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.

Kinda feel a good way to fix this is to have points increase for every squad not in your primary detachments faction (one eith most points) so first squad is 1pts more for every unit, 2nd squad is 2pts more for every unit and so on... but your main faction stays same points no matter what,

I think the Brood Brothers ruling in the new GSC book is probably meant to be a 'test' for a potential soft nerf of soup, but I don't think they'll go any further than that. They'll be raking in too many pennies from it. Their lack of action in regards to soup all this time makes it quite apparent they don't mind it.

Soup isn't the problem, it's Knights that are the problem.

Personally I want CP to be only generated by the Warlords faction and Stratagems from only the Warlords faction. That would mean Soup gets the benefit from better unit choice but loses the benefit from Stratagems and cheap CP.

I think (even for my new GSC) that any detachment that does not contain your warlord should produce half CP rounded "DOWN" which means any non battalion+ will produce 0CP and Battalions will produce 2CP, Bregades would produce 5CP.

Finally you can only use Strats/Relics from your warlord's faction.

Edit: BCB beat me to near the exact same post lol.

Could just add a 25% tax on all units that do not share a (non-Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari) keyword with your Warlord and adjust the % until it works. That way you can have 7 PPM (or whatever) Guardsmen for the Castellans without making IG pay for it.

Percentages are too complicated for GWs new game philosophy.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could just add a 25% tax on all units that do not share a (non-Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari) keyword with your Warlord and adjust the % until it works. That way you can have 7 PPM (or whatever) Guardsmen for the Castellans without making IG pay for it.

So your adding a 25% tax onto assasins, inquisition etc?
Also how does that work with subfactions?

I don't get how people value mini-factions more than balance...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Soup isn't the problem, it's Knights that are the problem.

Personally I want CP to be only generated by the Warlords faction and Stratagems from only the Warlords faction. That would mean Soup gets the benefit from better unit choice but loses the benefit from Stratagems and cheap CP.

Yes the army with 1 detachment outside the undercosted Castellen in the top 21 lists is the problem codex breaking 8th edition.
Not the insane CP of IG or the Free actions of Yannari.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Soup isn't the problem, it's Knights that are the problem.

Personally I want CP to be only generated by the Warlords faction and Stratagems from only the Warlords faction. That would mean Soup gets the benefit from better unit choice but loses the benefit from Stratagems and cheap CP.

Would this be <faction> or some other keyword-driven? I'd be down with the first, tbh. As long as it also came with a psyker non-interaction clause, and aux detachments still costed you CP (I could see people arguing that because allies don't contribute CP, aux detachments don't "Add" -1CP to your pool, lol, basically leaving Eldar soup in its current incarnation untouched).

Trollbert wrote:
I don't get how people value mini-factions more than balance...

Because if the solution to the problem causes more issues it's probably not the correct solution.
If you need to introduce 3 rules to give out exceptions to your new rule it probably means that you haven't really got to the bottom of the problem and are creating a bandaid rule instead of solving the problem.

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Soup isn't the problem, it's Knights that are the problem.

Personally I want CP to be only generated by the Warlords faction and Stratagems from only the Warlords faction. That would mean Soup gets the benefit from better unit choice but loses the benefit from Stratagems and cheap CP.

Yes the army with 1 detachment outside the undercosted Castellen in the top 21 lists is the problem codex breaking 8th edition.
Not the insane CP of IG or the Free actions of Yannari.

Well the 11 place for pure AM list shows that mono list buffs means nothing and empire first company is fair and balanced, since you don`t have CP to use it.
23 place for pure Custodes list shows that CA approved point reduction is meaningless.
O fcourse after the faq everyone was taking the wraith and windrider host since they are so "good".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Percentages are too complicated for GWs new game philosophy.

Well it is a PITA

To be fair, in the Top 8 while the Castellan is certainly a problem, the lists themselves weren't that bad except for the (as of last night) #1 Ynnari list which was pure cupcakes with 6 flyers and 18 scatbikes.

There were two Guard armies that were actually Guard + IK, rather than Loyal 32 and smash captains or other assorted trash. Although one did have 2 Custodes bikers and Trajann Valoris.

The AdMech army (it was #4 or #5 as of last night) was a little bad, as it had the Rusty 17 and then a variation of the Loyal 32 as well but also had about 5 tanks and *melee* knights of all things (2x Warglaives and a Cerastus Knight Lancer).

The second Ynnari list at least looked like what I'd expect a Ynnari list to have: A actual mix of Craftworld, Drukhari, and Harlequins.

