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.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
That literally would curbstomp soup out of existence, beyond the fluffy one.
And the value a CP has can technically be thoerthised by the Value on a Mono dex army. You will realise that Guard, R&H pay the least for a CP, but gain the least return on their stratagems. Knights pay the most for their CP get the most return for their stratagems.
Now soup comes in and allows you to pay the price for Guard CP on IK stratagems. This is were Soup becomes the problem.
That said there are some stratagems out there that just need to be looked at.
Tides was such an exemple.
Rotate and cawls need a look at beyond CPimo.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Knights aren't getting 12CPs. Even 9 is a bit of a stretch. A 5-knight list, which is about the best mono-knight list you can make, gets 6CP. Compare the power of the mono list to what a soup with a single Castellan gets and the problem of soup should be obvious.
In a mono list you get:
Enough CPs to RIS twice on your Castellan, asuming you use no other CPs for any other reason
You do get the benefits of any skew list
You also get the disadvantages of the same. For example, your Castellan is targetted so you RIS. Not only do you lose half your CPs but your opponent can now switch targets and kill the relatively unprotected other knights
Poor board control
While your weapons are powerful they are extremely limited - you tend to have around 15-20 weapons total so you don't always have the best weapon for the job
Take the same Castellan in a soup list:
Enough CPs to juice up the knight with pre-battle bonuses and RIS 2-3 times while still having enough CPs left to use whatver stratagems the rest of your army needs
Only one knight can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. You're guaranteed to be able to protect it fully if it's shot at
Greater flexibility due to a variety of unit types
Brilliant board control
So we have 2 different scenarios and 2 completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the Castellan may be too cheap, but it should be obvious soup is a huge problem because of how it messes with the assumptions you need to make in order to balance a unit properly.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Knights aren't getting 12CPs. Even 9 is a bit of a stretch. A 5-knight list, which is about the best mono-knight list you can make, gets 6CP. Compare the power of the mono list to what a soup with a single Castellan gets and the problem of soup should be obvious.
In a mono list you get:
Enough CPs to RIS twice on your Castellan, asuming you use no other CPs for any other reason
You do get the benefits of any skew list
You also get the disadvantages of the same. For example, your Castellan is targetted so you RIS. Not only do you lose half your CPs but your opponent can now switch targets and kill the relatively unprotected other knights
Poor board control
While your weapons are powerful they are extremely limited - you tend to have around 15-20 weapons total so you don't always have the best weapon for the job
Take the same Castellan in a soup list:
Enough CPs to juice up the knight with pre-battle bonuses and RIS 2-3 times while still having enough CPs left to use whatver stratagems the rest of your army needs
Only one knight can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. You're guaranteed to be able to protect it fully if it's shot at
Greater flexibility due to a variety of unit types
Brilliant board control
So we have 2 different scenarios and 2 completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the Castellan may be too cheap, but it should be obvious soup is a huge problem because of how it messes with the assumptions you need to make in order to balance a unit properly.
Thank you.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
That literally would curbstomp soup out of existence, beyond the fluffy one.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
That literally would curbstomp soup out of existence, beyond the fluffy one.
Explain?
Rotate would be a one time only and more inline with mono Knights, which we don't see BECAUSE Rotate is only happening once.
It also would favour a setup of burning as much CP as possible in one Turn.
Things like Slamguinius would still work because of his "fire and forget" approach.
Edit: It would basically bring the Castellan more inline with his monodex compatriot.
It would not reign in Custodes jetbikers or slamguinisses.
Ynnari would become supremely annoying.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/13 09:30:51
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Looks like many people are coming around to what I said at the start of 8th. Without some sort of built in downside for soup, or advantage for playing mono-faction, it is impossible to balance units for use in both circumstances. You either balance for the mono-faction and this allows for the fact that things might be broken in soup due to how units interact, or you balance assuming soup and mono-faction operates at a disadvantage.
1.) This could be done through points, making soup armies pay more for the same units than other armies. I think this is likely the most difficult fix as not all soups are created equal so something like a 5-10% tax across the board would hurt a lot of armies, but trying to individually determine it through something like "allied point" in every codex would get unweildly. (i.e. if you play guard your codex would contain a points list of the inclusion of allied units).
2.) Stop CP sharing - I think this is tough to track and open to abuse.
3.) Impose some other penalty or advantage - For example you only get "chapter tactics" for the faction of your warlord, or only have access to stratagems for that faction, or other stratagems cost double etc.
