Switch Theme:

Soup is not the problem - LVO 2019  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Douglas Bader






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ah, so you already answered part of this via:
1. Rule of 3 existing now
2. You can't take 6 Castellans in a 2000 point list anyway
3. Objective Control not mattering when you can eliminate objective holders in a single round of shooting


None of these are relevant.

Rule of 3 doesn't apply to troops or Castellans. Guardsmen are obviously unrestricted, and once you've taken three Castellans you've burned a ton of your points and probably want something different anyway to finish the rest of your list. And yes, objective control is relevant because LOS blocking terrain prevents you from hitting everything you want to hit and an MSU army can put a ton of objective holders on the table. And really, can you honestly argue #3 when part of the argument that guardsmen are overpowered is that on top of being a CP battery they help the IK list secure objectives? If objective control doesn't matter then camping a single knight on an objective at some point should be enough to win the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Soup allows you more options and most people agree more options are better than fewer options.


That's because most people have a very poor understanding of game design. "Take whatever overpowered thing you want" gives you lots of options, but it isn't better than a more restricted list building system where you have to make interesting and difficult choices about what you're going to bring because you can't have everything you want at the same time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 04:10:22


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. 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





USA

Well as an active 2nd ed player I can tell you most armies could take up to 50% in allies. Orks had no allies.(except one faction) Chaos 'could' take Orks however. Some like Sisters could only take 25% allies.

The problem with any edition withoug allies is that it is so unfluffy why an Assassin or an Inquisitor or one unit of Sisters of Battle cannot join an Imperial Guard force.

You cannot have a mono faction ONLY game. It drains the fun for many.

So if 'soup' is the meta....then why? CPs and fixing your weaknesses seems the 2 standouts.

Rein in the CPs in some manner. Limit the use and or effectiveness of allies and it will be about as good as you can get.

 koooaei wrote:
We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 admironheart wrote:
Well as an active 2nd ed player I can tell you most armies could take up to 50% in allies. Orks had no allies.(except one faction) Chaos 'could' take Orks however. Some like Sisters could only take 25% allies.

The problem with any edition withoug allies is that it is so unfluffy why an Assassin or an Inquisitor or one unit of Sisters of Battle cannot join an Imperial Guard force.

You cannot have a mono faction ONLY game. It drains the fun for many.

So if 'soup' is the meta....then why? CPs and fixing your weaknesses seems the 2 standouts.

Rein in the CPs in some manner. Limit the use and or effectiveness of allies and it will be about as good as you can get.


I'm not asking for mono faction. My suggestion is 2 detachments, 2 factions max. All units in a detachment must share a keyword. CP can only be used by the faction that provided it. You can still have your fluffy allies, a knight supporting a guard or ad mech army, assassins supporting an imperial army, a contingent of dark eldar or harlequins going to battle with the eldar, etc. You just won't have absolutely broken lists like what we see dominating tournaments right now.
   
Made in au
Flashy Flashgitz






I don't even understand the impetus to want single codex armies, other than "i just want it". All you're asking for is an additional restriction, you're not inserting more balance.

"My suggestion is 2 detachments, 2 factions max"... Like what is this? What are you trying to achieve? You honestly believe there wont be broken lists with this simple rule? There will be, they'll just look different. I don't want to play your restricted version of the game that will likely have its own balance issues.

Why not just approach it from a balanced units perspective, work on bringing down the Castellan as a unit, cutting off the peaks of the meta, and maybe your blood angels will become more relevant eventually. Or you know... keep adding restrictions until single codex xenos becomes degenerate.





   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman




Illinois

Stop talking sense. This is Dakka in 2019. Everyone wants to complain about tournaments and formats that they hate and don’t play in anyway.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 hollow one wrote:
I don't even understand the impetus to want single codex armies, other than "i just want it".


It improves faction diversity and maintains armies as distinct armies, not one super-faction for the entire Imperium.

All you're asking for is an additional restriction, you're not inserting more balance.


