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.
Wounds being allocated to the closest model first, and requiring line of sight to the model taking the wound actually make more sense, not less.
Okay, now do that when playing Nids or Orks.
I have done that. Finding the front of a unit isn't hard.
I think he meant that rule hindered melee armies by quite a lot
I don't argue with that point. But that's a balance issue, not a core design issue. You could make a similar argument that choosing where your wound allocation goes rewards units that can take special weapons (since they can die last).
An Actual Englishman wrote: If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.
This is where you are wrong. You're ignoring the existence of synergies, diminishing returns, etc, where a unit's value depends on what other units are available. Guardsmen in a pure IG army are good screening troops with efficient small arms fire. Guardsmen in an IK army have all of that, but also the considerable additional value of adding abundant CP to an army that is unable to get it without allies. So how do you set the price of guardsmen? If you balance them for use in a pure IG army they're overpowered as an IK CP battery, if you balance them as a CP battery then they're too expensive to be viable in a pure IG army. And it's the same in other cases. Gaining access to something you otherwise can't have is often more valuable than taking yet another unit to do a job you're already winning at, and you can't set an appropriate price for both uses at the same time. The only way to balance the game is to remove the ability to take the best units from every faction without penalty.
As I said, take a leaf out of what Malifaux does (or did are they're going into 3rd ed.). Outcasts, which are a faction in their own right but also mercs that can be taken by other factions have a +1pt increase when taken outside of Outcasts. Something like this for 40k would go some way to curbing a bit of soup if GW insist on keeping it.
Certainly would help. But 1 ppm still dosen't make or break a soup list.
It might have when guardsmen were still 5ppm but now?
Sorry, I didn't literally mean +1 ppm. That was just the system Malifaux uses, but something like that.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Not really, if anything they need more babysitting then other troop choices to be not just space filler.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Do they need to be anything else? Space filler is super valuable in 8th. Assault autoloses when guardsmen get involved. You can't assault them fast enough or kill enough with each assault.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:54:22
Wounds being allocated to the closest model first, and requiring line of sight to the model taking the wound actually make more sense, not less.
Okay, now do that when playing Nids or Orks.
I have done that. Finding the front of a unit isn't hard.
I think he meant that rule hindered melee armies by quite a lot
Nope. I meant because what Perri said and the fact it slowed down the game to ridiculous levels. It is fine for a skirmish game (or up to about 2nd ed 40k), but not in a huge game that is supposed to be streamlined. That rule is the literal opposite of streamlined.
I disagree heavily with only 1 point you've made here, in that the game is supposed to be fast and streamlined. I don't want that from my games, so I would keep away from those design elements. I already have plenty of board games if I only have an hour or 2 to play a game.
Sorry, I didn't literally mean +1 ppm. That was just the system Malifaux uses, but something like that.
No worries, i understood that but the my main point is, that alot of units got cheaper and cheaper and even with a system like that in place, the huge models that force the point compression it will not really work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Do they need to be anything else? Space filler is super valuable in 8th. Assault autoloses when guardsmen get involved. You can't assault them fast enough or kill enough with each assault.
That's more a issue with assult units in general though.
Not with guardsmen.
Edit: and assult in general having a hard time tying stuff up in melee.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 22:58:43
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I'd prefer the solution be be something like additional CP can only be used by the detachment that makes them or by detachments from the same faction (codex). While it means more bookkeeping it at least keeps any CP farms in faction and stops factions which don't have cheap troops to spam from borrowing them from other factions.
Martel732 wrote: Is it? Punching out a skitarri or firewarrior is 7 points gone. A guardsmen is 4 point. They're bleeding points almost half as fast. That's huge.
And, they do significantly worse damage and can literally be ignored most of the time.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
They can't be ignored when they are physically blocking the path to the Castellan. Can't even fly over them anymore. They can NEVER be ignored. That's the whole point. If there was a rule were I could just move them out of the way on my movement phase, I'd agree.