Without some sort of balancing mechanic you cannot have a balanced game unless the assumption is balance only occurs on the soup level, and armies without access to that should be far more powerful mono-armies than those that can soup. Essentially Imperium is now the faction, and that faction is balanced against Orks. So if you play mono-dex you are willingly playing at a disadvantage.
As others of said is the Castellan broken? Yup. But the points increase needed to balance it for soup is not the same one needed to balance it for a mono-knight army, due to having more CP, more board control, better deepstrike defense etc.
The problem with soup, as I see it, is that it allows you to compensate for a weakness in a particular faction. You basically get to do ALL the things...
Only allowing CP that a detachment generates to be spent on stratagems for that detachment seems to be the best fix. I wonder why GW have not yet addressed this?
Soup in't even the problem. It's specifically the combination of Guard in conjunction with CP hungry, expensive units.
I run a Castellan as part of a thematic AdMech army alongside Cawl. The list is not as competitive and has many short-comings including lack of mobility. Why should it be nerfed?
Nerf the loyal 32!
At the same time, any significant changes to Imperium armies immediately make Eldar the best at everything and they will sweep the whole meta.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 11:14:48
Ishagu wrote: Soup in't even the problem. It's specifically the combination of Guard in conjunction with CP hungry, expensive units.
I run a Castellan as part of a thematic AdMech army alongside Cawl. The list is not as competitive and has many short-comings including lack of mobility. Why should it be nerfed?
Nerf the loyal 32!
At the same time, any significant changes to Imperium armies immediately make Eldar the best at everything and they will sweep the whole meta.
Wait, so soup isn't the problem but if we nerf the Castellan and the loyal 32 then Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate. So soup is still the issue if we nerf elements of it rather than dealing with the problem as a whole.
It's entirely possible, and given recent results extremely likely, that both parts of the equation are problematic and need fixing: soup is fundamentally unbalanced in its current form and some units are undercosted. I don't know why people act like it has to be one or the other.
Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate
Much like the Castellan relying on IG to be dominant the Eldar rely on Ynnari to be dominant. So fixing Ynnari would probably fix the Eldar soup. The Eldar in top 20 of LVO were all Ynnari except for one Drukhari in 12th if I recall correctly. Tells me that Ynnari is problematic(because of shoot twice I presume) and not necessarily other Aeldari soups.
Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate
Much like the Castellan relying on IG to be dominant the Eldar rely on Ynnari to be dominant. So fixing Ynnari would probably fix the Eldar soup. The Eldar in top 20 of LVO were all Ynnari except for one Drukhari in 12th if I recall correctly. Tells me that Ynnari is problematic(because of shoot twice I presume) and not necessarily other Aeldari soups.
Wrong. Dark Eldar and Harlequin combo can destroy anything without any support from Ynnari
Eldar (the other dominant soup list) will dominate
Much like the Castellan relying on IG to be dominant the Eldar rely on Ynnari to be dominant. So fixing Ynnari would probably fix the Eldar soup. The Eldar in top 20 of LVO were all Ynnari except for one Drukhari in 12th if I recall correctly. Tells me that Ynnari is problematic(because of shoot twice I presume) and not necessarily other Aeldari soups.
Wrong. Dark Eldar and Harlequin combo can destroy anything without any support from Ynnari
You forgot the friendly neighbourhood Farseer casually jetbiking along solo.
Honestly, from an outside/non-tournament perspective, this whole argument seems a smidge overblown.
The insistence that Soup is Liek The Most Borken Thing Evar because it leads to the same handful of lists dominating the top spots at competitive events kinda falls apart when you recognise that's been the state of affairs for 40K since people started holding competitive 40K events. With each edition the selection of lists change, and the reason why they're "OP" changes, but there are always a selection of top lists that dominate tournaments, and they usually involve the Imperium and Eldar more than other factions.
Maybe the time has come to consider that it's not Soup that's the problem, or CP, or deathstars, or formation abuse - the problem is 40K as a system, no matter what incarnation it's presently in, is fundamentally unsuited to being a cutthroat, hardcore, Chess Grandmaster Smartdude-favoured tournament experience? Maybe at some stage, you guys have to look down at the crushed, splintered remnants of that big ol' square peg and reflect that it's time to stop trying to bash it through the round hole? Just a thought...
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Ok, but pre castellan the problem was eldar soup. Anytime an army pops up that is really super efficient it is a soup list, unless we go way back to the begining of 8th and enter the no codex times, and then the only army with a codex and a primarch can be played mono and it is the ultramarines.