100% wrong. Removing allies is a huge balance improvement because mixing units from different factions is inherently a difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. A unit of guardsmen in a pure IG army and a unit of guardsmen supporting an IK army have different values, so you can't assign a single point cost to the unit that is accurate in both situations. The only way to resolve it is to remove, or at least heavily restrict and penalize, the ability to take units from multiple armies.

And that's not even considering the balance issues from sheer unit count. Even if every unit's point cost is perfectly balanced having options is still a powerful thing. And the current system gives the Imperium half the game as a single faction, while Tau players get one codex and that's it. There's no way you're going to make those two things equivalent while also making single-codex Imperial armies viable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 05:22:15


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. 
   
Made in gb
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





North-East UK

How to fix soup.

It's not easy. It would require a lot more than what's being brought to the table now and it would take imo probs at least 6 months to 2 years to fix the issue as they update and make new codex's.

The quickest fix would be just to restrict allies to Open or narrative events, but of course that would only increase the salt from the competitive crowd that they are trying to entice.

To me the easiest way to at least make a step forward to nerf soup would be to introduce a 'primary detachment'.

Primary Detachments:

"At the head of every force lies a strategic mastermind who has banded these groups together for a common purpose or cause"

- Has to include warlord.
- You get everything, CP, Sub-Faction traits, Strats, etc.
- Other detachments that do not share the same Faction and Sub-faction keywords only grant the CP and the sub-faction trait. No Obj. secured, no Strats, etc.
- If you have multiple detachments of the same faction and sub-faction then they also count as 'Primary detachments'.

Now if you want to play with all your toys, you can! but now you won't be invalidating people who wish to play Mono as much. I'm not saying this is perfect but it's a huge step forwards to attempting to bring about some semblance of balance.

In regards to the Loyal 32, if they need to go up in points just make them the same points as a Cultist their practically the same stat line and both just normal human beings so why not?

I think GW hardest part in all this will be trying to bring something that will please the entire gamer-base. Competitive players don't care about balance of the game since they support GW's actions by buying whatever's hot, however I can still imagine a large grumbling from that crowd who play soup if they just took it away (after all shelling about £200-500 on a soup army and being told you can't use it could rile anyones blood), meanwhile you want other types of player to feel included by not having their force feel invalidated by whatever's competitively hot.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/11 05:22:32


Black Templars: WIP
Night Lords (30/40k): WIP
Red Corsairs: WIP
Iron Warriors: WIP
Orks: 6000pts
Batman Miniatures Game: Mr.Freeze, Joker
Ever wanted a better 5th ed. 40k? Take a look at 5th ed. Reforged! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/794253.page 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ah, so you already answered part of this via:
1. Rule of 3 existing now
2. You can't take 6 Castellans in a 2000 point list anyway
3. Objective Control not mattering when you can eliminate objective holders in a single round of shooting


None of these are relevant.

Rule of 3 doesn't apply to troops or Castellans. Guardsmen are obviously unrestricted, and once you've taken three Castellans you've burned a ton of your points and probably want something different anyway to finish the rest of your list. And yes, objective control is relevant because LOS blocking terrain prevents you from hitting everything you want to hit and an MSU army can put a ton of objective holders on the table. And really, can you honestly argue #3 when part of the argument that guardsmen are overpowered is that on top of being a CP battery they help the IK list secure objectives? If objective control doesn't matter then camping a single knight on an objective at some point should be enough to win the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Soup allows you more options and most people agree more options are better than fewer options.


That's because most people have a very poor understanding of game design. "Take whatever overpowered thing you want" gives you lots of options, but it isn't better than a more restricted list building system where you have to make interesting and difficult choices about what you're going to bring because you can't have everything you want at the same time.

You're the one that's talked about LOS blocking terrain not really existing, and it's a silly thing to bring up with a model as tall as a Castellan.

Also Rule of 3 applies to units that aren't troops or dedicated transports. This applies to Castellans. That's why we aren't able to see 4 of them.