Volkmair wrote: I'd prefer the solution be be something like additional CP can only be used by the detachment that makes them or by detachments from the same faction (codex). While it means more bookkeeping it at least keeps any CP farms in faction and stops factions which don't have cheap troops to spam from borrowing them from other factions.
Simple any detachment that is not sharing the same faction as your warlord generates 1-2 cp less.
Darsath wrote: If you gotta measure it, then you can do so with a tape measure. The rules specifically state that when the models in the unit are equidistant, then the controlling player may choose which model to remove. I'm not sure if you are aware of this rule though.
There is no such thing as equidistant models. One model will be closer, even if it's only by 0.00000000000000001mm. The only way to make a closest-first wound allocation system work is to blatantly ignore the rules and call it close enough if you're removing models from the front of the unit instead of the back. Otherwise you get bogged down in trying to determine which model is slightly closer instead of playing the game.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Martel732 wrote: They can't be ignored when they are physically blocking the path to the Castellan. Can't even fly over them anymore. They can NEVER be ignored. That's the whole point. If there was a rule were I could just move them out of the way on my movement phase, I'd agree.
And why are they standing there?
Little hint, the Castellan is your problem then, not the guardsmen.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Grimtuff wrote: As I said, take a leaf out of what Malifaux does (or did are they're going into 3rd ed.). Outcasts, which are a faction in their own right but also mercs that can be taken by other factions have a +1pt increase when taken outside of Outcasts. Something like this for 40k would go some way to curbing a bit of soup if GW insist on keeping it.
Well yes, that's kind of my point. You can't have a single point cost for units and also have soup, as the person I was replying to claimed. You have to remove mixing factions, or at least heavily limit it and make it come with inherent costs that balance out the power increase of having access to new tools.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Martel732 wrote: I disagree. The guardsmen are the but for cause of the problem.
Because it is the humble guardsmen that proceeds to wipe your entire army out right?
Not the massively underpriced knight?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Darsath wrote: If you gotta measure it, then you can do so with a tape measure. The rules specifically state that when the models in the unit are equidistant, then the controlling player may choose which model to remove. I'm not sure if you are aware of this rule though.
There is no such thing as equidistant models. One model will be closer, even if it's only by 0.00000000000000001mm. The only way to make a closest-first wound allocation system work is to blatantly ignore the rules and call it close enough if you're removing models from the front of the unit instead of the back. Otherwise you get bogged down in trying to determine which model is slightly closer instead of playing the game.
It would be about the same as the whole "outside of 9 inches" thing that we currently have with deepstrike rules, or with most measuring in general. Within reason is typical, and within what the measuring tapes can measure (so probably 0.1 inches). If it can't be measured beyond that, then it is reasonably considered to be equidistant. You're not ignoring the rules either, Peregrine, and that's not at all what I'm calling for people to do.
Grimtuff wrote: As I said, take a leaf out of what Malifaux does (or did are they're going into 3rd ed.). Outcasts, which are a faction in their own right but also mercs that can be taken by other factions have a +1pt increase when taken outside of Outcasts. Something like this for 40k would go some way to curbing a bit of soup if GW insist on keeping it.
Well yes, that's kind of my point. You can't have a single point cost for units and also have soup, as the person I was replying to claimed. You have to remove mixing factions, or at least heavily limit it and make it come with inherent costs that balance out the power increase of having access to new tools.
Or enforce an actual allies detachment that costs a substantial ammount of CP to field?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Darsath wrote: If you gotta measure it, then you can do so with a tape measure. The rules specifically state that when the models in the unit are equidistant, then the controlling player may choose which model to remove. I'm not sure if you are aware of this rule though.
There is no such thing as equidistant models. One model will be closer, even if it's only by 0.00000000000000001mm. The only way to make a closest-first wound allocation system work is to blatantly ignore the rules and call it close enough if you're removing models from the front of the unit instead of the back. Otherwise you get bogged down in trying to determine which model is slightly closer instead of playing the game.
