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.

"But fewer detachments would mean less CP"
Please reread the suggestion. It is, in fact, the opposite. The suggestion was that each detatchment cost CP - thus, fewer detatchments means *more* CP.

But we're way OT. If you want to discuss further, find one of the Proposed Rules threads (or start a new one, we're overdue for it...)

AdmiralHalsey wrote: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.

I don't find that any more reasonable. Why aren't the editors allowed to enjoy the game this way, or cater to the very large portion of their customer base who does, from time to time?

 SHUPPET wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote: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.

I don't find that any more reasonable. Why aren't the editors allowed to enjoy the game this way, or cater to the very large portion of their customer base who does, from time to time?

I think it has little to do with competitive players, it’s that the soup is so powerful and dominates the landscape of the game.
If a players was to go in as a competing player wanting to play blood angels, is that even viable?
Or is the best blood angel list to take as few blood angels as possible and good stuff from other places.

It’s a bit of a chimera of fluff and gameplay. A way to remove interesting game eliments from design, removing as much of what should make each faction unique to play.
It’s bad game design I think at this point :(

I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

 SHUPPET wrote:
I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

100% I welcome competitive content in the mag, and I hope it gets the care from the creative team to support it. Balance does not need to be perfect, it needs to be close enough. That a player can turn up with a well thought out and faction specific army and have a chance at winning a standard game. What we see on the table should resemble the story and fluff as well, which I think GW could work on a lot better.
Rule of cool should never be an excuse away from something being dumb, things that are cool are just cool.

Apple fox wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

100% I welcome competitive content in the mag, and I hope it gets the care from the creative team to support it. Balance does not need to be perfect, it needs to be close enough. That a player can turn up with a well thought out and faction specific army and have a chance at winning a standard game. What we see on the table should resemble the story and fluff as well, which I think GW could work on a lot better.
Rule of cool should never be an excuse away from something being dumb, things that are cool are just cool.

For sure. I don't really disagree with any of that. Though I think balance, and fixing idiotic soup rules, should be a priority. But you probably agree with that too.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I agree, allies rules are terrible game design. I just don't agree with cutting all conpetitive content our of the mag, and I don't agree with pretending competitive 40k is something other than taking the best units from every dex available to your faction. Plenty of competitive games hinge off people playing the strongest stuff in the game is each other while leaving the weaker stuff on the bench, even incredible esports like Dota 2 have a bunch of really bad heroes at competitive level every patch, it's not a reason to avoid showing those games. We work with what we have until it improves?

100% I welcome competitive content in the mag, and I hope it gets the care from the creative team to support it. Balance does not need to be perfect, it needs to be close enough. That a player can turn up with a well thought out and faction specific army and have a chance at winning a standard game. What we see on the table should resemble the story and fluff as well, which I think GW could work on a lot better.
Rule of cool should never be an excuse away from something being dumb, things that are cool are just cool.

For sure. I don't really disagree with any of that. Though I think balance, and fixing idiotic soup rules, should be a priority. But you probably agree with that too.

I do not disagree but I think in a lot of cases it’s one and the same. So much of the games wonkyness comes from GW going, make something cool. Rather than goeing what could fit well into this faction or the game.

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

I'm going to politely disagree, I like soup in my local meta

I like my friends being able to bring a knight to backup his space wolves or grey knights ...

I like friends being able to bring things they bought, assembled and lovingly painted to the accepted 'Matched Play' rules that WE agree is the fairest game version FOR US ... rather than trying to hammer it into PL/Open/Narrative because someone on the internet decided that it's not right.

What I dislike is that it happens to be the most competitive option and as a Necrons player ... if I'm not souping (Novokh +Sautekh + Nihilakh) then my lists massively underperform and I'm handicapping myself by not doing it .. despite the fluff 100% being against Dynasties working together ...

so yeah the conflict is real ... players should be able to play what they want AND not feel forced to only take the tippiemost topmost efficient units to even stand a chance

Well, personal preferences here.
But mixing to the max by using the best units from several worlds is garbage if you ask me.
In friendly games, you will not make many friends.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Given that they have existed in most editions, but it's only really been 7th and 8th that have brought complaints, maybe, just maybe, the answer isn't to "just get over it" but to balance the allies rules properly in the first place?

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Given that they have existed in most editions, but it's only really been 7th and 8th that have brought complaints, maybe, just maybe, the answer isn't to "just get over it" but to balance the allies rules properly in the first place?

No. The issue is the balancing units issue GW has gotten progressively worse at.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Please stop bringing up that false analogy. They weren't even close to what we have now, not by a long shot. Being able to take restricted things from the =][= codexes for example is not the same as being able to cherry pick the best units from each imperial codex.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Please stop bringing up that false analogy. They weren't even close to what we have now, not by a long shot. Being able to take restricted things from the =][= codexes for example is not the same as being able to cherry pick the best units from each imperial codex.

Leaving the equivalent allies rules as being 2nd, 6th and 7th, with restricted allies in 3rd and 4th. In 2nd you could only have 25% of the army as allies, but you could take anything you wanted. I don't remember if/how they worked in 1st. Regardless, mixed armies is a thing, has almost always been a thing, and will likely continue to be a thing.

I don't recall allies being a thing at all in 3rd edition; certainly nobody I played it with ever used allies unless it was some prearranged narrative thing.

The way allies work now is downright disgusting, probably the worst that mechanic has ever been. Being able to completely ignore a drawback that has been baked into your faction as part of its balance just throws everything out of whack. Regardless of how allies was before, other than perhaps 7th edition with that Taudar nonsense, it has never been as bad as we see it today.

Wayniac wrote:
I don't recall allies being a thing at all in 3rd edition; certainly nobody I played it with ever used allies unless it was some prearranged narrative thing.

The way allies work now is downright disgusting, probably the worst that mechanic has ever been. Being able to completely ignore a drawback that has been baked into your faction as part of its balance just throws everything out of whack. Regardless of how allies was before, other than perhaps 7th edition with that Taudar nonsense, it has never been as bad as we see it today.

Allies in 3rd were Daemonhunters/Withchunters combining with other Imperial armies. I think the Renegades list from codex Armageddon either allowed allies or provided a way to use several codexes in a combined army. Its possible that side armies in Citadel Journal (such as Genestealer Cults and Harlequins) allowed it as well, although I cant recall.

Also, some codexes were more combined back then. Chaos, Daemons, Death Guard and Thousand Sons were all in the same book. Allying is required to build some armies you could have built with a single book back then.

Obviously allies is a system that can be abused, but thats what flexibility brings. The CP generation seems the biggest culprit, imo. As for armies being able to cover their weaknesses, that doesn't really bother me, as codexes are varied in their amount of "completion" to begin with.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

But not wanted and supported by the whole player base.

In friendly games, I actually hate playing vs. soup lists.
In tourneys, you cannot avoid it obviously.

Well allies have existed in some form for all editions besides 5th. So you should probably just get over it.

Please stop bringing up that false analogy. They weren't even close to what we have now, not by a long shot. Being able to take restricted things from the =][= codexes for example is not the same as being able to cherry pick the best units from each imperial codex.

Leaving the equivalent allies rules as being 2nd, 6th and 7th, with restricted allies in 3rd and 4th. In 2nd you could only have 25% of the army as allies, but you could take anything you wanted. I don't remember if/how they worked in 1st. Regardless, mixed armies is a thing, has almost always been a thing, and will likely continue to be a thing.

Bingo. There's also situations from various units and armies like Harlequins, Assassins, how Custodes were introduced, and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I don't recall allies being a thing at all in 3rd edition; certainly nobody I played it with ever used allies unless it was some prearranged narrative thing.

The way allies work now is downright disgusting, probably the worst that mechanic has ever been. Being able to completely ignore a drawback that has been baked into your faction as part of its balance just throws everything out of whack. Regardless of how allies was before, other than perhaps 7th edition with that Taudar nonsense, it has never been as bad as we see it today.

Allies in 3rd were Daemonhunters/Withchunters combining with other Imperial armies. I think the Renegades list from codex Armageddon either allowed allies or provided a way to use several codexes in a combined army. Its possible that side armies in Citadel Journal (such as Genestealer Cults and Harlequins) allowed it as well, although I cant recall.

Also, some codexes were more combined back then. Chaos, Daemons, Death Guard and Thousand Sons were all in the same book. Allying is required to build some armies you could have built with a single book back then.

Obviously allies is a system that can be abused, but thats what flexibility brings. The CP generation seems the biggest culprit, imo. As for armies being able to cover their weaknesses, that doesn't really bother me, as codexes are varied in their amount of "completion" to begin with.

Even leaving allies out of the equation, the previous two CSM codices allowed me to use Typhus and Ahriman in the same detachment.

So anyone talking about defiling fluff can honestly just shut up about it.