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.
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Easier =/= better. Soup allows you more options and most people agree more options are better than fewer options. Soup even allows fluffy armies unlike mono dex armies. Soup allows you to field a Knight with it's escorting infantry units and its mechanical support troops. Soup allows you to have a Daemon Prince to be surrounded by chaos troops they used to lead and some cultist and still have plenty of variety of lesser daemons to call upon. What you say you'd like to see how well White Scar bikers work with Ravenwing bikers sorry mono dexers can't be done but soup says enjoy yourself.

It's time to grow up people. The mono army days have come and gone.
Allies can in theory facilitate some fluffy lists. In practice, I can count on one hand the number of well thought out fluffy allies builds I've seen in the half dozen years since 6E brought them back into the mainstream. When well done, they're really cool and awesome. However, the overwhelmingly vast majority of use, in my experience, is for min/maxing and synergy power purposes, or to just screw around (which is fine, but that's not really what we're concerned about here). The army books are fundamentally still largely designed as self contained forces with an extremely small number of mechanics that affect factions other than those in whatever book they happen to be in. GW just is not writing codex army lists thinking about how people are going to slap things together with other factions, nor making extensive facilitation of interaction between such forces.

I'm ok missing out on the niche-interest case of the notoriously secretive Ravenwing bikers apparently riding saddle to saddle with the wild White Scars against literally the same enemy positions, if it means less absurd power combos in matched/competitive play.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in fi
Calculating Commissar







 Vaktathi wrote:

I'm ok missing out on the niche-interest case of the notoriously secretive Ravenwing bikers apparently riding saddle to saddle with the wild White Scars against literally the same enemy positions, if it means less absurd power combos in matched/competitive play.

It's always easy to make sacrifices when you're not the person affected.

The supply does not get to make the demands. 
   
Made in us
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Hanoi, Vietnam.

I skipped to page 5, so sorry if someones already mentioned it, but in the absence of Games-Workshop addressing the issue, have those tournament organizers done anything to address it themselves?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Vaktathi wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Easier =/= better. Soup allows you more options and most people agree more options are better than fewer options. Soup even allows fluffy armies unlike mono dex armies. Soup allows you to field a Knight with it's escorting infantry units and its mechanical support troops. Soup allows you to have a Daemon Prince to be surrounded by chaos troops they used to lead and some cultist and still have plenty of variety of lesser daemons to call upon. What you say you'd like to see how well White Scar bikers work with Ravenwing bikers sorry mono dexers can't be done but soup says enjoy yourself.

It's time to grow up people. The mono army days have come and gone.
Allies can in theory facilitate some fluffy lists. In practice, I can count on one hand the number of well thought out fluffy allies builds I've seen in the half dozen years since 6E brought them back into the mainstream. When well done, they're really cool and awesome. However, the overwhelmingly vast majority of use, in my experience, is for min/maxing and synergy power purposes, or to just screw around (which is fine, but that's not really what we're concerned about here). The army books are fundamentally still largely designed as self contained forces with an extremely small number of mechanics that affect factions other than those in whatever book they happen to be in. GW just is not writing codex army lists thinking about how people are going to slap things together with other factions, nor making extensive facilitation of interaction between such forces.

I'm ok missing out on the niche-interest case of the notoriously secretive Ravenwing bikers apparently riding saddle to saddle with the wild White Scars against literally the same enemy positions, if it means less absurd power combos in matched/competitive play.

Please do tell how many of these ally lists were broken in 6th and 7th compared to anything else that was winning. I'll wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it helps you compile the data, Blood of Kittens probably still has most of those lists!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 06:45:27


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.
 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ginjitzu wrote:
I skipped to page 5, so sorry if someones already mentioned it, but in the absence of Games-Workshop addressing the issue, have those tournament organizers done anything to address it themselves?


Tournaments for the most part want to mess with the rules as little as possible, so everyone is on the same page when it comes to how the game will play.
I am amazed at how much does get changed in 40k, and i think it shows how bad the rules are at the moment. When popular rules packs can effect how the game plays as much as they do.

Soup is bad for the game, and should have been done as part of there narrative drive. Balance the base game as best you can, then have additions for the players who want to go a bit wild.
When it comes down to it, most battles would be representing a larger war, and do not need there ally on the battlefield to represent them.

