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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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 while at the moment the Castellan is the obvious example that shows why soup is broken in its current form, if you just nerf the Castellan we'll be dealing with the same problem with different units. There's a fundamental problem with being able to mix different armies to cover each other's weaknesses and gather up loads of CPs for factions balanced around having limited access to such things. The Castellan is the most obvious culprit now but just removing that shifts the problem rather than fixing it.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 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?


Before CA18 I actually heard a lot of speculation that the Castellan should be like around 670 points

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Reemule wrote:
 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.


Because Castellans *do* seem to be a problem? What makes you think the Castellan isn't a problem, when really only the Eldar have effective counters for it. Other knights aren't really an issue like this, you can counter melee knights with screening units / good positioning, and the other shooty knights aren't nearly as powerful as the Castellan. It needs some nerfs.
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




I mean it should be jacked up in points but a big issue is still that there are no drawbacks wahtsoever to souping. There are no tactical compromises being made and that's just poor design.

If you want those better units that really complement your army then you should be able to take them, but at a cost not merely defined by points. At the very least remove battleforged CP if you have a soup army. That means mixing chapters/craftworlds/klans within your codex as well.

Now we're all applauding the guy that took pure astartes at 8 (albeit mixed chapters) and pure IG (might've had mixed regiments) at 11 because they hamstrung themslves and still did well. Imagine if soup was merely an option, not the definitive one.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Slipspace wrote:
 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 while at the moment the Castellan is the obvious example that shows why soup is broken in its current form, if you just nerf the Castellan we'll be dealing with the same problem with different units. There's a fundamental problem with being able to mix different armies to cover each other's weaknesses and gather up loads of CPs for factions balanced around having limited access to such things. The Castellan is the most obvious culprit now but just removing that shifts the problem rather than fixing it.


This is a VERY good point. We need to stop doing band-aid and kneejerk fixes to things that are currently being abused and actually change the underlying cause to try and minimize the whole treadmill that you see with the min/maxing lists. If you nerf Castellan, you'll just see the next best thing show up just as frequently. Then that gets nerfed, and the next thing in the chain gets abused. Fix the abuse in general.

What we should be striving for is having there be a minimal gap between what's currently OP and what the next OP thing will be when you nerf the first OP thing. Cure the root disease, not just provide endless treatment for the problems.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 14:35:09


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Slipspace wrote:
 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 while at the moment the Castellan is the obvious example that shows why soup is broken in its current form, if you just nerf the Castellan we'll be dealing with the same problem with different units. There's a fundamental problem with being able to mix different armies to cover each other's weaknesses and gather up loads of CPs for factions balanced around having limited access to such things. The Castellan is the most obvious culprit now but just removing that shifts the problem rather than fixing it.


If they keep up the pattern of nerfing any list that is obviously overpowered (currently Castellan imperial lists, and Eldar soup lists) then eventually we'll have more lists viable. It may shift the meta to something new being viable. If that turns out to dominate all armies, then it gets nerfed as well eventually.

Or, alternatively, just buff all underperforming armies. That'd be fine too.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The only problem the Castellan, and other Knights have really, is that Rotate Ion Shields allows you to get to a 3++ on a 28 wound, T8 model.

Personally, I think the only change Knights need (other than maybe a 25-50 point increase on the Castellan) is preventing Ion Bulwark from going above 4++.

Imperium soup wouldn’t be so much of an issue if it didn’t take your opponent their entire shooting phase (sometimes 2 shooting phases) to kill a single 604 point model, that, even when damaged, can remove a lot of the units that threaten it in one turn, thus, increasing its subsequent survivability later on.

As for Ynnari soup, the only problem here is Doom, imo. As many have suggested, limit it to “Asuryani” models and things begin to re-balance out. (will likely need other changes as well, but, until Doom is changed, you can’t really highlight them all)
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Horst wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 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 while at the moment the Castellan is the obvious example that shows why soup is broken in its current form, if you just nerf the Castellan we'll be dealing with the same problem with different units. There's a fundamental problem with being able to mix different armies to cover each other's weaknesses and gather up loads of CPs for factions balanced around having limited access to such things. The Castellan is the most obvious culprit now but just removing that shifts the problem rather than fixing it.


