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.

Spoletta wrote:

Commanders don't have auras, you know EXACTLY how many units they are going to effect. On SM HQs this is impossible, so correctly you pay for the auras partially on the model and the partially on the potentially benefitting units.
Since we don't want guards to partially pay for orders, because at that point they absolutely need to be 5 ppm if not more, then you pay it all on the officers. Right now the advantages given by those orders are much greater than the cost of the officers, so they should be increased.

So you should be paying MORE for Auras than Orders, since Orders are finite resources and block you from benefiting from another Order with the exception of a Relic's effect? Sounds like there might be a reason Officers are so cheap!

Oh by the way, i'm 100% with you on segregating CPs.

That's fine and dandy.

One of the biggest mistakes of 40k 8th was not taking advantage of the mechanisms that AoS has established with regards to "Command Abilities" that certain figures get when serving as your army's General and the mechanism for generating CPs where everyone gets a base amount and you get an additional +1 CP, at the start of the game and able to be saved for later, for each Warscroll Battalion you take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Do we want to clarify if CP can be transferred across detachments with the same keywords, a la the army’s two guard detachments can share CP but the SM detachment can’t use the guard CP?

No sharing CP unless three Faction keywords match.

So you'd need:
Imperium(Match)
Astra Militarum(Match)
<Regiment>(Match)

And while we're at it?
Add a Lord of War slot to every Detachment. It's ridiculous that we can take 0-2 Flyers as part of most Detachments.

Doesn't work, Tyranids and Tau for example would not be able to share CPs this way. They have max 2 keywords in common.

What if we simply say that they must have a matching keyword that is not Eldar, Chaos or Imperium?

Spoletta wrote:
Doesn't work, Tyranids and Tau for example would not be able to share CPs this way. They have max 2 keywords in common.

Change 3 to "all keywords must match" then.

Not hard.

The point, with any regards, is to make it so that the army needs matching keywords to share their CPs.
Since an army is made up of Detachments, this makes it so that soup can still be a thing--but you are going to be required to track the CPs for each Detachment.

Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).

So is the goal to make infantry not taken at all? I thought it was to limit the mass advantage that soup provided while still allowing players to field the army they enjoy

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).

If the choice was between taking the loyal 32 at 0 CP, or investing those 180 points into troops from your own faction to actually gain some hardly needed CP, then you wouldn't see many guards around.

Asmodios wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).

So is the goal to make infantry not taken at all? I thought it was to limit the mass advantage that soup provided while still allowing players to field the army they enjoy

The goal should be units being at a fair enough price that you don't still feel obligated to take them.

Fact of the matter is that taking away CP sharing won't stop Infantry from being taken, as they outperform SEVERAL units at a particular task. They're a problem unit, the math proves it, and they need have a solution created.

I'm not for nerfing them to oblivion, and heck it's certainly nice Imperial Guard can be fielded without being laughed at now. However, the apologists are pulling the same mental gymnastics we criticized certain Eldar players for and they don't even realize it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).

If the choice was between taking the loyal 32 at 0 CP, or investing those 180 points into troops from your own faction to actually gain some hardly needed CP, then you wouldn't see many guards around.

How many armies are going to be able to provide that same amount of bodies for 180 points? AdMech can already get a decent amount of CP by themselves, so they certainly wouldn't care, and they were already being used when Battalions were only a 3CP bonus. Sisters can easily do a Brigade by themselves, so the 5CP lost from the Guard is no big deal for an army wanting a tool that can stand back and shoot while the rest of the army charges forward.

You're in denial if you aren't realizing HOW many tools the Loyal 32 provides for the points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).

That's an assumption. It really is. It's also worth noting that there are mechanisms in place that could have been utilized to make it so that Custodes and Knights could benefit more from the Detachments that they can reliably field.

I'd like to point out, again, that I've also suggested Mortars, Lascannons, and other "two man team" weapon options need to be removed from Infantry Squads or be given a "move OR fire" requirement as part of alleviating one of the sillier reasons to take them. Or that <Regiment> Infantry units need to be entirely reworked, period.

This is where we disagree. Guards are not THAT much better than other choices, we are talking about a few percentage points since the guards are effectively a 4,6 point model and not a 4 point model. They usually outperform by about 10%. 10% difference on a few points of troops is a negligible difference, you are not going to scrap useful CPs for that, especially sisters and Admech which have battalions that are already comparable with the loyal 32.

If factions cannot soup that easily, but it comes with an hefty cost in CPs, then it is fine that some factions are better at some things than other factions.

So apart from
Cheap CPs,
Best Damage output sub T6,
Best defensive stats,
Best board footprint,
and best late game objective grabbing ability,
what have Guardsmen ever done for us?

Tyel wrote:
So apart from
Cheap CPs,

Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.

Best Damage output sub T6,

Are we talking about Lasguns again?

Best defensive stats,

Yeah, T3 5+ save with no ability to get a -1 to hit is downright amazing. Wonder what you lot must think of Eldar Rangers...

Best board footprint,

Ever fought a Gretchin horde list?

and best late game objective grabbing ability,

Kill the officers and this ceases to exist.

Or use your own Troops.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, T3 5+ save with no ability to get a -1 to hit is downright amazing. Wonder what you lot must think of Eldar Rangers...

In cover (so 3+ save) with the -1 to hit Rangers have the same defensive stats as guardsmen out of cover against BS4+, AP- shots.
They have worse defensive stats against BS3+ or anything with AP.

Tyel wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, T3 5+ save with no ability to get a -1 to hit is downright amazing. Wonder what you lot must think of Eldar Rangers...

In cover (so 3+ save) with the -1 to hit Rangers have the same defensive stats as guardsmen out of cover against BS4+, AP- shots.
They have worse defensive stats against BS3+ or anything with AP.

You understand that it's always better to have a -1 to be hit than to not have one, right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tyel wrote:
So apart from
Cheap CPs,

Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.

Best Damage output sub T6,

Are we talking about Lasguns again?

Best defensive stats,

Yeah, T3 5+ save with no ability to get a -1 to hit is downright amazing. Wonder what you lot must think of Eldar Rangers...

Best board footprint,

Ever fought a Gretchin horde list?

and best late game objective grabbing ability,

Kill the officers and this ceases to exist.

Or use your own Troops.

Snipers got a big point decrease in admech CA as well I think this is also a new real threat to any IG list running around a bunch of foot slogging CC. Those were already a bane when playing my brothers -1 to hit admech and now with their points drop as well as other units that's going to be an incredibly tough matchup for mono guard. I think SM sniper spam might become popular as well after CA. ITs going to be very interesting to see how popular those commanders are outside of soup lists

Ehhh...as much as I advocate for snipers as a thing, I do recognize that they need significant help.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.

Best Damage output sub T6,

So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.

Best Damage output sub T6,

So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!

Yeah, I would be fine with that you have to work really hard to burn through all your CP in an all-guard list (at least from my experience). personally id like to see CP regeneration abilities go away across the board as guards ability to bring another 5-6 free CP over the course of a game to any army they are plugged into is also a major reason why we always see the soup

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.

Best Damage output sub T6,

So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!

I’m running Scions, which share the order system with guard, which is why I’m invested in this discussion. Just because some people aren’t imaginative enough to use all the CP they get doesn’t mean others aren’t. I’d rather keep FRFSRF, because dropping Scions from Valkyries or hopping them out of Taurox Primes is going to be my big chaff killer.

Scions can have a different set of orders than the regular mooks.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.

Best Damage output sub T6,

So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!

I’m running Scions, which share the order system with guard, which is why I’m invested in this discussion. Just because some people aren’t imaginative enough to use all the CP they get doesn’t mean others aren’t. I’d rather keep FRFSRF, because dropping Scions from Valkyries or hopping them out of Taurox Primes is going to be my big chaff killer.

Personally id like to see just a rebalancing of CP costs once soup is fixed without adding different FOC for different armies as it punishes certain peoples ideal playstyles more then others

 Crimson wrote:
Scions can have a different set of orders than the regular mooks.

Coordinated fire Sanctioned: the same thing as FRFSRF

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.

Best Damage output sub T6,

So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!

No, it really wouldn't. Stating that "there's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard" is a simple enough statement that I think even you would be able to understand with ease. There's a limited number of non-situational/unit specific Stratagems. They basically boil down to:
A) Regiment's stratagem
B) Bonus Relic stratagem
C) An Order stratagem

It's not really too different to most armies, in that there's a finite number of "good" stratagems, but the big issue is that it is exacerbated by the fact that Guard can wind up with such a large pool of CPs that they become very useful for souping.

Additionally, anyone who thinks platoons would fix anything is fooling themselves. You people whine and whine and whine about lasguns(a weapon that can, outside of a Conscript Squad and Command Squad, never benefit 100% from FRFSRF). Then it's to "board footprint". Then it's "best defensive stats". And then we circle back to CPs.

Apple Peel wrote:I’m running Scions, which share the order system with guard, which is why I’m invested in this discussion. Just because some people aren’t imaginative enough to use all the CP they get doesn’t mean others aren’t.

When someone has a large pool of CPs and a finite number of Stratagems that apply to them, you're really going to try to say that it is "some people aren't imaginative enough to use all the CP they get"?

I’d rather keep FRFSRF, because dropping Scions from Valkyries or hopping them out of Taurox Primes is going to be my big chaff killer.

And I'd rather you never gotten put into my Codex to begin with. The Scions book flatout removed that Order from you lot, and it should have remained that way if you were getting rolled in as a "Regiment".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Scions can have a different set of orders than the regular mooks.

They did when they had their own book.

They had one that granted all of their weapons Rending when shooting MCs/vehicles, one that made it so they fired 1 shot and couldn't charge but got Sniper and Pinning(and that only affected hotshot laspistols+lasguns, no volley guns), a Fleet Order, twin-linked for all weapons when firing, Preferred Enemy for a shooting attack, and Crusader for the rest of the turn.

It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.

 Crimson wrote:
It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.

"Great"...lol.

Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.

"Great"...lol.

Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!

The math has been provided for FRFSRF lasguns outperforming pretty much all other troop options in the game, often by a significant margin. Discussing with you is pointless, because you don't believe in math.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.

"Great"...lol.

Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!

I'm not sure if you're bring sarcastic here but you realise that Guardsmen have one of the strongest damage per point of any troop combined with one of the best durability per point ratios right?

You gather this has been proven in this thread and many, many others?

As has been stated, they are a problem unit and they would be taken even if they provided no CP

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.

"Great"...lol.

Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!

The math has been provided for FRFSRF lasguns outperforming pretty much all other troop options in the game, often by a significant margin. Discussing with you is pointless, because you don't believe in math.

Geegollywillickers, a buff specifically intended to buff a specific gun makes that gun more effective? Gosh I never would have suspected such a thing could happen!

For the record, it's not that I "don't believe in math". It's that I feel the math is consistently misrepresentative of the situation.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.

"Great"...lol.

Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!

I'm not sure if you're bring sarcastic here but you realise that Guardsmen have one of the strongest damage per point of any troop combined with one of the best durability per point ratios right?

You gather this has been proven in this thread and many, many others?

As has been stated, they are a problem unit and they would be taken even if they provided no CP

I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener

But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM
Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).

That's an assumption. It really is. It's also worth noting that there are mechanisms in place that could have been utilized to make it so that Custodes and Knights could benefit more from the Detachments that they can reliably field.

I'd like to point out, again, that I've also suggested Mortars, Lascannons, and other "two man team" weapon options need to be removed from Infantry Squads or be given a "move OR fire" requirement as part of alleviating one of the sillier reasons to take them. Or that <Regiment> Infantry units need to be entirely reworked, period.

Removing those heavy weapons doesn't really fix the problem because Mortars are merely a bonus at that point.

Also everything is conjecture. You saying removing CP sharing fixes a problem. I'm saying that's not even close to the problem. AdMech can do easy Batallions for CP. So can Sisters.

Which is the one being consistently used again?