But its also the issue of things like the IK, They should have been fleshed out with auxiliary and support. Rather than the mess they are now. That would have gone a long way to keep the game not going towards stupid levels of bad balance.
Things like assassins and inquisitors could be a special case, and very interesting if done well. Would be cool to see an Inquisitor join a Eldar force, to show that the Imperium and Eldar can work together and do on such occasions.
But this only matters if players stop paying money in huge amounts. If it brings in money, then GW can only think they are doing the right thing.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Apple fox wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
I skipped to page 5, so sorry if someones already mentioned it, but in the absence of Games-Workshop addressing the issue, have those tournament organizers done anything to address it themselves?


Tournaments for the most part want to mess with the rules as little as possible, so everyone is on the same page when it comes to how the game will play.
I am amazed at how much does get changed in 40k, and i think it shows how bad the rules are at the moment. When popular rules packs can effect how the game plays as much as they do.

Soup is bad for the game, and should have been done as part of there narrative drive. Balance the base game as best you can, then have additions for the players who want to go a bit wild.
When it comes down to it, most battles would be representing a larger war, and do not need there ally on the battlefield to represent them.

But its also the issue of things like the IK, They should have been fleshed out with auxiliary and support. Rather than the mess they are now. That would have gone a long way to keep the game not going towards stupid levels of bad balance.
Things like assassins and inquisitors could be a special case, and very interesting if done well. Would be cool to see an Inquisitor join a Eldar force, to show that the Imperium and Eldar can work together and do on such occasions.
But this only matters if players stop paying money in huge amounts. If it brings in money, then GW can only think they are doing the right thing.

ONCE AGAIN
Allies have been a thing in every edition outside 5th. Quit saying it's "bad for the game" or that people are making armies wrong when they include allies. Just get off your high horse and accept problem units are to blame.

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.
 
   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Easier =/= better. Soup allows you more options and most people agree more options are better than fewer options. Soup even allows fluffy armies unlike mono dex armies. Soup allows you to field a Knight with it's escorting infantry units and its mechanical support troops. Soup allows you to have a Daemon Prince to be surrounded by chaos troops they used to lead and some cultist and still have plenty of variety of lesser daemons to call upon. What you say you'd like to see how well White Scar bikers work with Ravenwing bikers sorry mono dexers can't be done but soup says enjoy yourself.

It's time to grow up people. The mono army days have come and gone.


Necrons, Tau, and Orks would have something to say about this, also Tryanids and GCS

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 07:01:10


213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
I skipped to page 5, so sorry if someones already mentioned it, but in the absence of Games-Workshop addressing the issue, have those tournament organizers done anything to address it themselves?


Tournaments for the most part want to mess with the rules as little as possible, so everyone is on the same page when it comes to how the game will play.
I am amazed at how much does get changed in 40k, and i think it shows how bad the rules are at the moment. When popular rules packs can effect how the game plays as much as they do.

Soup is bad for the game, and should have been done as part of there narrative drive. Balance the base game as best you can, then have additions for the players who want to go a bit wild.
When it comes down to it, most battles would be representing a larger war, and do not need there ally on the battlefield to represent them.

But its also the issue of things like the IK, They should have been fleshed out with auxiliary and support. Rather than the mess they are now. That would have gone a long way to keep the game not going towards stupid levels of bad balance.
Things like assassins and inquisitors could be a special case, and very interesting if done well. Would be cool to see an Inquisitor join a Eldar force, to show that the Imperium and Eldar can work together and do on such occasions.
But this only matters if players stop paying money in huge amounts. If it brings in money, then GW can only think they are doing the right thing.

ONCE AGAIN
Allies have been a thing in every edition outside 5th. Quit saying it's "bad for the game" or that people are making armies wrong when they include allies. Just get off your high horse and accept problem units are to blame.


Yes, they have play a part. But not really this much a part. And it is bad for the game, GW is barley capable of managing it when its low and rarely used.
I also said, that it can be a part if done well. And with here push for Narrative as a big part, That is the perfect place for it.