If they keep up the pattern of nerfing any list that is obviously overpowered (currently Castellan imperial lists, and Eldar soup lists) then eventually we'll have more lists viable. It may shift the meta to something new being viable. If that turns out to dominate all armies, then it gets nerfed as well eventually.

Or, alternatively, just buff all underperforming armies. That'd be fine too.


No. The better approach is to try to reduce the effectiveness of soup across the board so it becomes a genuine choice whether to soup or not. I don't think that'll be achieved with points changes. You need fundamental changes to the rules for allies to do it. Once you've achieved that then balancing individual units becomes much more effective because the playing field is more level to start with.
   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran




Reemule wrote:
 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.


Actually Castellan point increase is quite fair, people bringing almost 80 Castellans in LVO was swap in the face in GW.
3 of the top 4 list had Casstellan in it and other knights list performed quite good. Casstellan on tables really is bad for elite armies.
AM mono list performing amusingly good shows that guard infantry is too good and regardless the AM players whine, they have the tools to build good armies.
Everyone expected knights and guard points increase, but instead they got buffs.
The other fraction that need changes is Ynnari, but they can`t be balanced with point increases. I really hope they plan to release Ynnari codex in the next few mounts, but instead we will get in march assassins.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
 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.
Every edition change, every codex change, every CA update, every FAQ, etc all make changes that mess with some armies and break others and immediately cause other people to go out and rebuild or start entirely new ones, and never moreso than in this edition. How many competitive lists from the start of this edition have survived intact without substantial revision to this point barely a year and a half later? How many lists had to radically change to deal with the Rule of 3, Battle Brothers, Tactical Reserves, etc?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.


If it helps you compile the data, Blood of Kittens probably still has most of those lists!
They do not appear to, as all the links appear to either be broken or reroute to 8E top lists now, but I didn't think it was quite so easy to forget things like Taudar and Superpals deathstars.




Ultimately, yes individual units need to be addressed in their own right. I'm sure Castellans and Guardsmen will go up in cost in the future for example. However the mix-n-match "take anything with everything" functionality of the current allies system also has inherently has multiple large problems at a fundamental level. Between CP issues, unintended synergies and weakness covering, different access to allies between factions, etc, it's a huge mess.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 14:54:23


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 se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 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?


Yes, everything would be X% more expensive. This could then be adjusted on a per-unit or per-wargear basis, just like a unit can be made cheaper or more expensive in the current game. For example, if no one took Chaos Furies (bet y'all had forgotten those existed, eh?) as an ally, they could have their percentage penalty FAQ'd down, or removed entirely. If no one takes Furies anyway (which no one would, come on, they're FURIES) they'd need a general price drop. It'd be clunky as gak, but it'd be a way to keep soup in the game while bypassing the inherent impossibility of having one price be fair for both mono-Codex contexts and soup contexts.

This way a Castellan in a pure Knight list could be priced at 600 points, while one in a soup could be priced at 900 points (purely hypothetical numbers). Hell, you could even make the rule a blanket "if all your detachments don't share a non-Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/whatever-granularity-we-want, pay X extra points" to avoid people making their most expensive stuff the Warlord to avoid paying extra points.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Horst wrote:
Reemule wrote:
 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.


Because Castellans *do* seem to be a problem? What makes you think the Castellan isn't a problem, when really only the Eldar have effective counters for it. Other knights aren't really an issue like this, you can counter melee knights with screening units / good positioning, and the other shooty knights aren't nearly as powerful as the Castellan. It needs some nerfs.


Cause its not. Chaos has access to the exact same model with the same points. Its not tearing up the meta there.

You are conflating CP usage and Stratagems problem with the Castellan being the problem.

Balance is achieved by fixing what is wrong, not shifting a model to unusable because people don't understand the issue.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kdash wrote:
The only problem the Castellan, and other Knights have really, is that Rotate Ion Shields allows you to get to a 3++ on a 28 wound, T8 model.

Personally, I think the only change Knights need (other than maybe a 25-50 point increase on the Castellan) is preventing Ion Bulwark from going above 4++.

Imperium soup wouldn’t be so much of an issue if it didn’t take your opponent their entire shooting phase (sometimes 2 shooting phases) to kill a single 604 point model, that, even when damaged, can remove a lot of the units that threaten it in one turn, thus, increasing its subsequent survivability later on.

As for Ynnari soup, the only problem here is Doom, imo. As many have suggested, limit it to “Asuryani” models and things begin to re-balance out. (will likely need other changes as well, but, until Doom is changed, you can’t really highlight them all)


How many games against Mono Knights have you played to sort this change out?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/11 15:05:16


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Apple fox wrote:
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.

You mean those Command Points being used on Strategems to give out rules that units probably already had anyway until 8th edition?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

The Commander recycling was already fixed though via 1CP regenerated per turn. So I don't know what you mean.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 15:05:18


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 se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Reemule wrote:
 Horst wrote:
Reemule wrote:
 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.


Because Castellans *do* seem to be a problem? What makes you think the Castellan isn't a problem, when really only the Eldar have effective counters for it. Other knights aren't really an issue like this, you can counter melee knights with screening units / good positioning, and the other shooty knights aren't nearly as powerful as the Castellan. It needs some nerfs.


Cause its not. Chaos has access to the exact same model with the same points. Its not tearing up the meta there.


Chaos Knights don't get Households, nowhere near the same level of Stratagems, or any of the (good) Relics or (good) Warlord traits.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in is
Angered Reaver Arena Champion





I mean it should be jacked up in points but a big issue is still that there are no drawbacks wahtsoever to souping. There are no tactical compromises being made and that's just poor design.


I disagree with this sentiment. There should be no advantages to souping, but neither should there be disadvantages. I'd rather have it in the middle so people can bring interesting armies to the field without shoehorning people into boxes. I want games to be interesting and dynamic, not squares fighting other squares.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

To be honest I agree that Soup is a problem. But I wouldn't like to lose the hability to field my Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions+Bullgryns, and Sisters of Silence army.

AoS does the ally system better. If you do a Grand Alliance (In this case something like Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari) mixed army you should lose all of your faction specific bonuses, be it stratagems, warlord traits and "chapter tactics".
They can add a couple of weaker generic warlord traits, relics or stratagems for IMPERIUM, CHAOS and AELDARI, that those armies can use. Those combined with the generic rulebook ones should be enough.

Then they can ad allies like AoS where you have a list of possible allies that don't make you lose your bonuses, they can't be more than 20% of your army points, and the ratio of units needs to be 3:1 (So for example if you have 3 Imperial Knights you could have max 1 Imperial Guard unit)

Of course this is based in the more flexible List Building style of AoS, it wouldn't work translated literally with 40k detachment system. But I think the idea is there.
And then once all of those unintended soup interactions are fixed, you can start fixing the problematic units by themselves because a Castellan is a problem even with 0 relics and warlord traits and Noble House customs. Just compare it with literally all other superheavies of the game. He is just so much better. The fact that people is saying that a vanilla Castellan is just "OK" is a proof of how skewed the perception of power is for the top5 lists of the moment. A vanilla castellan is still the best superheavy of the game by a GOOD margin.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/11 15:18:32


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Reemule wrote:
 Horst wrote:
Reemule wrote:
 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.


Because Castellans *do* seem to be a problem? What makes you think the Castellan isn't a problem, when really only the Eldar have effective counters for it. Other knights aren't really an issue like this, you can counter melee knights with screening units / good positioning, and the other shooty knights aren't nearly as powerful as the Castellan. It needs some nerfs.


Cause its not. Chaos has access to the exact same model with the same points. Its not tearing up the meta there.


Chaos Knights don't get Households, nowhere near the same level of Stratagems, or any of the (good) Relics or (good) Warlord traits.