Anyways my point is that yes the Knight is a problem and yes soup still needs to be toned down (they really need to give more incentive to NOT soup, rather than more incentive and bonuses if you do), but the top 8 weren't terrible from an overall army standpoint at least compared to the usual disgusting tournament lists you see.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.

Remember when Shadowswords were all the rage? Those required no soup. They got replaced by a more reliable analogue.

Shadowswords were basically Castellans before Castellans existed. Bubble wrap and all. 200 IG don't get used, because it's unwieldy. Custodes Jetbikes spam was quite popular for quite some time.

CP is the enabler. Not the root cause. Soup is an incredibly broad thing to near when a very narrow set of units poses the problem.

And do you remember why "Shadowswords were all the rage"?
Supreme Command Detachments allowing for you to bring Primaris Psykers and a Shadowsword. The +1 to Hit from Shadowsword Targeters when targeting a Titanic keyworded model...gee, I wonder who was commonly showing up in Chaos lists at the time? Couldn't have been two characters with Titanic!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Soup were actually the problem then you'd see things other than Castellans or Ynnari.

Would you really though?

The issue stemming from soup is the "pick and choose" methodology of covering the weaknesses in your list. Seeing those specific items repeated ad infinitum suggests that yes, the issue is soup and these specific items are a problem as part of it.

...because the Castellan with Cawls Wrath and the fixings still wouldn't be problematic.

Pointed appropriately and not getting CPs that you wouldn't see normally? It might still be a problem--but then we'd know that it was, even in 'ideal' circumstances.

Get real. The issue isn't picking and choosing "to cover weaknesses". The issue is picking and choosing the broken units that don't actually have weaknesses, like those Castellans and Infantry (in before you chime in that 10 man squads is a weakness. LOL)

Again:
Without the CPs from soup and pointed appropriately, the Castellan with Cawl's Wrath(a relic--which is a whole other kettle of fish that needs to be addressed) could be made into a more reasonable item.

And I like that however long into this crazy "infantry squads are the apocalypse" thing we are you're still misrepresenting the argument with regards to Infantry Squads. "10 man squads" is a weakness when one looks at the static point costs and the inflexible nature of the composition of an Infantry Squad(10 models strong no +/-. Composed of 1 Sergeant with a specific weapon loadout, up to 1 model with vox, another with a special, two as a weapons team and the rest are just straight lasguns) compared to other choices which get a sort of 'sliding scale' whether it be more models with a tie-in to more special/heavy options or the ability to start off at a lower model count for a cheaper squad points cost.

Except banning allies doesn't fix the external problem of the Castellan. So by that, you admit the actual issue is points. When units are costed appropriately, nobody seems to care when they are allied in, as you aren't getting anymore of an advantage than usual.
Ally in only certain units that are broken and we get complaints about the whole system. It's like saying 6th edition Tyranids were broken because they had Flyrants.

At this point, we're not "banning allies". I'm not suggesting that and haven't really been suggesting it. What I have been suggesting is banning the mechanisms that are used for abuse--Company Commander Recycler most notably--in a soup list. GSC have, as I mentioned,

Also I knew you would bring up those "static" costs for a unit that has a minimum cost closer to the minimum of most units that have 6-8 point models. Don't make me laugh about your "forced 10 man groups". It's honestly stupid.

Yes, I brought it up...in reply to you commenting on it.

It's fine that you might not think it is an issue but IMO it is something that has to be factored in but people like you continually focus on the "Well they're still cheap!" bit.

Ice_can wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could just add a 25% tax on all units that do not share a (non-Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari) keyword with your Warlord and adjust the % until it works. That way you can have 7 PPM (or whatever) Guardsmen for the Castellans without making IG pay for it.

So your adding a 25% tax onto assasins, inquisition etc?
Also how does that work with subfactions?

Yes, there'd be a 25% tax on Assassins etc., but it's easily circumvent able by pricing them so that their cost plus 25% is their actual value since an army of Assassins is nigh impossible to win with. Alternatively you could make an exception for Assassins, Inquisitors and other "bolt-on" units, but exceptions to the wrong unit could be bad.

In the case of subfactions you'd still have a common keyword, right? Like, Nurgle Daemons and Khorne Daemons would still have "Daemon" as a common keyword. As a side-note this could allow stuff like having Word Bearers count as having the Daemon keyword for the purposes of determining cost (so no Daemon stratagems on CSM) as part of their Legion tactic.

Wayniac wrote:
To be fair, in the Top 8 while the Castellan is certainly a problem, the lists themselves weren't that bad except for the (as of last night) #1 Ynnari list which was pure cupcakes with 6 flyers and 18 scatbikes.