Problem units, How do you balance a unit for one Codex that gives buffs to that codex and a codex that has no access to those buffs? Should GW Release Codex and army books that dont function without another. Is it worth the loss of design space for that.
What about debuffs to enemy units, If taken to account for codex's with no access to such.

I also said nothing about people making armies wrong.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 07:03:17


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Apple fox wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
I skipped to page 5, so sorry if someones already mentioned it, but in the absence of Games-Workshop addressing the issue, have those tournament organizers done anything to address it themselves?


Tournaments for the most part want to mess with the rules as little as possible, so everyone is on the same page when it comes to how the game will play.
I am amazed at how much does get changed in 40k, and i think it shows how bad the rules are at the moment. When popular rules packs can effect how the game plays as much as they do.

Soup is bad for the game, and should have been done as part of there narrative drive. Balance the base game as best you can, then have additions for the players who want to go a bit wild.
When it comes down to it, most battles would be representing a larger war, and do not need there ally on the battlefield to represent them.

But its also the issue of things like the IK, They should have been fleshed out with auxiliary and support. Rather than the mess they are now. That would have gone a long way to keep the game not going towards stupid levels of bad balance.
Things like assassins and inquisitors could be a special case, and very interesting if done well. Would be cool to see an Inquisitor join a Eldar force, to show that the Imperium and Eldar can work together and do on such occasions.
But this only matters if players stop paying money in huge amounts. If it brings in money, then GW can only think they are doing the right thing.

ONCE AGAIN
Allies have been a thing in every edition outside 5th. Quit saying it's "bad for the game" or that people are making armies wrong when they include allies. Just get off your high horse and accept problem units are to blame.


Yes, they have play a part. But not really this much a part. And it is bad for the game, GW is barley capable of managing it when its low and rarely used.
I also said, that it can be a part if done well. And with here push for Narrative as a big part, That is the perfect place for it.

Problem units, How do you balance a unit for one Codex that gives buffs to that codex and a codex that has no access to those buffs? Should GW Release Codex and army books that dont function without another. Is it worth the loss of design space for that.
What about debuffs to enemy units, If taken to account for codex's with no access to such.

Nobody is giving buffs to anyone outside specific instances (Custodes banner, Knight Aegis Strat). If you noticed, the worst that allies could pull off was in 6th/7th, yet it was a lot of pure lists winning overall.

The crux is the terrible internal and external writing all at once. We might have more middle-of-the-road stuff right now, but for this edition, anything that's OP is ridiculously so.

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.
 
   
Made in de
Blood Angel Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries



Bonn

In 2nd Orks were able to ally with Chaos und Imperial Guard. Tau should be able to ally with IG, too. Necrons can have their Blood Angels back...

Fluff for the fluff-gods! 
   
Made in fi
Calculating Commissar







There's no Golden Age for competitive 40k. All editions of it have had metagame problems. Sometimes it's demon princes with Lash of Submission, sometimes it's Wolf Guard with Assault Cannons or whatever the hell the top 2nd ed. list was. Every iteration of the game is thrown in to the crucible of competitive gaming and refined into one or two top-tier builds. The process is fundamental to tournament play, and only worse by GW's inadequate games design process and ineffectual play testing. You can't fix it in any real sense, the pendulum will simply swing wildly when the next codex or FAQ comes around. Another "degenerate" build will rise and nothing changes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 07:11:00


The supply does not get to make the demands. 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
I skipped to page 5, so sorry if someones already mentioned it, but in the absence of Games-Workshop addressing the issue, have those tournament organizers done anything to address it themselves?


Tournaments for the most part want to mess with the rules as little as possible, so everyone is on the same page when it comes to how the game will play.
I am amazed at how much does get changed in 40k, and i think it shows how bad the rules are at the moment. When popular rules packs can effect how the game plays as much as they do.

Soup is bad for the game, and should have been done as part of there narrative drive. Balance the base game as best you can, then have additions for the players who want to go a bit wild.
When it comes down to it, most battles would be representing a larger war, and do not need there ally on the battlefield to represent them.

But its also the issue of things like the IK, They should have been fleshed out with auxiliary and support. Rather than the mess they are now. That would have gone a long way to keep the game not going towards stupid levels of bad balance.
Things like assassins and inquisitors could be a special case, and very interesting if done well. Would be cool to see an Inquisitor join a Eldar force, to show that the Imperium and Eldar can work together and do on such occasions.
But this only matters if players stop paying money in huge amounts. If it brings in money, then GW can only think they are doing the right thing.

ONCE AGAIN
Allies have been a thing in every edition outside 5th. Quit saying it's "bad for the game" or that people are making armies wrong when they include allies. Just get off your high horse and accept problem units are to blame.


Yes, they have play a part. But not really this much a part. And it is bad for the game, GW is barley capable of managing it when its low and rarely used.
I also said, that it can be a part if done well. And with here push for Narrative as a big part, That is the perfect place for it.

Problem units, How do you balance a unit for one Codex that gives buffs to that codex and a codex that has no access to those buffs? Should GW Release Codex and army books that dont function without another. Is it worth the loss of design space for that.
What about debuffs to enemy units, If taken to account for codex's with no access to such.

Nobody is giving buffs to anyone outside specific instances (Custodes banner, Knight Aegis Strat). If you noticed, the worst that allies could pull off was in 6th/7th, yet it was a lot of pure lists winning overall.

The crux is the terrible internal and external writing all at once. We might have more middle-of-the-road stuff right now, but for this edition, anything that's OP is ridiculously so.


The very fact you can get Command points is a example of that. As well as units designed within a space where they are a option. It also completely ignores faction balance. Which any good tabletop game will have variance. One unit can be great within its intended design, Both balanced and functinal within the faction as a whole. But broken when taken in small specialized roles to support another force.
Again, GW is pushing Narritive play. If they where any good at it. These issues could be much easier to manage.
   
Made in us
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Hanoi, Vietnam.

Out of interest, what were the top 8 armies at LVO?
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Remove the additional damage from Cawl's Wrath.

Limit CPs by detachment.

Doom changed to: "If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll Asuryani unit's failed wound rolls against that unit until your next Psychic phase."

No need to change anything else.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/11 07:47:12


 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




 The Warp Forge wrote:
Spoiler:
How to fix soup.

It's not easy. It would require a lot more than what's being brought to the table now and it would take imo probs at least 6 months to 2 years to fix the issue as they update and make new codex's.

The quickest fix would be just to restrict allies to Open or narrative events, but of course that would only increase the salt from the competitive crowd that they are trying to entice.

To me the easiest way to at least make a step forward to nerf soup would be to introduce a 'primary detachment'.

Primary Detachments:

"At the head of every force lies a strategic mastermind who has banded these groups together for a common purpose or cause"

- Has to include warlord.
- You get everything, CP, Sub-Faction traits, Strats, etc.
- Other detachments that do not share the same Faction and Sub-faction keywords only grant the CP and the sub-faction trait. No Obj. secured, no Strats, etc.
- If you have multiple detachments of the same faction and sub-faction then they also count as 'Primary detachments'.

Now if you want to play with all your toys, you can! but now you won't be invalidating people who wish to play Mono as much. I'm not saying this is perfect but it's a huge step forwards to attempting to bring about some semblance of balance.

In regards to the Loyal 32, if they need to go up in points just make them the same points as a Cultist their practically the same stat line and both just normal human beings so why not?

I think GW hardest part in all this will be trying to bring something that will please the entire gamer-base. Competitive players don't care about balance of the game since they support GW's actions by buying whatever's hot, however I can still imagine a large grumbling from that crowd who play soup if they just took it away (after all shelling about £200-500 on a soup army and being told you can't use it could rile anyones blood), meanwhile you want other types of player to feel included by not having their force feel invalidated by whatever's competitively hot.
I personally have pondered about something like this but whilst I do think it'll work it's too big of a step for GW to make. Instead I just feel like we should go back to the old CP values for battalions and brigades (3&9) and make being battleforged 5 CP instead. This will put less onus on always having 2/3 battalions as they're no longer as super efficient and you might see more specialist detchments. Those 5CP from battleforged only becomes available to you if you have a mono-codex army. That's the balance, it's a big enough hindrance that you'd actually see mono codex armies but it doesn't invalidate bringing a IG brigade.

The game sill requires quite a few instances of balancing specific units however, the problems we're seeing in competitive are stemming from these units alongside the soup mechanic.

The Castellan goes up to 675 points, IK invulns maxes out at 4++, you only get the "house stratagems" in a Knight Lance
I think, when Castellans get worse, we'll see far more Gallants. They probably need to go up to 400 points.
Bring the humble guardsman up to 5ppm
The CHE feels undercosted at 161 points compared to almost every other flyer in the game.

Ynnari just needs a rework in a new codex/ in White Dwarf. That mechanic is just terrible to play against.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

ONCE AGAIN
Allies have been a thing in every edition outside 5th. Quit saying it's "bad for the game" or that people are making armies wrong when they include allies. Just get off your high horse and accept problem units are to blame.


Gonna keep prattling on with that false analogy are we? I don't see anyone complaining about allies (even myself, despite whatever your mental gymnastics tell yourself). We're complaining about people being able to systematically cherry pick the best units from multiple codexes which is a major detriment to the game. This is far from the same as in any previous editions.

So, yes folks- Castellans and Custodes jetbikers that are in armies with no other associated units are comparable to Kroot mercs and =][= Stormtroopers. You heard it here first!


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. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Grimtuff wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

ONCE AGAIN
Allies have been a thing in every edition outside 5th. Quit saying it's "bad for the game" or that people are making armies wrong when they include allies. Just get off your high horse and accept problem units are to blame.


Gonna keep prattling on with that false analogy are we? I don't see anyone complaining about allies (even myself, despite whatever your mental gymnastics tell yourself). We're complaining about people being able to systematically cherry pick the best units from multiple codexes which is a major detriment to the game. This is far from the same as in any previous editions.

So, yes folks- Castellans and Custodes jetbikers that are in armies with no other associated units are comparable to Kroot mercs and =][= Stormtroopers. You heard it here first!


Then again Taudar were a thing last time.

THIS time however not only can we now cherry pick to pad weaknesses, now we can also cherrypick to make use of stratagems, which are inbetween factions terribly unbalanced, in their effectiveness and in the cost.
Factions like Knights now get access to CP of guard. In essence the Guard stratagems are useless compared to the knight ones, etc.



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.  
   
Made in is
Angered Reaver Arena Champion





I like soup even if I tend to play mono-armies myself. I like seeing the wildly different forces and how they work together.

Now, regarding the original question I would say that the problems are:
* Ynnari double-shenanigans. Ynnari needs to be dealt with and rewritten from top-to-bottom.
* CP Batteries. Something like the new GSC CP change would be interesting to test.

Address these two pink elephants in the room and a lot of soup issues go away considering the fact that the biggest problems complain over is IK access to a lot of CP and Ynnari soups.

Also, going over some of the lists they do paint a picture that some units are just too good to say no to considering how they are spammed.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Isnt it also all the extra detachments?

Super Heavy Aux and Supreme Command being the most damning.

What about something like in 30k? One Battalion and an allied Patrol or Super Heavy detachment. Can put a Super Heavy on the Battalion to still take Girlyman or other big thing.

2 detachments, everone has the same CP, and one ally? Can still take your knight but would need an Armiger tax, and less of the current CP situation that heavily punishes Elite armies vs horde that get 18+
   
Made in us
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Hanoi, Vietnam.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Out of interest, what were the top 8 armies at LVO?

No one?
   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran




 Ginjitzu wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
Out of interest, what were the top 8 armies at LVO?

No one?


https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/02/10/introducing-your-2019-las-vegas-open-top-8-players/
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




 Ginjitzu wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
Out of interest, what were the top 8 armies at LVO?

No one?

Here you can see the placings of all the players.
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/7d3uytwa?started=true&embed=false

This is a list of the top 21 players' rosters
https://imgur.com/a/moyMjO0
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: