Soup is not the problem - LVO 2019

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.

**happy_inquisitor**

My alternate take is that with a tournament as big as LVO they really should use the prizes and structure of the tournament to create more incentives for different stuff. As things stand you can soup up to win the overall while still be competing for a faction prize as well. It would be quite an uphill struggle for a pure AM player to compete with all those soup players who somehow qualify as AM by ITC rules.

Rather than mess with the rules too much, change the tournament format to give "pure" army players something valuable to play for. Right now unless you are playing Tau, Orks or Necrons there is exactly zero incentive to play anything resembling a single faction army. If the prize support for factions is made substantial and the faction rules changed so that a list has to be pure [1] to qualify then suddenly there is a really good reason to play that way - plus with faction lists no longer just being "soup with 10 more points in this than in the other ingredients" we would start seeing interesting meta-within-a-meta for those faction lists which would make it a more viable source of honour and glory too.

If the soup players are all just playing for "best soup player" which is how most people would then regard the "best general" with the chance that a single faction player might beat them all to it in which case they were playing for nothing then there is a balance of decisions to be made whether to soup up or not.

Meanwhile in less competitive situations one or two things are still just a bit too strong. Castellans and Soulburst do rather spring to mind

That is definitely for GW to sort out.

[1] I would allow Auxiliary detachments not to break the overall faction. After all its just one unit and it comes with its own restrictions so it is really just a way to add that one oddball like an assassin model that you really want.

**Kanluwen**

happy_inquisitor wrote:

[1] I would allow Auxiliary detachments not to break the overall faction. After all its just one unit and it comes with its own restrictions so it is really just a way to add that one oddball like an assassin model that you really want.

This is something that you would think people would be more amenable to--but anytime you point out that Auxiliary Detachments allowing for one or two units exist...they flip out on you, acting like you're ruining their whole theme.

Simple fact is people don't seem to actually want balance. They just want to whine. I've suggested in the past that Auxiliary Detachments, Patrols, and the "Specialist"(read: Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider) be the only allowed ones as "Allied" Detachments and people came out of the woodwork to complain I was trying to ruin their <insert weird concept that 100% could be replicated under that auspices, just with less CPs> army.

**Pleasestop**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.

Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.

One must always assume that IS are under orders and since most are Catachan there isn't many other considerations to shooting until combat. This makes the real cost of a squad of IS 55 points - 40 for the troops and half of a commander for orders. But let's go deeper. Add a priest, Harker, Straken, and an Ogryn Bodyguard. All this to supoort a block of 60.

240 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 75 + 50 + 52 = 507

This makes the cost of a single IS Catachan model 8.5 points. Technically they cost 9.4 points, because the sarge is pretty useless half the time, but let's meet in the middle and call it 9.

Note that this fulfills the requirements for two battalions and so is capable of providing 10 CP.

Let's make a Pseudo profile for this unit:

Guard - M6 WS4 BS4 S4 T3 W1 A3 LD6 5+ Sarge - M6 WS4 BS4 S4 T3 W1 A5 LD7 5+ Big Fat Jerks: Reroll all to hit rolls of 1 in the shooting phase. Supermen: At the start of their shooting phase this unit may pick one of the following abilities: - Move as if it were the move phase including advancing, but may not charge - Change all RF 1 weapons to RF2 - Shoot if they fell back - Fight Twice - Reroll wound rolls of 1 9 points per model

A captain, lieutenant, and 30 marines is 524 points. That makes these marines 17.5 points each. Let's do their profile.

Marine- M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 W1 A1 LD7 3+ Sarge - M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 W1 A2 LD8 3+ Accurate Fat Jerks: Reroll all to hit rolls of 1. Precise Fat Jerks: Reroll all to wound rolls of 1. Smoke Screen Sha-pow! : This unit may fall back and shoot, but not charge with a -1 to hit. 17.5 points per model

Provides 5 CP

What about shooting?

Two squads of IG shooting @ 24" w/ FRFSRF - 180 (fictional) points

36 * .583 * .333 * .333 = 2.3 // v MEQ x ~2 for 12"
36 * .583 * .5 * .666 = 7 // v GEQ x ~2 for 12"

And our marine buddies - one squad for 175 fictional points

10 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.5 // v MEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
10 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4 // v GEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still

What about melee?

Two squads of IG

32 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 2.7 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
32 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 7.1 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice

One squad of marines

11 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.7 // v MEQ
11 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4.4 // v GEQ

What about getting hit?

IG

1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover

1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover

1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover

1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover

Marines

1 * .333 * .333 * 17.5 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 17.5 = 1 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover

1 * .5 * .333 * 17.5 = 2.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 17.5 = 1.5 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover

1 * .666 * .5 * 17.5 = 5.8 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 17.5 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover

1 * .666 * .833 * 17.5 = 9.7 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 17.5 = 7.8 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover

Conclusion

Catachans certainly fight better than marines before even consider fight twice. They shoot better, unless the marine is standing still and if the IG are at long range only. Marines are certainly more durable but quickly lose any strong edge out of cover and against any AP3+ weapons and lost much of it when any AP was involved.

I would do fire warriors and such, but I'm out of time at the moment.

And then you need to consider mortars.

If you want it to be useful, do Guard (no trait, no orders) vs Marines (no trait, no orders but new beta rule).

Otherwise, all you are proving is that a specific build of guard is better than a specific build of space marines, if played exactly like described.

**Kanluwen**

Arguably, you'd also cut the orders out of the equation but that would change the maths to not necessarily reflect what he wants.

**Bharring**

Arguably, "Did you include $X" can be asked indefinitely - as there are more than enough permutations on the matchup to keep him busy long past the end of 8E.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

but the counter argument to that is a like number of points cost guard will slaughter a like points cost of marines. 150ps of marines vs 150 points of guard. etc.

But a more interesting argument is what can those marines do better than the guard?

Take both units, face them off against a vehicle, or units in cover, or anything else. Two units standing and basically dueling isn't a clear representation of what they are used for. Guardsmen are obj holders. Marines are fluff wise, assault troops. If those marines were in melee, totally different outcome.

**Wolf_in_Human_Shape**

All the suggestions in the world don't really amount to much. Seems silly to get bent out of shape over them. Arguably they matter when e-mailed to GW, but on a forum such as this they're just fodder for conversation. Of course, ITC-based changes would matter. Seems like those are even more likely to happen.

But maybe not, given their increasingly close relationship with GW.

**An Actual Englishman**

Aelyn wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Aelyn wrote:

You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.

There is no burden of proof. We're on a forum discussing toy soldiers and I've seen it multiple times. Inform yourself. Either find the maths or do it yourself. Make your own conclusions from informed knowledge as I have.

I've done maths on it. It's shown that guardsmen are more efficient in some ways and less in others, when compared to other troops choices. I've also searched for the maths, and found lots of people claiming maths has proved this, yet strangely not been able to find the maths itself - at least, not maths that says what people say it does.

Since you are incapable of actually demonstrating your point and are resorting to attacking me for trying to have an informed debate, I'll have to assume that the maths does not exist and that you are either lying or misinformed.

Daedalus - This is exactly the reason I was asking. You've added so many additional units, assumptions, etc that you're no longer talking about the efficiency of 4ppm Guard - you're talking about the efficiency of two battalions with interlocking abilities and support, then comparing it to another arbitrary battalion of Marines (without chapter tactics, apparently) which most people would agree is pretty suboptimal anyway. It's indicative of the power of Guard as a whole - which, again, I am not disputing - but it's hardly evidence that 4ppm Guardsmen are mathematically the most efficient troops for their cost.

If you had done the maths I’m struggling to understand how you came to such an incorrect conclusion. Your maths must have been wrong. Please provide it here for reference.

E - in fact, if you have done the maths on this and you believe it shows that Guardsmen aren’t the best troop in the game why haven’t you provided it to illustrate your point and to disprove mine?

**Aelyn**

Martel732 wrote:
Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?

It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:

Several troops are better per point at shooting at medium-toughness units - Tau in particular are generally more efficient at shooting at almost any target.

Several troops are also tougher per point against anti-infantry weapons, such as Intercessors and Plaguebearers.

Guard are also generally medium at melee - though I admit that I was looking at generic Guardsmen rather than specifically Catachans, and was not looking at aura buffs.

Things like bubblewrap ability are highly contextual and hard to quantify, so I haven't assessed that.

I generally run the maths by looking at strict expected values against dummy profiles - e.g. I look at shooting v. GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Orks, light vehicles, medium vehicles and heavy vehicles, and look at defensiveness v. lasguns, bolters, heavy bolters, assault cannons, plasma, and lascannons. However, I weight the results towards assuming "good" targetting i.e. I assume high-volume, low-strength shots go against infantry where possible, and that infantry are more likely to be shot with bolters than lascannons. I admit it's not perfect, but it gives a good benchmark.

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Wibe wrote:
Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.

Nah dude - you are flat out wrong. Point can fix any unit. There is really no point in debating this. Choas castellans can't take relic plasma or 4++ warlord trait. There is no point in taking a choas castellan over a mechanicus one. That is why you don't see it much. BUT YOU DO SEE IT. I saw it plenty at LVO. You are much mroe likely to see a 2x Gatling crusader for chaos and those are kind of off meta but get work done - also very much hard countered by Castellans.

The game essentially rotates around the Castellan right now. If you can't see it - you are blind. CP ofc are an issue - but the Castellan is not the only unit that CP is too good on. In a game without endless CP - Castellans would still dominate.

I came to tell you your wrong... and you are, but I don't care.

When I play Mono knights the Castellan and Valiant never get to the table cause I don't have CP to rotate their shields. They are already useless in that view.

If you increase the cost, all your going to do is: See people trim something and keep abusing it, or, Level up and bring a Porphyrion (does real good with the Raven Strat),or downgrade and run a Crusader (also does good for the Raven Strat).

Either way, you will still be here, complaining, and wanting them nerfed, cause you didn't fix the core problem.

A warlord 4++ Castellan is still the best unit for a full knights list. You can't win that arguement. Because the Castellan is that much better than every other option. What you fail to understand is that if the nerf is only so much as a light trim. Something like 40-60 points doesn't matter. It needs to pay what it's worth - which is roughly 700-750 compared to literally other comparable super heavy.

**An Actual Englishman**

Aelyn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?

It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:

Lol wait. You can’t priovide your own maths?! When you have continued to berate me for not providing you mine?!

Hypocrite much?

**Bharring**

"Several troops are also tougher per point, such as Marines and Plaguebearers."
Marines lose out per point in most cases. In the open, vs AP 0, they die exactly half as fast, but cost much more than twice as much. In cover, they die 1/3 as fast, but cost more than 3 times as much.

"Guard are also generally medium at melee"
One on one, sure. But 13 Guardsmen vs 4 Marines (equal points) sees Marines get destroyed in CC. In fact, Guardsmen win this fight vs most Troops. Because they're dirt cheap, and merely have no +s in CC, instead of having any drawback.

**Daedalus81**

you're no longer talking about the efficiency of 4ppm Guard

That's a false narrative since guard will always have commanders, which provides a tremendous amount of the buffs for IG anyway. This block presented is buffed to be better in melee. Taking those things away still makes it quite solid at shooting.

then comparing it to another arbitrary battalion of Marines (without chapter tactics, apparently)

I could make them Raven Guard and they'd be harder to kill, but still worse at melee and shooting. I haven't seen a lot of those making the rounds more than UM or BA. One should not be forced to a chapter to be reasonably competitive, either. IG can go to Cadians and still be effective with fewer points. The others have some pretty stellar buffs available even if they're more rarely used.

which most people would agree is pretty suboptimal anyway

And there is the crux of the issue. IG can take 60 wounds plus support for 507 points. Marines try to do the same thing for the unit slots they NEED to fill to still get CP and it's sub-optimal.

But let's adjust the frame a little. Instead of bare marines it's squads of 5 marines with 1 PG. Captain + Lt + 5 of those squads = 514 points. 20.5 points per marine.

One squad is 82 points. Our fictional IG 10 man is 90 points and we can just cut the numbers above in half.

v GEQ
4 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 1.6 // x 2 for standing still or 12"
1 * .777 * .998 = 0.8 // x 2 for 12"
-- 2.4 v IG @ 3.5 // x 2 for 12"

v MEQ
4 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 0.6 // x 2 for standing still or 12"
1 * .777 * .998 * .833 = 0.6 // x 2 for 12"
-- 1.2 v IG @ 1.2 // x 2 for 12"

So you got a lot closer, but melee is still worse by a mile and you've reduced their overall durability by 17% - more damage, but fewer models.

I think marines are "ok", but having to stand still and in cover to make them "good" is a bit of a bum deal.

There is MORE to the whole picture like other like other units in bubble range, but often your whole army is not within 6" of the captain and lt. Marine bikes are now pretty stellar. IG mortars more so.

Do I think they should be 5 points? I'm not sure, but the unparalleled flexibility offered to these units is considerably strong. It's not just FRFSRF. It's MMM getting them to an objective. It's moving into double tap range, charging, and punching twice for no CP.

**Aelyn**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?

It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:

Lol wait. You can’t priovide your own maths?! When you have continued to berate me for not providing you mine?!

Hypocrite much?

I wasn't the one who brought the idea of maths into the thread. I posted this offhand while loading my computer to get the numbers.

Also, I appreciate that you're just trying to score points here, but all I was asking for was transparency. There's a difference between "I've done the numbers (personally and for my own use), and don't have them to hand" and "The numbers are all over the place, but I'm not going to show them to you. Nuh-uh! Do it yourself."

This is why things like Daedalus's post are actually useful; it gave me the ability to confirm the assumptions being made when achieving the results quoted. In comparison, you're not trying to actually have a constructive debate, you're trying to score points and shout down anyone who tries to have a reasoned view as a "guard apologist".

An Actual Englishman wrote:
E - in fact, if you have done the maths on this and you believe it shows that Guardsmen aren’t the best troop in the game why haven’t you provided it to illustrate your point and to disprove mine?

I never claimed Guardsmen aren't the best troop in the game; all I asked was for you to provide the maths that you claimed substantiated your assertion that they were.

Bharring wrote:
"Several troops are also tougher per point, such as Marines and Plaguebearers."
Marines lose out per point in most cases. In the open, vs AP 0, they die exactly half as fast, but cost much more than twice as much. In cover, they die 1/3 as fast, but cost more than 3 times as much.

"Guard are also generally medium at melee"
One on one, sure. But 13 Guardsmen vs 4 Marines (equal points) sees Marines get destroyed in CC. In fact, Guardsmen win this fight vs most Troops. Because they're dirt cheap, and merely have no +s in CC, instead of having any drawback.

Yeah, I posted in a hurry; I was actually referring to Primaris. Also, Marines die less than half as fast as Guard, due to being T4 v T3.

As for melee, yes, Marines are one of the armies who do worse than Guard. No argument there.

**Daedalus81**

Kanluwen wrote:
Arguably, you'd also cut the orders out of the equation but that would change the maths to not necessarily reflect what he wants.

<He said nervously.>

IS - 40 points
9 * .5 * .333 * .333 = 0.5 // v MEQ
9 * .5 * .5 * .666 = 1.5 // v GEQ

40 points is 3.1 marines

3.1 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.3 // 0.7 standing still
3.1 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.9 // 1.8 standing still

So marines are better if always standing still and orders don't exist. Balance!

**Reemule**

Xenomancers wrote:
A warlord 4++ Castellan is still the best unit for a full knights list. You can't win that arguement. Because the Castellan is that much better than every other option. What you fail to understand is that if the nerf is only so much as a light trim. Something like 40-60 points doesn't matter. It needs to pay what it's worth - which is roughly 700-750 compared to literally other comparable super heavy.

Ohh? Tell us your extensive history of playing Mono knights? I didn't know they were a faction you played with?

A Crusader with 3 turns of a 3++ is better than a Castellan with 1 turn of 3++ and 2 turns of a 4++.

**DrGiggles**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Arguably, you'd also cut the orders out of the equation but that would change the maths to not necessarily reflect what he wants.

<He said nervously.>

IS - 40 points
9 * .5 * .333 * .333 = 0.5 // v MEQ
9 * .5 * .5 * .666 = 1.5 // v GEQ

40 points is 3.1 marines

3.1 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.3 // 0.7 standing still
3.1 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.9 // 1.8 standing still

So marines are better if always standing still and orders don't exist. Balance!

This is at 24" on planet bowling ball?

**Kanluwen**

Bharring wrote:
Arguably, "Did you include $X" can be asked indefinitely - as there are more than enough permutations on the matchup to keep him busy long past the end of 8E.

The problem is we've had repeated instances in these kinds of debates/arguments where people act as though every single Order in the world is on the unit with there being no way at all for the other person to do anything about the character issuing the Order...which sure, you can't "deny" the Order like a psychic power, but like Aura toting characters the trick is to kill the Officer.

**Bharring**

Where every single Marine unit is in Gman's aura.

Where every single Craftworlder is Alaitoc, outside 12" range, while shooting with their 12" range guns and shorter. Every target is Doomed/Jinxed, every unit is Fortuned/Guideded/LQRed/etc, and at -4-to-hit. And Catlady.

Where every single Knight has T8 3++.

I'd keep going, but those are just about the only things people talk about in today's meta.

The game may not be as complex as we'd like, but it's a lot more complex than a lot of equations thrown out there.

**An Actual Englishman**

Aelyn wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?

It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:

Lol wait. You can’t priovide your own maths?! When you have continued to berate me for not providing you mine?!

Hypocrite much?
I wasn't the one who brought the idea of maths into the thread. I posted this offhand while loading my computer to get the numbers.

Also, I appreciate that you're just trying to score points here, but all I was asking for was transparency. There's a difference between "I've done the numbers, and don't have them to hand" and "The numbers are all over the place, but I'm not going to show them to you. Nuh-uh! Do it yourself."

This is why things like Daedalus's post are actually useful; it gave me the ability to confirm the assumptions being made when achieving the results quoted.

You’re loading your computer to get the numbers? Alright, load away, I can wait.

You weren’t asking for transparency. Let’s be real. You’ve seen the numbers. You’ve said so yourself. You just don’t agree with the conclusion because you no doubt play Guard. And I wasn’t trying to score points. I was holding a mirror up to you so that you could understand your hypocritical behaviour. Know that as far as the numbers are concerned, our responses are exactly the same. You still haven’t given yours and I haven’t given mine. I can’t really be bothered to, if I’m honest.

I’ve done this song and dance so many times I’m bored. I’ve discussed/debated/argued with so many IG apologists I’ve lost track. I’ve presented countless people with the figures and very few actually take them at face value or admit Guardsmen are too cheap at 4ppm. I think I’ve seen one or two IG players actually read the numbers and admit Guardsmen seem like a 5ppm troop. It’s tiring, toxic and tedious. This defensive survivor mentality really sucks. It makes no sense to me either, those people claiming 4ppm Guardsmen are fair simultaneously complain that they can’t use Conscripts effectively anymore. Never thinking Conscripts might seem more attractive to them if Guardsmen were increased in cost. It’s Eldar players of previous editions.

If you actually want to find the maths I have seen that convinced me about Guardsmen it’s one of w1zard’s posts I believe. He did a number of comparisons that showed their strength and it was brutal.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Daedalus81 wrote:
So marines are better if always standing still and orders don't exist. Balance!

Daed, you're doing god's (pick one) work, but you're arguing in good faith against people who clearly intend to argue in bad faith.

**Martel732**

Aelyn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?

It's been a while and I don't have the numbers to hand, but:

Several troops are better per point at shooting at medium-toughness units - Tau in particular are generally more efficient at shooting at almost any target.

Several troops are also tougher per point against anti-infantry weapons, such as Intercessors and Plaguebearers.

Guard are also generally medium at melee - though I admit that I was looking at generic Guardsmen rather than specifically Catachans, and was not looking at aura buffs.

Things like bubblewrap ability are highly contextual and hard to quantify, so I haven't assessed that.

I generally run the maths by looking at strict expected values against dummy profiles - e.g. I look at shooting v. GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Orks, light vehicles, medium vehicles and heavy vehicles, and look at defensiveness v. lasguns, bolters, heavy bolters, assault cannons, plasma, and lascannons. However, I weight the results towards assuming "good" targetting i.e. I assume high-volume, low-strength shots go against infantry where possible, and that infantry are more likely to be shot with bolters than lascannons. I admit it's not perfect, but it gives a good benchmark.

I happily concede those analytical points. My contention is that they are invaluable as road blocks. Just taking up space has value in 8th. That's without factoring in the 24" gun. I contend they are worth 4 ppm without firing a shot. Denying movement and deep strike and now all assaults is just so valuable. The fly nerf added a point or two to their value alone.

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
A warlord 4++ Castellan is still the best unit for a full knights list. You can't win that arguement. Because the Castellan is that much better than every other option. What you fail to understand is that if the nerf is only so much as a light trim. Something like 40-60 points doesn't matter. It needs to pay what it's worth - which is roughly 700-750 compared to literally other comparable super heavy.

Ohh? Tell us your extensive history of playing Mono knights? I didn't know they were a faction you played with?

A Crusader with 3 turns of a 3++ is better than a Castellan with 1 turn of 3++ and 2 turns of a 4++.

I play mono knights sometimes - it's fairly strong. I usually play 4 knights and guilliman because we don't play with required mono army regulations. Not exactly the same but even in my knights and IG army. I spend most the CP on the IG. People don't shoot at 3++ potential knights when they can shoot at 5++ knights fist. This is the struggle with full knight lists - not CP - it's you can only protect one of them. So 1 knight is best.

**Bharring**

So...

RIS is just fine, because it can only affect one thing - totally fair! As you'll have probably 5 things to worry about!

LQR is broken, because it can affect the one thing your enemy wants to kill! And there are only about a dozen possible targets to pick from!

It comes down to RIS being most busted in scenarios where "just shoot the other Knight" isn't a real option - such as IG/Knight soup lists.

**An Actual Englishman**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
So marines are better if always standing still and orders don't exist. Balance!

Daed, you're doing god's (pick one) work, but you're arguing in good faith against people who clearly intend to argue in bad faith.

Indeed.

You’re wasting your time. These are people who honestly think there’s a difference between them not showing the maths and me not showing the maths, for some reason.

Let’s not forget that Guardsmen are taken in the vast majority of competitive imperium lists, in numbers greater than the minimum required to fulfil detachments and despite not providing the cheapest CP per point.

**flaming tadpole**

Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?

**Martel732**

The reply to me was not in bad faith.

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
So...

RIS is just fine, because it can only affect one thing - totally fair! As you'll have probably 5 things to worry about!

LQR is broken, because it can affect the one thing your enemy wants to kill! And there are only about a dozen possible targets to pick from!

It comes down to RIS being most busted in scenarios where "just shoot the other Knight" isn't a real option - such as IG/Knight soup lists.

I guess it is a fair point that this issue will only come up in soup situations.

Plus I am a strong proponent of changing the way CP is generated and giving CP negatives to allied detachments. However - knights are a unique situation - lots of armies have to contend with taking 1 of something because protecting 2 isn't an option even in mono situation. Knights just literally don't have other options.

**Kanluwen**

flaming tadpole wrote:
Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?

NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!

Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.

They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.

**An Actual Englishman**

flaming tadpole wrote:
Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?

Right the first thing you’re going to have to do here is prove that a Castellan is worth more in a soup list than a mono knight list.

I have addressed this by the way. Truly balanced units, stratagems and psychic powers make soup a nonissue. The responses I received to this were monologues around opportunity cost and claims that a unit is worth more in an army that doesn’t generally specialise in a particular facet ofnwarfare. My belief is that any faction should be able to compete in any phase of the game as they wish. Certainly as far as ‘souper’ factions go anyways.