Specifically, Cawl's Wrath and Ion Bulwark. Those are the big problems. A Castellan is actually just "O.K." without them but they're so good you just about never see one without them.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Reemule wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kdash wrote:
The only problem the Castellan, and other Knights have really, is that Rotate Ion Shields allows you to get to a 3++ on a 28 wound, T8 model.

Personally, I think the only change Knights need (other than maybe a 25-50 point increase on the Castellan) is preventing Ion Bulwark from going above 4++.

Imperium soup wouldn’t be so much of an issue if it didn’t take your opponent their entire shooting phase (sometimes 2 shooting phases) to kill a single 604 point model, that, even when damaged, can remove a lot of the units that threaten it in one turn, thus, increasing its subsequent survivability later on.

As for Ynnari soup, the only problem here is Doom, imo. As many have suggested, limit it to “Asuryani” models and things begin to re-balance out. (will likely need other changes as well, but, until Doom is changed, you can’t really highlight them all)


How many games against Mono Knights have you played to sort this change out?


I’ve played vs, and as, mono-Knights a fair few times. But, unfortunately, you can’t use the argument of a pure Knight list with a Castellan doing badly, as an indicator that the Castellan is “fine”. Even in pure Knight lists, the Castellan is usually the one that does a lot of the heavy lifting, maybe alongside the Gallant if it makes it into combat. Pure Knights has a fair amount of counters, but, one of them is simply that at least 1 model will only have a 5++.

The issue is when we look at a Knight in isolation that can be fed CP. My suggestion with the invlun being capped at a 4++ is pretty reasonable – and, if I’m honest I’d also go as far as arguing that the CP cost could then be reduced to 2 for Dominus, rather than the current 3. The biggest frustration of playing vs Knights is that you can either kill a 3++ Castellan in 1 turn, or, you play for the mission and hope you can outscore the Knights before you get blown apart, piece by piece. This is true, even in pure Knight lists. If you don’t target the Castellan, it does serious damage to you in return. If you focus the Castellan, you have to know you’re going to kill it.

Castellans win games. Pure Knight, or souped in. It really is just as simple as that at times. Unless you have an army setup to take them on (which is getting more prevalent with the horde setups), then you’re going to struggle.
It is not a coincidence that most competitive lists (top end or mid table) are built with the requirement of killing a 3++ Castellan.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 15:25:43


 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




I mostly like BCB's solution. I would add the caveat that you can only take relics from your warlord's codex. In fact, it should just be that you can only take options (other than psyker and built in weapon choices) from your warlord's codex. Also only those formations that come from your warlord's codex can generate or spend CPs. Although I would allow usage of the universal strats since they are universal.

So if you want to use IG and a Castellan then that's fine. However the Castellan can only choose weapon options that are on its data sheet and you can't use any IK strats to help it along. Unless the Castellan is your warlord and then the IG don't generate CPs and you can't use their strats or relics.



   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




"built with the requirement of killing a 3++ Castellan. "

At range. Because the guardsmen turn off assault. At the cost of a pack of skittles.
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




 Eldarsif wrote:
I mean it should be jacked up in points but a big issue is still that there are no drawbacks wahtsoever to souping. There are no tactical compromises being made and that's just poor design.


I disagree with this sentiment. There should be no advantages to souping, but neither should there be disadvantages. I'd rather have it in the middle so people can bring interesting armies to the field without shoehorning people into boxes. I want games to be interesting and dynamic, not squares fighting other squares.

I don't thnik you disagree with me TBH. The first part of the sentence has nothing to do with souping, it's just a statement that I think the Castellan is too cheap.

The advantage of souping right now is flexibilty, being able to spend CP where they weren't ment to be used and choosing the absolute best units out of a huge catalogue. The disadvantages are none. My solution was to remove the battleforged CP if you soup, meaning you keep all of the aforementioned advantages but that becomes your sole disadvantage. Bringing the game something resembling balance when it comes to soup/mono-faction rosters IMO.
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Let’s get to the heart of the real issue. It’s not soup, it’s the inclusion of Titanic vehicles to the game.

If a Land Raider was the biggest armoured vehicle in the game this thread wouldn’t be happening,

Phase out super heavies to only being permitted in a special rules Apocalypse style game and the problem is completely solved
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




glados wrote:
Let’s get to the heart of the real issue. It’s not soup, it’s the inclusion of Titanic vehicles to the game.

If a Land Raider was the biggest armoured vehicle in the game this thread wouldn’t be happening,

Phase out super heavies to only being permitted in a special rules Apocalypse style game and the problem is completely solved


I disagree. It's about unit miscosting. Nothing else. Castellan. Miscosted. Guardsmen. Miscosted. Ynarri units. Miscosted. Cost units correctly, soup doesn't matter.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




glados wrote:
Let’s get to the heart of the real issue. It’s not soup, it’s the inclusion of Titanic vehicles to the game.

If a Land Raider was the biggest armoured vehicle in the game this thread wouldn’t be happening,

Phase out super heavies to only being permitted in a special rules Apocalypse style game and the problem is completely solved


Nah, the vast majority of “Titanic” units are perfectly fine, if not underpowered compared to what you can get for the points elsewhere.
The only units you tend to see how are Knights, the odd Shadowsword and maybe a Stormsurge here or there. The rest are practically never seen.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






glados wrote:
Let’s get to the heart of the real issue. It’s not soup, it’s the inclusion of Titanic vehicles to the game.

If a Land Raider was the biggest armoured vehicle in the game this thread wouldn’t be happening,

Phase out super heavies to only being permitted in a special rules Apocalypse style game and the problem is completely solved

Then we could just go back to the good old days when threads were about how the problem was the Eldar Flying Circus, or Rhino Rush, or untargetable Daemon Princes. Much better.

The fact is there are lots of problems - and GW doesn't really care about fixing game balance.
After all, if the game is balanced, how will they sell errata every year..?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Chaos Knights don't get Households, nowhere near the same level of Stratagems, or any of the (good) Relics or (good) Warlord traits.


This guy gets it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Audustum wrote:


Specifically, Cawl's Wrath and Ion Bulwark. Those are the big problems. A Castellan is actually just "O.K." without them but they're so good you just about never see one without them.


And this guy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:


I disagree. It's about unit miscosting. Nothing else. Castellan. Miscosted. Guardsmen. Miscosted. Ynarri units. Miscosted. Cost units correctly, soup doesn't matter.


This guy doesn't get it.

Castellans are only good when you can filter 15CP through them in a game. If you raise the cost, it won't change. If you then nerf them, the same will happen, just with a Porphy or Crusader.

If you want to fix the issue, fix CP. Castellans were balanced to have 10 or sp CP to use in a game, along with other stuff. Get them to that point again and they are fine, as you see with the Castellans that Chaos use.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/11 15:43:49


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

glados wrote:
Let’s get to the heart of the real issue. It’s not soup, it’s the inclusion of Titanic vehicles to the game.

If a Land Raider was the biggest armoured vehicle in the game this thread wouldn’t be happening,

Phase out super heavies to only being permitted in a special rules Apocalypse style game and the problem is completely solved


This is the best solution but also impossible at this point in time. Flyers and Superheavies don't belong in 40k proper, but they've been included too long to phase them out.

The biggest mistake of all was rolling Apoc into the base game instead of keeping it separate and distinct.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Doesnt matter if costed properly.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Prosecutor





I recently did a trip through old White Dwarf and I'm seeing Soup Armies all the way back to second edition. Why are we considering removing a core part of the game that's been there for that long? This game has always had soup in it and removing it doesn't fix anything. GW isn't just going to squat all those Ynari players and Knight House infantry lists to not actually address the problem.

This is a knee-jerk 5-minute solution that smacks of populist thinking as opposed to actual critical thinking

Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.


https://www.victorwardbooks.com/ Home of Dark Days series 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Because people are allergic to math. And empirical testing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/11 15:49:30


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: