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.

catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

I don't think too many soup players would be that upset about having to take a few mortar squads and/or Leman Russes in addition to their Loyal 32. Guard and Knights and Smash Captains are a great combo even if you have to spend 500+pts on each.

CP-sharing is really the biggest reason why soup is a problem for balance, so it makes sense to go after that. Being able to take units from two (or more) completely different armies is powerful enough; they shouldn't also be able to benefit from mix-and-matching.

I mean, optimally I'd like CP to be overhauled so that everyone has roughly the same amount of CP and then stratagems can be appropriately balanced in terms of CP cost, but that seems dramatically less likely to happen than an FAQ that says no CP sharing across factions.

Yea, but the exception to the rule of IG can be adjusted by points. Smash Captains would require a much larger investment than now.

Karol wrote:

When the claim is made that "most people play this way", the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do, after all.

No it isn't. If someone says that glass is not a good thing to eat, they don't have to prove anything. It is the people that glass is a valid thing to eat that have to prove it is the case. You can't put up an illogical argument that most people don't care about money and buy bad armies, and then ask everyone that this is not the case.

Well, claiming most 40K players would play tournament lists is not the same as your glass analogy. Personally I've never seen someone play the kinds of tournament lists you see at dakka, I don't even know anyone who plays Imperial Guard or knights for that matter. So you would have to proof that claim somehow. With narrative play having the same space in Chapter approved as matched play we have one hint that tournament play is not the only thing played. The vigilus and urban conquest books are further hints that there are other playstyles used beyond eternal war (otherwize these books wouldn't sell and GW wouldn't produce them).

Bharring wrote:
People want different things. To some, the fix should make Allies not possible. To others, make it only token presences of minor forces alongside the main host. To others, it should be totally viable that half your army be Imperial Guard and the other half Marines. Or Traitor Marines and Demons.

I'd like to see Soup still viable but not as optimal as now. For that, you need to disincentivize soup instead of outright penalize or deny it.

To that end, my favorite is still the "Detachments Cost CP" suggestion that pops up in Proposed Rules from time to time. You can find the details there. But it would make using more detatchements cost CP instead of give CP - which would mean you can soup, but it'll cost you. Currently, souping typically means you get more CP.

This. I can get behind taking ally units for thematic units. I can even be for taking an ally unit cause that unit is intrinsically useful or makes up an in game gap. What I really hate is BS like the loyal 32 whose presence suddenly makes other units better via CP they shouldn't have access to.

This really goes back to the fact that GW should be pegged to points or generated in game, not based on taking cheap screening units to fill out a chart for as least points as possible and then just add Knights

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

Forcing patrol, battalion or super heavy aux benefit only the Empire, who can build cheap detachments and will punish eldar.
Eldar don`t build brigades because its super expensive.
AM can deploy brigade for less than 800 pts and harlequins need 1300, so for the some amount of points AM can easily get 5 more CP and have space for nasty staff like knights, custodes ......
The only real solution is to lower the CP given by battalions and brigades.
Patrol, Command, Super +1 CP
Battalion +3
Brigade +5
Vanguard, Spearhead +2, Super Heavy(4 for knights).
With that you can soup, but you will have few points and will not be able to break the bank for all the relics and spam strat durring game.

I 100% think Battaltions and Brigades should go back to 3/9 CPs per the ORIGINAL printed BRB, but then 1 of 2 possible changes (or both) should be added:

A) Being Battle Forged should give 3CPs PER TURN if your WL is still alive. These would generate at the start of each Battle Round

-OR-

B) Detachments gain DOUBLE CPs if they share the same non-Battle Brother keyword as your WL.
So adding the Loyal 32 to your Knights only give you 3CPs unless you make one of those HQs your WL, in which is give 6CPs.
But why would you want to do that when your Knight Detachment would have double CPs if you make a Knight your WL.

Either change would put less emphasis on taking cheap X to give your Y more CPs and more emphasis on making your army share a non-BB keyword.

-

Marin wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

Forcing patrol, battalion or super heavy aux benefit only the Empire, who can build cheap detachments and will punish eldar.
Eldar don`t build brigades because its super expensive.
AM can deploy brigade for less than 800 pts and harlequins need 1300, so for the some amount of points AM can easily get 5 more CP and have space for nasty staff like knights, custodes ......
The only real solution is to lower the CP given by battalions and brigades.
Patrol, Command, Super +1 CP
Battalion +3
Brigade +5
Vanguard, Spearhead +2, Super Heavy(4 for knights).
With that you can soup, but you will have few points and will not be able to break the bank for all the relics and spam strat durring game.

This just moves the line and doesn't solve anything. Cheap IG still get more CP per point.

Pushing IG and Castellans up in points just a hair sorts them out pretty quickly. I'm also not sure why anyone would brigade Harlies.

Or make it to where an imperial knight in anything but a pure imperial knight list gives negative command points depending on its power level/impact. So for instance the Castellan.. it could be like -5 command points. This puts imperium players with loyal 32 in a weird spot, because they think “but I needs those there command points for my cool things I can do that are fun for everyone” (ensure this is read with inbred esque accent) and they will have to think a little harder on what to do. Could be more like -10 command points and I still that that’s generous.

 Dysartes wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
oh no, people enjoy playing the game in a different manner to myself! better bitch and moan about the fact that GW didn't cater literally everything in every single issue of their magazine to my specific niche of the demographic!

Grow up.

 SHUPPET wrote:
People playing the ruleset competitively isn't the problem, that's the best thing a game can have.

Not if the game isn't designed for it, it isn't - I'm pretty sure playing "competitive" (by which I assume you're meaning tournament) games with a Polemos system, for example, just won't work.

"Grow up" says the guy moaning on a forum that other people enjoy playing the game in a way that he personally does not



What the hell is a Polemos system? I have never heard that word and find no definition that makes a coherent sentence out of that

Regardless, this argument doesn't hold up anyway - GW IS designing for that, theyve outright said so. Not that you'd be right even if it wasn't.

Greek mythos. Polemos is a demon, that is sorta like an avatar of war. (I know the Greek myth where he comes from does not corespond with the term avatar, but it is a good way to explain it.) I agree that the sentence is porply worded.

ANYWAY: Do anybody have any thoughts on the Battle Report? I love reading them. The pictures and the small diagrams. All are very cool. And painted armies. So nice.

I found that explanation, I just don't understand what the sentence "I'm pretty sure playing "competitive" (by which I assume you're meaning tournament) games with a avatar of war system, for example, just won't work."

And thats the most logical interpretation I could make of the sentence.

 Niiai wrote:

ANYWAY: Do anybody have any thoughts on the Battle Report? I love reading them. The pictures and the small diagrams. All are very cool. And painted armies. So nice.

My copy is delayed.

Did they do the old school style diagrams with the little explosion symbols?

Yes. It is so pretty.

 SHUPPET wrote:
What the hell is a Polemos system? I have never heard that word and find no definition that makes a coherent sentence out of that

Regardless, this argument doesn't hold up anyway - GW IS designing for that, theyve outright said so. Not that you'd be right even if it wasn't.

Polemos is the branding for a range of historical rules sets produced by Baccus 6mm.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many historical games (excluding Warlord's output, Flames of War, and DBM) are ill-suited to "competitive" play, and that approaching them in such a mindset is a good way to have a terrible experience with them.

Please cut out the back and forth and name calling, rule 1 is be polite and you are expected to follow it all the time.

Hi All, I'm the Aeldari player from this battle report.

Just to feedback on some of the points raised here - i can confirm that we were asked to bring "competitive" armies and basically bring our A game to the party, so bear that in mind if you think our lists were cheesy.

Currently I actually think Knights have slid down the power tree a bit, especially post FAQ. As for my own list, I'd argue that it was solid, if not top tier. Most competitive Craftworlds lists have Ynnari, and they certainly don't have any vypers!

Hope you all enjoyed the report, we had a blast doing it, and I also wrote an article on the day itself for our website:

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

I thought it was a great match liam. Pay bo attensions to the haters. I love a good battlereport with good models. It was a delight to not have unbalanced armies against each other, as some battle reports can be sometimes.

Competive is just one way to play, just like cassual or just painting is. I like to see the journalisemn (and that is what white dwarf is to some degree) cover all aspects of gaming. I remember when flyers came in 6th edition, and 8th edition is most certanly a step in the right direction regarding balance. Although, there is stil some way to go. Wait for some more updates on the points and rules and I think we are there.

 liam0404 wrote:
Hi All, I'm the Aeldari player from this battle report.

Just to feedback on some of the points raised here - i can confirm that we were asked to bring "competitive" armies and basically bring our A game to the party, so bear that in mind if you think our lists were cheesy.

Currently I actually think Knights have slid down the power tree a bit, especially post FAQ. As for my own list, I'd argue that it was solid, if not top tier. Most competitive Craftworlds lists have Ynnari, and they certainly don't have any vypers!

Hope you all enjoyed the report, we had a blast doing it, and I also wrote an article on the day itself for our website:

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

it's a very small subset people upset about others "having fun wrong". I wouldn't worry about it. Great to see a different facet of the game getting play in a White Dwarf, well done

I don't disagree with the players and I'm glad they have fun.

I believe the discontent expressed by others and myself is more reasonably directed at the editorial decisions made by the magazine itself.

https://www.caledoniandeathwatchnetwork.co.uk/?p=1527

Nice read

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

This is kinda the problem with allies. Like any mechanic, it can be abused. I agree as an Imperium player I love that I can combine smaller IOM factions together to create fun lists. I don't own a knight and don't feel they belong in a normal game of 40k. But at the same time I don't want to loss the ability to take an inquisitor with my marines or recreate certain novel team ups like Sisters of Battle and Admech.

This gets back to the core issue with 40k, both players need to have the same goals and expectation from the game or it likely won't be fun for either of them.

I think this is very core to the issue of 40k as the design of 40k does not even seem to have the same goals with each other.
At this point the design of 40k should be fairly stable, but it seems that often the people heading up that design will change it at a whim. Between army releases.
And we get left with a game that still seems to have no sense of its scale or intended systems. It’s all over the place. And mostly could be cleaned up if they wanted too.

Soup should allways be slightly toned down. It’s an option but never the go too for top tier. But it can be close.
You can do rules for it if you plan for it, even things like knights would have been great if it was an army. With support and auxiliary units. Thought out, outside of easy money. But people pay so I think this is just the way it will go, ether successfully or till collapse.

Apple fox wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

This is kinda the problem with allies. Like any mechanic, it can be abused. I agree as an Imperium player I love that I can combine smaller IOM factions together to create fun lists. I don't own a knight and don't feel they belong in a normal game of 40k. But at the same time I don't want to loss the ability to take an inquisitor with my marines or recreate certain novel team ups like Sisters of Battle and Admech.

This gets back to the core issue with 40k, both players need to have the same goals and expectation from the game or it likely won't be fun for either of them.

I think this is very core to the issue of 40k as the design of 40k does not even seem to have the same goals with each other.
At this point the design of 40k should be fairly stable, but it seems that often the people heading up that design will change it at a whim. Between army releases.
And we get left with a game that still seems to have no sense of its scale or intended systems. It’s all over the place. And mostly could be cleaned up if they wanted too.

Soup should allways be slightly toned down. It’s an option but never the go too for top tier. But it can be close.
You can do rules for it if you plan for it, even things like knights would have been great if it was an army. With support and auxiliary units. Thought out, outside of easy money. But people pay so I think this is just the way it will go, ether successfully or till collapse.

Precisely. The issue is that they design for cool, not balance. I doubt they give more than a cursory glance at balance (despite claiming they do; you can claim something all you want but the evidence shows otherwise) which is why each new army seems to have some wonky gimmick that is seemingly built without understanding how it interacts with the rest of the game.

The problem with soup/allies is if an army is designed around not having access to a lot of CP to power Stratagems, as I believe Imperial Knights were (hence why their stratagems are so good), then allowing something like the Loyal 32 completely nullifies that drawback by providing a cheap way to get extra CP. That right there is the problem. A cheap way to get CP when stratagems are seemingly designed around CP being limited (and stratagems are too polarizing in my opinion; one of the worst decisions they made was to give every army its own set of stratagems as part of their relative power) breaks open the game because now you can do the important stratagems easily.

Fix being able to take CP generated by the Loyal 32 and its ilk and use it on your "real" units, and you fix most of the problems in the game. Not completely, since that would require a rework of CP and stratagems in general (perhaps to something more like AOS 2.0 has) and because competitive players will always find loopholes as long as they try to twist 40k into a competitive game when its rules are barely suitable for that purpose, but it'll be a good step towards solving a major problem.

I'm continually amused by the fact the AOS team seems to take a lot more pride and interest in designing a good game (although they don't always get it right as AOS has its outliers but they are nowhere near as large as the gaps are in 40k), while the 40k team still tries to do the same old "That sounds cool, let's do it!" mentality from 6th and 7th edition.

I'm continually amused by the fact the AOS team seems to take a lot more pride and interest in designing a good game (although they don't always get it right as AOS has its outliers but they are nowhere near as large as the gaps are in 40k), while the 40k team still tries to do the same old "That sounds cool, let's do it!" mentality from 6th and 7th edition.

I do believe AoS team has a much smaller task at hand than the 40k team. AoS is not beholden to old units, options, or a large established line so they can limit the scope of a lot of what they do. Doesn't help that over the years some lines have been padded more than others and you have a lot of redundancy compared to a more small focused army like the Daughters of Khaine. Although, to be fair I do fear that they are now slowly developing the same issue with Stormcast and all the new models they get on a regular basis.

This is why I love the detatchments-cost-CP suggestion, where even Battalions/Brigades/Patrols aren't free: an Imperial player can still bring a Battalion of Guardsmen to support his Marines and Knight - but instead of the additional Battalion providing more CP, it costs.

So sure, you can play Imperium. You can play Knights and add the Loyal32 and have 30 (pairs of) boots on the ground. At appropriate cost. Because `appropriate cost` shouldn't incude *bonus* CP for souping.

The idea is that Soup would still be viable, but that both soup and mono would each have upsdies. And this does it with a light touch, and without needing to get into the "What is a faction" discussion.

Bharring wrote:
This is why I love the detatchments-cost-CP suggestion, where even Battalions/Brigades/Patrols aren't free: an Imperial player can still bring a Battalion of Guardsmen to support his Marines and Knight - but instead of the additional Battalion providing more CP, it costs.

So sure, you can play Imperium. You can play Knights and add the Loyal32 and have 30 (pairs of) boots on the ground. At appropriate cost. Because `appropriate cost` shouldn't incude *bonus* CP for souping.

The idea is that Soup would still be viable, but that both soup and mono would each have upsdies. And this does it with a light touch, and without needing to get into the "What is a faction" discussion.

I actually really like this idea, and I play eldar soup. I would find it having me sometimes bring soup and dealing with less CP, or sometimes choosing which eldar faction I primarily want to play.

I agree. Working backwards helps those Monolists that can't compete by themselves due to them not being able to use gimmicks that make them work.

GRANTED units shouldn't be priced around being able to use a Strategem and they should be viable on their own, but that's a different discussion.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I'm continually amused by the fact the AOS team seems to take a lot more pride and interest in designing a good game (although they don't always get it right as AOS has its outliers but they are nowhere near as large as the gaps are in 40k), while the 40k team still tries to do the same old "That sounds cool, let's do it!" mentality from 6th and 7th edition.

I do believe AoS team has a much smaller task at hand than the 40k team. AoS is not beholden to old units, options, or a large established line so they can limit the scope of a lot of what they do. Doesn't help that over the years some lines have been padded more than others and you have a lot of redundancy compared to a more small focused army like the Daughters of Khaine. Although, to be fair I do fear that they are now slowly developing the same issue with Stormcast and all the new models they get on a regular basis.

AOS is doing better, but after all this time I am still amazed at how bare it seems. Like it takes GW twice as long and with twice the words to say half as much as they should have been able to.
I got the recent starter set and was very disappointed, read the rule book though. And all I could think was how bland it was, like they said a lot of basic stuff that went nowhere. Not something I want to see from a company like GW.
Even the factions are being drowned out by the stormcast, or distilled down to the most bare bones they can be.
But at least it seems like most factions are at least playing the same game most of the time.

Bharring wrote:
This is why I love the detatchments-cost-CP suggestion, where even Battalions/Brigades/Patrols aren't free: an Imperial player can still bring a Battalion of Guardsmen to support his Marines and Knight - but instead of the additional Battalion providing more CP, it costs.

So sure, you can play Imperium. You can play Knights and add the Loyal32 and have 30 (pairs of) boots on the ground. At appropriate cost. Because `appropriate cost` shouldn't incude *bonus* CP for souping.

The idea is that Soup would still be viable, but that both soup and mono would each have upsdies. And this does it with a light touch, and without needing to get into the "What is a faction" discussion.

LoL and am not laughing at you or the proposition, but the impact it would have on armies like GK. Can you imagine GK somehow finding free 5-6CP to take 32 IG ? Would be hilarious to watch GK playing with no heed or re-rolls.

I would imagine they'd have a much easier time finding the CP than most other factions, as they're more expensive so would use fewer detatchments themselves. Which would cost *fewer* CP than more detatchments.

GK would still be trash, though.

But fewer detachments would mean less CP, and heed costs 2CP, which means you have 6CP immobile no matter what. Plus if GK cost more, and get fewer CP themselfs, they just wouldn't be able to take other faction detachments, because they would either not be able to pay the point, the CP cost, or both.

GK cant' take 2 cheap HQs and 3x5 scouts. Because our scouts cost 20pts, and our cheapest working HQ is the GM in NDK armour.

 Kommisar wrote:
It's refreshing that they're finally acknowledging that this is how most people play.

Err, what?

Nnnnnnnoooooo?

This is how most high-level tournament players play. High-level tournament players are a very small minority.