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.
You're all probably wrong and all of these suggestions are probably terrible, but more importantly this is wildly off topic from Chapter approved rumors.
Let's not turn this into another thread screeching about CP/"Muh loyal 32", I'm sure those topics exist in the general section.
bullyboy wrote: As mentioned above, GW don't understand the problems with detachments like wraith hosts. They don't generate CPs so now I have to spend a CP just to get this bonus when they are already starved for CPs or need to buy guardians/rangers to get access.
I think they understand it perfectly fine. CP are a resource, or they are supposed to be, but due to soup making some factions have more access to CP than expected...
What should it cost, in your opinion? Points? Slots? Nothing? Right now, it costs either the CP getting the Vanguard
Detachment for Wraiths would provide you... or it costs guardian/ranger points taxes... which you were bringing anyways because +5 CP is really strong.
I'm kinda looking forward to dropping in a Vanguard Detachment from Iyanden, making it a Wraith host detachment, and seeing what I can do with it. 5-10 Wraithblades popping out of Wave Serpents with a Spiritseer totting around that Psytronome or whatever it is... it seems like it could be strong. Keep a Wraithknight around just to have the threat of that guy getting the Psytronome buff, as well, and you can probably control a pretty big area. Plop a Farseer into the mix, and you should be able to move up the table with some durable units (Wave Serpents and a melee Knight), and reasonably push back opposition. Which should allow for more fragile units (those poor tax units that you're forced to bring for CP) to control objectives to go towards the long-term goal of winning the game. Especially with the implementation of Acceptable Losses, or whatever the thing's name that stops Sudden Death.
I think you're missing the mark. If we want to see themed lists such as wraith hosts, they need to address the CPs. Do you think 4 to 5 CPs (minus the 1 for this detachment) is OK for a full army? That's what you're getting. A vanguard and maybe a spearhead or Supreme command. It's not even 8 like a Battalion. I also play Ravenwing that has the same Damn problem. GW is not getting the CP issue, period.
And no, I don't want to take a Ranger/Guardian tax in a ghost army. Same as I don't want non Ravenwing scouts in my Ravenwing army.
You're missing the mark, I believe. Volume of CP is strictly a choice of the player: do I build my army for maximizing this resource, or do I make choices that are more "fluffy".
You're not going to ever get a Wraithhost with Guard/Blades as troops... they're going to stay in the elite spot. With a battle forged army with a Vanguard + Supreme Command + whatever (Spearhead?), you still have 3-5 CP to spend AFTER paying the -1 CP for at least 1 Wraithhost upgrade. Is it competitive to go into a match with that few CP in a Craftworld list? Possibly, probably not. Thus, you sacrifice to make that list less thematic and more competitive... that's when you pay the Guardian/Ranger/Dire Avenger tax to get the extra CP. Break that Supreme Command up, add some troops, profit with CP.
You're insinuating that all knight players WANT to play with the Guardsmen they field instead of another Armiger or Gallant, and not that they CHOOSE to play with them based on their need to garner resources. Themed lists don't have to win tournaments... themed lists have to work and give the player the desired feeling that the theme is the star.
Nope, GW just needs to drop battalion and brigade to where they started and bump Battleforged to 5 or 6 base, simple.
So which Imperial Formation Detachments do you guys think will be in the article? They have already basically shown us two Codex: Space Marines ones (Supremacy Cohort and Indomitus Crusaders). I am hoping to see the Black Templars, to be honest. Allegedly it makes Primaris Sword Brethren. I can't exactly see how that could be since Primaris lack the options to make them. I dunno. I would like to see the codex non-compliant Chapters get a spotlight along with one of the Guard formations.
broxus wrote: And monofaction lists should gain an extra +3 to 5 CP to make them viable.
What about 6 base, and each faction keyword not shared by all detachments is -1. So 2 detachments of Ultramarines would be full, A battalion of cadians and a battalion of catachans would be -2 (Cadia and Catachan) While Guard with knights and custodes would be -5 (Astra Militarum, <regiment>, Questor Imperialis, <Household>, and Adeptus Custodes.
Back on topic, we know of at least one FW unit being adjusted in prices, but any chance of Titans being restored to their more sane costs? And will all of the carried over points (that aren't in codices) from CA 2017 be included?