There were two Guard armies that were actually Guard + IK, rather than Loyal 32 and smash captains or other assorted trash. Although one did have 2 Custodes bikers and Trajann Valoris.

The AdMech army (it was #4 or #5 as of last night) was a little bad, as it had the Rusty 17 and then a variation of the Loyal 32 as well but also had about 5 tanks and *melee* knights of all things (2x Warglaives and a Cerastus Knight Lancer).

The second Ynnari list at least looked like what I'd expect a Ynnari list to have: A actual mix of Craftworld, Drukhari, and Harlequins.

Anyways my point is that yes the Knight is a problem and yes soup still needs to be toned down (they really need to give more incentive to NOT soup, rather than more incentive and bonuses if you do), but the top 8 weren't terrible from an overall army standpoint at least compared to the usual disgusting tournament lists you see.

Really ? Top 4 had 3 list with Castellan and 1 cupcakes Ynnari list with 7 flyers, only the cheese list was match from the 8 mounts old IK+IG list.
It is a problem if only fraction that can use double action is a match for the IG/IK list and even that is not enough.

Marin wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
To be fair, in the Top 8 while the Castellan is certainly a problem, the lists themselves weren't that bad except for the (as of last night) #1 Ynnari list which was pure cupcakes with 6 flyers and 18 scatbikes.

There were two Guard armies that were actually Guard + IK, rather than Loyal 32 and smash captains or other assorted trash. Although one did have 2 Custodes bikers and Trajann Valoris.

The AdMech army (it was #4 or #5 as of last night) was a little bad, as it had the Rusty 17 and then a variation of the Loyal 32 as well but also had about 5 tanks and *melee* knights of all things (2x Warglaives and a Cerastus Knight Lancer).

The second Ynnari list at least looked like what I'd expect a Ynnari list to have: A actual mix of Craftworld, Drukhari, and Harlequins.

Anyways my point is that yes the Knight is a problem and yes soup still needs to be toned down (they really need to give more incentive to NOT soup, rather than more incentive and bonuses if you do), but the top 8 weren't terrible from an overall army standpoint at least compared to the usual disgusting tournament lists you see.

Really ? Top 4 had 3 list with Castellan and 1 cupcakes Ynnari list with 7 flyers, only the cheese list was match from the 8 mounts old IK+IG list.
It is a problem if only fraction that can use double action is a match for the IG/IK list and even that is not enough.

They did but the 2 guard lists I saw were actual Guard and a Knight (okay one had 3 Custodes guys). It wasn't a pure trash list as I could see a guard brigade backed up by a knight in the fluff. Far from "good" as far as things are concerned, but not pure cupcakes like Loyal 32 everywhere. One of them was a legit catachan guard army that had a knight in support.

To expand a little more thought on my feelings, in general, the issue is that it really seems like IK were designed with the notion that you would have very limited access to CP, so their stratagems are better in many ways to account for that. Soup lets you ignore that entirely by brinigng cheap CP batteries to power the high-end IK stratagems.

That's a big indicator of the problems. You can't balance something around "Oh they will ony get 5 or 6 CP at most" and then give a way to get 14 CP.

GW really does need to address soup though it is a huge issue.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Soup isn't the problem, it's Knights that are the problem.

Personally I want CP to be only generated by the Warlords faction and Stratagems from only the Warlords faction. That would mean Soup gets the benefit from better unit choice but loses the benefit from Stratagems and cheap CP.

"Soup isn't the problem"

*Proposes nerf to soup*



I like your fix though. I agree it needs to be simple, percentages aren't going to happen. Taking allies with this rule would be a real cost/benefit decision, which I like.

Why do most of you want to nerf allies, when the only really annoying knight to play against is the Castellan? Just nerf the Castellan, and maybe some Eldar lists to compensate, since without the Castellan list the Eldar are undisputed number 1.

 Horst wrote:
Why do most of you want to nerf allies, when the only really annoying knight to play against is the Castellan? Just nerf the Castellan, and maybe some Eldar lists to compensate, since without the Castellan list the Eldar are undisputed number 1.

Because it's not just about the Castellan. It's about the Loyal 32, and Doom, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, we could nerf those too. But then there would be a next best soup, and that would still be better than a mono list purely by virtue of greater choice. And if you keep just knocking down the best options that soup has then that ALSO hurts the armies as mono forces. Which some may be fine with, but most people seem to want mono to be viable, and I understand and agree with that sentiment.

Ice_can wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
I don't get how people value mini-factions more than balance...

Because if the solution to the problem causes more issues it's probably not the correct solution.
If you need to introduce 3 rules to give out exceptions to your new rule it probably means that you haven't really got to the bottom of the problem and are creating a bandaid rule instead of solving the problem.

There's no such thing as a "magic bullet" when it comes to solutions, it's more important that any problem(s) beyond the first one is more manageable than the previous ones. What's more of a problem, being stuck in an infinite loop of minor points adjustment trying to get the game to work with mono factions being as good as a soup list without resulting in factions that can soup now unable to be mono lists against armies that can't soup or screwing over those army that can't soup, or dinging soup even a little bit and giving some exceptions to certain units?

Besides, Inquisition seems dead in the water and harliquin will likely see an expansion into full army like GSC did. If assassains are the only exception, then it's not a big deal.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Soup isn't the problem, it's Knights that are the problem.

Personally I want CP to be only generated by the Warlords faction and Stratagems from only the Warlords faction. That would mean Soup gets the benefit from better unit choice but loses the benefit from Stratagems and cheap CP.

"Soup isn't the problem"

*Proposes nerf to soup*



I like your fix though. I agree it needs to be simple, percentages aren't going to happen. Taking allies with this rule would be a real cost/benefit decision, which I like.

Percentages as in you'd have one "mono-dex" cost and one "soup" cost printed where the "soup" cost would be x% more expensive than baseline. You'd not have to do any calculation in your head, you'd just take "allied Infantry Squad" rather than "Infantry Squad".

Fixes I've heard for soup:

You can only use your Warlord's Strats.
You can only single use in a game Strats that are not your warlords strats.
Strats that are not your warlords cost double.
Detachment specific CP.

I don't want soup to die, but watching 15 CP funneled through a 600 point model with effective stratagems is just silly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Percentages as in you'd have one "mono-dex" cost and one "soup" cost printed where the "soup" cost would be x% more expensive than baseline. You'd not have to do any calculation in your head, you'd just take "allied Infantry Squad" rather than "Infantry Squad".

I wouldn't trust GW to add two and two together let alone do multiplication on every single points cost in the game.

What about units where the bulk of the cost is in the weapons and not the body? Do you pay 25% more for their weapons too?

I honestly think that as cool as the detachment system is, it was a terrible mistake. The FOC with ways to make certain units as troops for thematic purposes was fine and way less prone to abuse

I really think the best solution overall would be to make only your primary detachment generate CP, maybe even remove the bonus for Battleforged.

The idea is to keep CP very limited, not something you want to game to have as much as possible. Then you have the freedom to make better stratagems because you know that CP will be very limited, so if you use a 4 CP stratagem that might be all but 1 or 2 of the CP you're ever going to get. The problem now is that you get your cake and eat it too: high-end stratagems that are clearly meant to be rare things being used more often because they are fueled with cheap CP batteris.

An army should not have 14 CP, period. Fix that problem and the stock of soup goes down and the stock of CP being something rare that can really help swing the game goes up.

Shame GW never brought out the army builder app they promised almost 2 years ago... would have been nice to have them do the maths for us...

Reemule wrote:
Fixes I've heard for soup:

You can only use your Warlord's Strats.
You can only single use in a game Strats that are not your warlords strats.
Strats that are not your warlords cost double.
Detachment specific CP.

I don't want soup to die, but watching 15 CP funneled through a 600 point model with effective stratagems is just silly.

You could also have command units generate command points that they use. No sharing.

Could even open the game up to having units generate points for there own little things. A hero unit for IG has a single point each turn to spend on one of three things.
Would probably work for psychic powers as well.

Crazy idea. Why don't we jack up the points cost of the Castellan by...iunno....100 points to bring it in line with its over-performing status.

Seem fair?

 iGuy91 wrote:
Crazy idea. Why don't we jack up the points cost of the Castellan by...iunno....100 points to bring it in line with its over-performing status.

Seem fair?

Not, because its not fair, and its not the problem.

And I'm not sure how you misunderstand that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Fixes I've heard for soup:

You can only use your Warlord's Strats.
You can only single use in a game Strats that are not your warlords strats.
Strats that are not your warlords cost double.
Detachment specific CP.

I don't want soup to die, but watching 15 CP funneled through a 600 point model with effective stratagems is just silly.

You could also have command units generate command points that they use. No sharing.

Could even open the game up to having units generate points for there own little things. A hero unit for IG has a single point each turn to spend on one of three things.
Would probably work for psychic powers as well.

I'm not sure that it falls right, but I think it could work.

Overall, the other than the LOS/Terrain rules, CP and how it works should be rethought for the complete game to move to a better place.