To be fair, the same can be said of all measuring. No one is expected to bring out an electron microscope to determine if the third Boy in a unit is within RF range or not, you just make the best guess you can.
I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a
Darsath wrote: If you gotta measure it, then you can do so with a tape measure. The rules specifically state that when the models in the unit are equidistant, then the controlling player may choose which model to remove. I'm not sure if you are aware of this rule though.
There is no such thing as equidistant models. One model will be closer, even if it's only by 0.00000000000000001mm. The only way to make a closest-first wound allocation system work is to blatantly ignore the rules and call it close enough if you're removing models from the front of the unit instead of the back. Otherwise you get bogged down in trying to determine which model is slightly closer instead of playing the game.
To be fair, the same can be said of all measuring. No one is expected to bring out an electron microscope to determine if the third Boy in a unit is within RF range or not, you just make the best guess you can.
Plus, the whole "closest mode/unit" thing already exists in 8th with smites and similar needing to measure to the nearest unit. Same issue.
Darsath wrote: It would be about the same as the whole "outside of 9 inches" thing that we currently have with deepstrike rules, or with most measuring in general.
It's not the same at all. Outside 9" is a clear and easy measurement, put the tape measure down at 9" and put your models outside that mark. That's not at all the same as trying to measure the difference between 5.496127mm and 5.497104mm to determine which model is closer.
Within reason is typical, and within what the measuring tapes can measure (so probably 0.1 inches). If it can't be measured beyond that, then it is reasonably considered to be equidistant. You're not ignoring the rules either, Peregrine, and that's not at all what I'm calling for people to do.
IOW, ignore the rules and play it as "close enough" instead of measuring correctly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: To be fair, the same can be said of all measuring. No one is expected to bring out an electron microscope to determine if the third Boy in a unit is within RF range or not, you just make the best guess you can.
Again, not the same because it's a binary in or out measurement and it's very rare that a model is going to be right on the 12" line instead of clearly on one side or the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote: Plus, the whole "closest mode/unit" thing already exists in 8th with smites and similar needing to measure to the nearest unit. Same issue.
And it's a bad mechanic in 8th. It's just a bit less bad in that it's limited to a few specific units and abilities instead of being the casualty removal mechanic for everything.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/10 23:08:42
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
IMO ITC is moreso a problem than soup, YES soup is a problem.
B.c everyone likes ITC for some reason, why doesnt ITC makes Knights worth more points for killing them? Problem solved.
CA missions with good terrain so far, knights done nothing to win games. Just my 2cents.
When killing units (7PL, 20 models, heroes, vehicles, etc..) is changed to more points for controlling zones and taking ground then Knights wont be a problem.
Darsath wrote: It would be about the same as the whole "outside of 9 inches" thing that we currently have with deepstrike rules, or with most measuring in general.
It's not the same at all. Outside 9" is a clear and easy measurement, put the tape measure down at 9" and put your models outside that mark. That's not at all the same as trying to measure the difference between 5.496127mm and 5.497104mm to determine which model is closer.
Within reason is typical, and within what the measuring tapes can measure (so probably 0.1 inches). If it can't be measured beyond that, then it is reasonably considered to be equidistant. You're not ignoring the rules either, Peregrine, and that's not at all what I'm calling for people to do.
IOW, ignore the rules and play it as "close enough" instead of measuring correctly.
Read my post about smite. It already exists in the current rules, with the same issues. You're being disingenuous thinking this issue is solely with 7th edition. Even those who prefer 8th Edition to 7th wouldn't be convinced by your argument.
Darsath wrote: Read my post about smite. It already exists in the current rules, with the same issues. You're being disingenuous thinking this issue is solely with 7th edition. Even those who prefer 8th Edition to 7th wouldn't be convinced by your argument.
Read my reply to your post about smite. It's a bad mechanic in the current rules, but at least it's a lot less frequent than wound allocation in 7th.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Darsath wrote: Read my post about smite. It already exists in the current rules, with the same issues. You're being disingenuous thinking this issue is solely with 7th edition. Even those who prefer 8th Edition to 7th wouldn't be convinced by your argument.
Read my reply to your post about smite. It's a bad mechanic in the current rules, but at least it's a lot less frequent than wound allocation in 7th.
If you want to make a contest about equidistant models, you can always measure it out with whatever tools you have at hand, and the time it takes for you to measure and contest can be marked on your chess clock. You would only contest in important situations where the model removed matters, making it show up in less games than a player taking a psycher.
Infinitum ad absurdum is a weak foundation for an argument, Peregrine. No-one expects or bothers to measure distances to an extreme precision other than you.
7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm.
It really didn't.
Yes, let's have terrible wound allocation rules that would more at home in a skirmish game when we have a game that can use hundreds of models. No.
As for the OT- Thank you! Soup is a blight on this game in both physical appearances of the armies and player perception of how this is a "normal" way to play the game. The sooner it gets dealt with the better. If GW insist on doing soup then the two things that need to happen are as follows: CP can only be used by whatever detachment generated them (Warlord determines what detachment gets the battleforged +3) and, to take a cue from Malifaux with their merc units is they have a minor cost increase if taken outside their parent faction- so those loyal 32 are now more expensive (once again, Warlord determines who parent faction is) when taken with IK.
Allies have existed in all editions except 5th. Get over yourself about thinking you play the right way.
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.
So I get the distinct impression the two of you are arguing against my points because you enjoy 4ppm Guardsmen. That's all good. But it doesn't change the fact that truly balanced stratagems, psychic powers and units would make soup irrelevant and a non-issue.
Then, at least for my posts, I don't think I'm making my point well enough. 4ppm Guardsmen aren't anything I'm wedded to, I was fully expecting them to get a price bump with CA and was shocked they didn't get it. To illustrate the point better, I'll reiterate, if Guardsmen are undercosted at 4ppm, but are ok at 5ppm within a monoIG army, the Loyal32 probably doesn't take a meaningful power hit until they're so expensive (7 or 8ppm) that they're not useable in a mono-IG list anymore, because the value changes with the context.
Guardsmen are just the easiest go-to example to use, not really the core of the argument I'm trying to make. I'd really prefer to use something else besides Guardsmen, and to be far more specific, Infantry Squads (lets be real, nobody is talking about Special Weapons Squads, non-Mortar equipped HWS's, Veterans, Command Squads, etc because none of these units are appearing in Tournament lists), but they're just the most common example.
Ultimately, yes individual units need to be looked at, but again even if you deleted Guardsmen from the game, we'd just see a shift to the next inexpensive infantry unit and the problem would remain, in that armies like Knights having access to inexpensive infantry fills lots of capability gaps that they were intended to not have filled. Some goes for pretty much any Soup combo we see now.
Let's make it super simple - if every unit had exactly the same abilities and costed exactly the same the armies would be perfectly balanced, right? Like checkers is a perfectly balanced game. Now we don't want every army to be identical, obviously. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a sweet spot where the melee capability of a unit can be balanced against the shooting capability of another. I agree that IG should generally be a gunline style army. I completely disagree that there is an inherent problem with them taking a melee element from another army to sure up weaknesses. If the melee capability of the units/factions they are taking are balanced against others, and similarly their shooting potential is balanced against others, there shouldn't be a problem.
The problem is that the melee element has a different value in the other army than it does in the Guard army. In the Guard army, that CC ability is going to be either useless because it doesn't synergize with the shooting emphasis (as we've typically seen with most IGCC units through history), or it's going to be ungodly broken because it's opening up tactical capabilities the army was never meant to have.
That's exactly what we see with Knights. They lack CP and board control. They take Guardsmen to cover these gaps. Even if we delete Guardsmen from the game entirely, nevermind what they cost lets just assume they're gone entirely and aren't even an option to take, does the issue with Knights go away? No. If they have the ability, they're still going to take another inexpensive infantry unit that grants more CP and board control than they natively have access to. That makes them significantly more powerful than they were designed to be, the army's costs and capabilities were designed with limited numbers in mind to counteract being big and powerful. If you can have big and powerful, but can also control the board and use more Stratagems than intended, you're going to throw out the intended balance.
As to Guardsmen, the special weapons squad comparison is a red herring when heavy weapons teams are taken in such large quantities.
Why? They serve different purposes, a plasma equipped SWS is probably the most cost-efficient MEQ killer in the game, l and the only HWS's we are seeing taken are those equipped with Mortars for dirt-cheap and sat hidden away in back on auto-pilot, nobody is running HWS's with any of the other weapons options really, and even then usually you only see them to fill out HS slots for a Brigade since they're the cheapest option (same way people take single Multilaser Sentinels as FA choices to fill out slots, but they're not actually great units).
They are taken in groups larger than the minimum to get CP. And to clarify, the minimum Guardsmen to fulfil a CP requirement for IK is 0. They can pick from any Imperium faction and as I have stated, the so called Rusty 17 are cheaper. So people value the Loyal 32 because of the units themselves, not their cost.
Again, lets ignore Guardsmen entirely, pretend they don't exist.
What will happen?
We'll just see the Rusty 17 or another equivalent take their place, and the value they provide in that context will be greater than the value they provide within the context of a mono-Admech army.
Because that weakness of board control and CP is still there for the Knights, and the option to be mitigated or negated is still there, we'll see it just as often as we see the Loyal32 now, with probably only a trivial change in ultimate outcome.
Yes, the Loyal32 are currently better than the Rusty 17 and that makes them the default Soup choice, but that's a secondary issue, the problem is that the value of either changes when used in a different context than the one they were originally intended for, and the unintended synergy created makes something more powerful than was possible in either army individually.
Can we kill this meme please? IG are one of the most powerful mono factions. Guess what they take as their troop of choice? You got it! Guardsmen!
To be fair, there's 3 Guard troops choices, one of which is simply flatly inferior in literally every possible way to Infantry Squads and offers no capabilities or tactical opportunities that Infantry Squads can't do (conscripts) and from a fluff perspective really shouldn't be the core of most Guard armies in the first place, the other (stormtroopers) functions radically differently and requires a separate detachment to use its faction bonuses. Really, for most Guard armies there's only one Troops choice, the Infantry Squad.
The Infantry Squad is also the only unit that has consistently been a Troops choice through the history of the game without any strings attached (e.g. Stormtroopers and Veterans have moved in and out, Conscripts used to only be an option as an add-on to an Infantry Platoon). The Infantry Squad *should* be the default, ubiquitous Troop choice given the other options.
Except we can argue The Rusty 17 aren't an issue because they're only CP and can't do much more compared to Infantry, which are undercosted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote: Infinitum ad absurdum is a weak foundation for an argument, Peregrine. No-one expects or bothers to measure distances to an extreme precision other than you.
Why not? I'm not letting your unit fire if they're not in range or charge if they're not in range.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 00:04:35
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.
7th Edition had much better core rules to work around than 8th Edition has atm.
It really didn't.
Yes, let's have terrible wound allocation rules that would more at home in a skirmish game when we have a game that can use hundreds of models. No.
As for the OT- Thank you! Soup is a blight on this game in both physical appearances of the armies and player perception of how this is a "normal" way to play the game. The sooner it gets dealt with the better. If GW insist on doing soup then the two things that need to happen are as follows: CP can only be used by whatever detachment generated them (Warlord determines what detachment gets the battleforged +3) and, to take a cue from Malifaux with their merc units is they have a minor cost increase if taken outside their parent faction- so those loyal 32 are now more expensive (once again, Warlord determines who parent faction is) when taken with IK.
Allies have existed in all editions except 5th. Get over yourself about thinking you play the right way.
Except they were handled sometimes better before.
Not to mention that with cp there could be a easy balancing rule implemented, but truth be told, soup makes money and gw has firstly interest in money.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