Also 5 datasheets. Is that for matched play, or does that include the Eight, Kart, Wagon, and Battle Fortress? And if the latter, what is the fifth?
See this is where I question your definition of OP. To me, if something is an auto take, then it is OP. This is definitely an auto take on abbs which makes the formation too good. There is literally no draw back to spending the 1CP since even the relic and WLT are good. This is border line OPIMHO, maybe it is a slippery slope fallacy but so far of the 3 formations we have seen it didn't take long for them to escalate. Which was the very valid worry some folks had in regard to bringing formation back. I wish these were for narrative only.
Hmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be because there's no alternatives since the codex isn't out yet?
Let's keep the hyperbolic bs to a minimum, especially for Index only forces, eh?
To be honest I think Red Corsair's definition is a good one. If you've got an option that's so good you'd always do it, then it's probably OP. It may not be game-breaking, but basically by definition it's too good for what you're paying.
Yeah, like how amazing space marine scouts are, or Necron Warriors, or Tau Cadre Fireblades. All those options that are auto-includes so they're definitely OP.
This detachment is only "so good you'd be dumb not to" because GSC have tons of CP and all of 1 good stratagem to spend them on. This ups that to 2 good stratagems. Also, we have no idea what the deliverance broodsurge is, so it could be an alternative if the stuff in that is good as well.
That's a BS comparison though, I was referring specifically to the slippery slope that formations create. Now your just bitching about sub par units entries. There is a world of difference between the option to take a formation for a single CP or not and which troop entry you utilize from an army.
It's also a joke to act like this strat in a vacuum is bad somehow. That's like saying Agents of Vect couldn't have been considered amazing had it leaked prior to the rest of the pool. That's such a silly position to take. Even on it's own the leaked formation stratagem is extremely powerful for little cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: wondering why no TO has the balls just to say each army has 10CPs to start, regardless of detachments. Why not just try it out, see how it plays.
I'd say the answer would involve cherry picking units, but that is already happening lol. At this point I think a better remedy for matched play would be tossing CP and strats totally. The entire concept is impossible to balance. It just gets worse with every release since they create new ones as a reaction to the meta.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/06 04:16:08
casvalremdeikun wrote: So which Imperial Formation Detachments do you guys think will be in the article? They have already basically shown us two Codex: Space Marines ones (Supremacy Cohort and Indomitus Crusaders). I am hoping to see the Black Templars, to be honest. Allegedly it makes Primaris Sword Brethren. I can't exactly see how that could be since Primaris lack the options to make them. I dunno. I would like to see the codex non-compliant Chapters get a spotlight along with one of the Guard formations.
Hoping to see the Ravenwing one Two of my primary armies are Iyanden wraith host and Ravenwing so super happy to see them given some love in this book.
casvalremdeikun wrote: So which Imperial Formation Detachments do you guys think will be in the article? They have already basically shown us two Codex: Space Marines ones (Supremacy Cohort and Indomitus Crusaders). I am hoping to see the Black Templars, to be honest. Allegedly it makes Primaris Sword Brethren. I can't exactly see how that could be since Primaris lack the options to make them. I dunno. I would like to see the codex non-compliant Chapters get a spotlight along with one of the Guard formations.
Hoping to see the Ravenwing one Two of my primary armies are Iyanden wraith host and Ravenwing so super happy to see them given some love in this book.
The problem with Ravenwing is that they are CP intensive, but can't generate them worth a damn. Running mono-Ravenwing is going to get you 6 CP tops (3CP for Battleforged, 1 CP each for any mix of Outrider, Vanguard, or Airwing). That means throwing CP into a Formation Detachment is already going to come at the cost of 1CP minimum, so that leaves you 5 CP TOPS for fun stuff. And Ravenwing have some really fun Stratagems as is, so these Formation Stratagems are going to be competing with them. Ultimately, I see Azrael and some Greenwing in a Battalion augmenting Ravenwing to be pretty much a necessity.
The simplest solution to multi faction v single faction balance would be to compartmentalize CP. Any CP generated by a detachment can not be used outside of it unless the other one is the exact same faction.
That would pretty much end triple faction making the prospect of 3 separate CP pools plus 3 spend anywhere CP a moot point.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
I think one of the formations they preview tomorrow will be a Guard one with infantry squads. They could use the opportunity to leak a point change for them like they did for cultists.
As for the command point issues, my favorite solution so far is to give monofactions a bonus 3-5 CP(perhaps also get rid of the current 3 cp battleforge bonus.)
Overall I don't really mind the concept of souping for cp, but it could be reigned in a bit. Furthermore, out of all the things that could be used as a battery, I think it's great that it's a detachment of guardsman on all these tables. You can't get any fluffier than that.
beir wrote: Dakka is just a game of 'Find the most popular thread right now and transform it into whining about my pet peeves.'
fething hell, does EVERY thread have to turn into CP whining?
The Long War never ends, brother. Not until we have crushed every discussion between here and Terra! Whining for the whine God!
But seriously though, it's not an accident that any sort of rules discussion keeps coming back to the same few issues. The whole edition is revolving around a few mechanics and unit choices.
beir wrote: Dakka is just a game of 'Find the most popular thread right now and transform it into whining about my pet peeves.'
fething hell, does EVERY thread have to turn into CP whining?
Its the same hamfisted fixes that fail for obvious reasons every time. Until marines are unbearably autopilot broken then you will always hear the same gripes. “Why can’t marines one shot all other infantry while being indestructable to anything short of plasma spam?” “All armies should have the same amount of CP regardless of how they are balanced to use CP.” “Melee units are unplayable because ranged units do more than stand around waiting to get knocked over like bowling pins.”
beir wrote: Dakka is just a game of 'Find the most popular thread right now and transform it into whining about my pet peeves.'
fething hell, does EVERY thread have to turn into CP whining?
Its the same hamfisted fixes that fail for obvious reasons every time. Until marines are unbearably autopilot broken then you will always hear the same gripes. “Why can’t marines one shot all other infantry while being indestructable to anything short of plasma spam?” “All armies should have the same amount of CP regardless of how they are balanced to use CP.” “Melee units are unplayable because ranged units do more than stand around waiting to get knocked over like bowling pins.”
Haha yeah, those stupid marine players. Don't they know that marines are boring and lame? I mean, they've been the most popular and thus default army for, like, every edition! I'm so glad that we don't see so many marines on the board these days. Finally, an edition that isn't dominated by unfluffy lists. I'm much happier with the hobby now that everyone is playing such a great variety of Knights + IG soup lists. 40k as it was meant to be!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/06 06:05:59
Am I the only one who thinks that GUOs even with the 70pts reduction that at 255pts they are still to expensive to take in a list? I just don’t see the point in taking a model that is only T7 with a 5+ invul save. Especially since it will take multiple turns to get him into combat and can’t hide due to having more than 10 wounds. He doesn’t even hit that hard.
beir wrote: Dakka is just a game of 'Find the most popular thread right now and transform it into whining about my pet peeves.'
fething hell, does EVERY thread have to turn into CP whining?
Its the same hamfisted fixes that fail for obvious reasons every time. Until marines are unbearably autopilot broken then you will always hear the same gripes. “Why can’t marines one shot all other infantry while being indestructable to anything short of plasma spam?” “All armies should have the same amount of CP regardless of how they are balanced to use CP.” “Melee units are unplayable because ranged units do more than stand around waiting to get knocked over like bowling pins.”
beir wrote: Dakka is just a game of 'Find the most popular thread right now and transform it into whining about my pet peeves.'
fething hell, does EVERY thread have to turn into CP whining?
Its the same hamfisted fixes that fail for obvious reasons every time. Until marines are unbearably autopilot broken then you will always hear the same gripes. “Why can’t marines one shot all other infantry while being indestructable to anything short of plasma spam?” “All armies should have the same amount of CP regardless of how they are balanced to use CP.” “Melee units are unplayable because ranged units do more than stand around waiting to get knocked over like bowling pins.”
TBF to marines, their stratagems are terrible.
Definitely. As is the fact that every xenos army has tactics that work on every unit in the codex (short of two or three exceptions across all of the Xenos codexes), even when several armies have the same exact tactics (RG vs. Alaitoc).
While Marine players will complain about a lot (look at how mad some get about the fact Primaris Marines exist, even though they didn't take any options away from regular Marines), their Stratagems are definitely one worth complaining about.
schadenfreude wrote: The simplest solution to multi faction v single faction balance would be to compartmentalize CP. Any CP generated by a detachment can not be used outside of it unless the other one is the exact same faction.
That would pretty much end triple faction making the prospect of 3 separate CP pools plus 3 spend anywhere CP a moot point.
Or just make CPs/Stratagems narrative play only.
There's already so many fixes around CP regeneration, reinforcement points, etc... to make them bearable in matched play, and the most glaring problems are still CP/Strat-related.
They just might not be a good idea for competitive matched play, where people by definition seek to abuse a very abusable, "mostly for fluff" mechanic.
schadenfreude wrote: The simplest solution to multi faction v single faction balance would be to compartmentalize CP. Any CP generated by a detachment can not be used outside of it unless the other one is the exact same faction.
That would pretty much end triple faction making the prospect of 3 separate CP pools plus 3 spend anywhere CP a moot point.
Or just make CPs/Stratagems narrative play only.
There's already so many fixes around CP regeneration, reinforcement points, etc... to make them bearable in matched play, and the most glaring problems are still CP/Strat-related.
They just might not be a good idea for competitive matched play, where people by definition seek to abuse a very abusable, "mostly for fluff" mechanic.
Then most units need to be balanced around CP/Strategems not being around, like they should've been in the first place.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
nekooni wrote: Then report the posts instead of joining.
I for one am excited about the beta codex, gave me the motivation to go back to my pile of shame and dig out the counts as sisters from raging heroes
I like it when someone tells off a wanna be mod. Exalted!
As for soup, OK, each army must designate one faction as he main faction. It will be the one who has the highest points total. If two are equal the player picks one. Every detachment from an allied force costs one command point from the total.
If both armies have allies no changes are made.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/06 07:35:37
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Back on topic, we know of at least one FW unit being adjusted in prices, but any chance of Titans being restored to their more sane costs?
I doubt it, given the Warbringer is priced at 5,000 and sits between the Reaver and Warlord in terms of power.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/06 08:44:13
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
LatheBiosas wrote:I have such a difficult time hitting my opponents... setting them on fire seems so much simpler.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Back on topic, we know of at least one FW unit being adjusted in prices, but any chance of Titans being restored to their more sane costs?
I doubt it, given the Warbringer is priced at 5,000 and sits between the Reaver and Warlord in terms of power.
True, but the warbringer is actually power and point costed to match the current titan nonsense. Generally power is about equal to 20 points, roughly averaging upgrade options. The titans used to be that, with the warhound at 75 power, 1500 points, reaver at 120 power, 2400 points, and warlord at 200 power, 4000 points. At 175 power, the warbringer fits in between the warlord and reaver, and ought to be 3500 points. But gw changed titans to be 2000, 4000, and 6000 points just to make them unusable in normal games, so the warbringer points at 5000 fits in between the new stupid costs for the reaver and warlord.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Back on topic, we know of at least one FW unit being adjusted in prices, but any chance of Titans being restored to their more sane costs?
I doubt it, given the Warbringer is priced at 5,000 and sits between the Reaver and Warlord in terms of power.
True, but the warbringer is actually power and point costed to match the current titan nonsense. Generally power is about equal to 20 points, roughly averaging upgrade options. The titans used to be that, with the warhound at 75 power, 1500 points, reaver at 120 power, 2400 points, and warlord at 200 power, 4000 points. At 175 power, the warbringer fits in between the warlord and reaver, and ought to be 3500 points. But gw changed titans to be 2000, 4000, and 6000 points just to make them unusable in normal games, so the warbringer points at 5000 fits in between the new stupid costs for the reaver and warlord.
Is the problem that their power levels are incongruent with their points, or their points are incongruent with the stats/rules?
Personally, I think the fact the Warbringer is 5K pts is ludicrous. I can bring ten fully-loaded Imperial Knights for that.
GW increased the point costs in CA2017 without adjusting the power, likely so you couldn't feasaby take a warhound in a game of 1750 or 2K. IIRC the Eldar titans got adjusted as well to do the same. And titans are not worth their points at all compared to knights or most normal units unless playing with a double size or larger table.
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts 
