you cannot come up with a good cure. CP farming is a real problem, miscosted units are a real problem, and some allied units being able to boost their allies might be real problem as well. Some armies having more choice is not a real problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
The idea is that the game should be competitive for everyone and how they play.

The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?

Whats your idea?

Sure, but you can't ban a piece of something and call it fair when you weren't using that piece anyway.

Are Castellan lists hurting from that? Certainly not.

One guy lives in a desert and has a lawn that needs no maintenance.
Another lives where he has grass.

The first guy calls for a ban on lawnmowers.

If you want to ban easy access to Vect or w/e then require a Battalion for stratagem access (or at least no AUX). A straight ban is bad for the game.

The best way to handle AOV is to nerf it. It's too reliable. Make it a 4+ and remove the on a 6 you get points back. Then drop it down to 3 points against or maybe 2 points. 2+ is just too reliable for an ability that strong.

I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.

I agree. but the balance is hard. I want soup to exist, but to provide no benefit over a mono faction.

How to get to that is the trick.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.

That would and could work, but i kinda feel that not all allies require such a fix. Take gsc with broodbrothers for exemple, nobody complains about that since they got their own restrictions.

My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.

 Marmatag wrote:
My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.

If so, why are mono armies inherently weaker then f.e. Soups?
Atleast in the competitive level sense?
You would imagine that that is kinda a problem when all lists at top Tier field soup,no?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.

That would and could work, but i kinda feel that not all allies require such a fix. Take gsc with broodbrothers for exemple, nobody complains about that since they got their own restrictions.

Yeah, I don't know what would be perfect, I was just throwing out some examples of real costs.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.

If so, why are mono armies inherently weaker then f.e. Soups?
Atleast in the competitive level sense?
You would imagine that that is kinda a problem when all lists at top Tier field soup,no?

Not even, in any major tournament "mono" lists are reasonably well represented. Not that it even matters. Tau and Orks did very well at SoCal. Necrons struggled but they're known to have problems.

You are doing the same thing everyone on dakka does - you feed off the communities collective outrage and ignorance, snowballing on nonsense comments that are taken as true because a lot of people repeat the same false narrative over and over.

Allies aren't a problem.

Here are your problems:

1. The Ynnari Faction. Should be squatted entirely.
2. Imperial Guard.
3. Knights, chaos & imperial
4. Daemon Primarchs.

Are you prepared to argue that the game should be balanced around Necrons? Because every other "mono" army is doing just fine.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.

That would and could work, but i kinda feel that not all allies require such a fix. Take gsc with broodbrothers for exemple, nobody complains about that since they got their own restrictions.

Yeah, I don't know what would be perfect, I was just throwing out some examples of real costs.

Tbh some restrictions would be nice and properly fluffed out might improve the meta.

 Marmatag wrote:
My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.

Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.

Opinions about soup are already entrenched, they will not change, no matter how many pages of 'discussion' occur.

Selling product will guide all decisions made with regards to soup, like most businesses.

Soup sells models, codices, and boxed games.

All other suggestions about community involvement in such decisions are fantastically naive.

By posting in this discussion I have participated in its futility, I will carry that shame with me until my dying day.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Opinions about soup are already entrenched, they will not change, no matter how many pages of 'discussion' occur.

Selling product will guide all decisions made with regards to soup, like most businesses.

Soup sells models, codices, and boxed games.

All other suggestions about community involvement in such decisions are fantastically naive.

By posting in this discussion I have participated in its futility, I will carry that shame with me until my dying day.

This discussion isn't about predicting what Games Workshop will do. They'll clearly go where the money is. Discussing the issue, and voicing complaints (whether founded or not) is anything but a futile activity. Expecting people to remain silent and simply not complain is frankly absurd.

 Toofast wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.

Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.

Guard, Ynnari, and Daemon Primarchs have been a problem since day 1. This has nothing to do with allies.

And both Tau and Orks were competing for the top 10 at SoCal. I'm not even sure how you can credibly say monofaction is struggling when they're placing ahead of nearly all of the participants with mono armies.

Necrons are the only mono by force army that is struggling, and they're known to have fundamental problems.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.

Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.

Guard, Ynnari, and Daemon Primarchs have been a problem since day 1. This has nothing to do with allies.

Guard? Nerfed in it's mono ability.
Daemonprimarchs? Yeah preferably the double Tag Team, but just because you are a loyalist that does not mean that you can keep out rowboat, he is just as broken and singlehandedly blocks any buffs for marines because of his aura.
Ynnari are by nature soup.

Why not look to current ally rules that doant seem broken?

The GSC stuff doesn't have the issues that standard soup does, right?

What if they put out a similar rule for the various Imperium, Eldar, and Chaos factions?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.

Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.

Guard, Ynnari, and Daemon Primarchs have been a problem since day 1. This has nothing to do with allies.

And both Tau and Orks were competing for the top 10 at SoCal. I'm not even sure how you can credibly say monofaction is struggling when they're placing ahead of nearly all of the participants with mono armies.

Necrons are the only mono by force army that is struggling, and they're known to have fundamental problems.

You're looking at results from a single event to justify your thought process, which is asinine. Look at the results of all the GTs in 8th so far. Guard are a problem because they generate tons of CP for a cheap cost that can be used by IK, in other words, SOUP. Ynnari are a problem because you have Eldar and Dark Eldar being rewarded for covering each others weakenesses rather than paying a penalty for it, ie SOUP.

You're also using 2 factions to justify your rationale about mono factions being good. Imperial soup has racked up 69 top 3 finishes at GTs in this edition, Ynnari soup has 42. The best mono faction is nids with 21, then Tau with 13. Necrons are the only mono faction struggling? How about GK, with a whopping 6 top 3 finishes? How about Ad Mech? Also 6. How about Orks? They have a whopping 8. As usual, the data do not back up what you're saying. Either provide some kind of data proving that soup is not an issue (I'll save you some time, you can't) or admit that you're just making stuff up and pulling it out of your @#$.

#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.

#2 - GK are not a mono faction, they have access to allies, Necrons don't. It seems like you do not understand what mono means. I would suggest you take a breather from rage typing and actually do a modicum of research into what you're saying. If allies are so broken, why are GK not dominating? They have access to the most overpowered ally pool in the game. Answer: Because allies in and of themselves don't make the game broken. Problem units do. Hence my statement regarding Ynnari, Knights, Guard, and Daemon Primarchs.

#3 - Orks just got a codex, i'm not sure how you could make the claim that they should be on par with codex armies. That's nonsense. If you watch the BoK livestream from SoCal you can see an undefeated Ork player (with an index) playing for the #3 spot. This won't make your radar because you're approaching this from completely the wrong angle. (You are making the silent assumption that only lists finishing in the top 3 are successful. This isn't true. Going 4-2, or 5-1, at a major is a big accomplishment. Losing at the top table can drop you out of the top 10).

You are claiming allies are the problem. The burden of proof is on you. And, if it is so obvious, you shouldn't have any difficulty proving it.

As with most dakka posters, you're used to looking at a chunk of data with no context and drawing a sweeping conclusion that the unwashed masses here will agree with, because they live vicariously through 10,000 foot level recaps for tournaments they would never actually participate in.