To me this is a clear sign that the ability to soup two or three armies, seems to kind of a break the game. Specially when compared with what mono armies could do.
Among fixs other people have listed, how about limiting some stratagems use to only mono lists? So lets say a IG+BA soup could have an reliced up smash captin, but he wouldn't be able to wings. The castellan would be as tough as it is not, but he would not be able to rotate shields for a +3inv. I am not saying this would fix w40k, but it seems like at least a interesting change that would neither kill soup, nor nerf mono lists in to the ground.
I mean we can tall all we want about how castellans being bad for the game, I don't like their efficiency either, but if it wasn't for them we would be living in an eldar dominated world as prior tournaments have shown. Non of the post knights codex impacted the meta enough to change that. Maybe post orcs would just see eldar go from having some playing with 3-4 flyers to all playing with 5+.
Maybe the time has come to consider that it's not Soup that's the problem, or CP, or deathstars, or formation abuse - the problem is 40K as a system, no matter what incarnation it's presently in, is fundamentally unsuited to being a cutthroat, hardcore, Chess Grandmaster Smartdude-favoured tournament experience? Maybe at some stage, you guys have to look down at the crushed, splintered remnants of that big ol' square peg and reflect that it's time to stop trying to bash it through the round hole? Just a thought...
Do you really think that outside of tournaments IG+castellan or eldar are not a meta warping problem, or that bad armies suddenly become magically valid, just because it is not the top table of LVO ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 12:06:10
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Ishagu wrote: I do think people have forgotten just how bad things were not so long ago...
I don't know how bad things were. They must have been horrible, because I can't imagine my army being worse then it is right now. To be honest I don't understand how this is an argument though. Ton of people did not play in prior editions, for the game is what it is right now and not what was 4-5 years ago. I mean technicly we could say w40k is great, because 400 years ago 3/5 of us would be dead before reaching the age of 10 and out of those that survived maybe 1 in a 100 would be rich enough to have any form of hobby.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
In 7th edition there were armies that could NEVER win against certain opponents.
There we units that were mathematically invincible, You could fire 1500 las cannons at something and not kill it.
There were other armies that you couldn't interact with it all. You could move terrain with psychic powers along with the units on the terrain, join characters to units to create crazy combinations. Armies like Dark Eldar, Orks, Guard were just punching bags that were destroyed in less time than it took you to deploy. Other armies got free units or wargear, so the 2k game has one guy put down 3k and call it a "fair game"
Vehicles were all un-usable. Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures were everywhere and could delete models without the opponent rolling dice.
This was only just over 2 years ago
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/02/13 12:23:06
combatcotton wrote: Tournament players like the best units whatever that happens to be.
Right, so why then did tournaments that prohibit superheavies not "catch on" or "get traction" as Slayer-Fan & HoundsofDemos pointed out? Also, did Frontling Gaming in particular ever try it? They seem to be the biggest deal in terms of tournaments and certainly the one which is the subject of this heated debate.
It's for the same reason tournaments banning FW since 5th or specific Codex entries doesn't catch on.
Telling people you have a tournament but aren't allowed to use your models is stupid and keeps people from entering the hobby more fully.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
Knights aren't getting 12CPs. Even 9 is a bit of a stretch. A 5-knight list, which is about the best mono-knight list you can make, gets 6CP. Compare the power of the mono list to what a soup with a single Castellan gets and the problem of soup should be obvious.
In a mono list you get:
Enough CPs to RIS twice on your Castellan, asuming you use no other CPs for any other reason
You do get the benefits of any skew list
You also get the disadvantages of the same. For example, your Castellan is targetted so you RIS. Not only do you lose half your CPs but your opponent can now switch targets and kill the relatively unprotected other knights
Poor board control
While your weapons are powerful they are extremely limited - you tend to have around 15-20 weapons total so you don't always have the best weapon for the job
Take the same Castellan in a soup list:
Enough CPs to juice up the knight with pre-battle bonuses and RIS 2-3 times while still having enough CPs left to use whatver stratagems the rest of your army needs
Only one knight can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. You're guaranteed to be able to protect it fully if it's shot at
Greater flexibility due to a variety of unit types
Brilliant board control
So we have 2 different scenarios and 2 completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the Castellan may be too cheap, but it should be obvious soup is a huge problem because of how it messes with the assumptions you need to make in order to balance a unit properly.
9CP isn't a stretch for Knights as I have seen it done.
I also did see a post outlining how a Knight list could get 9+3 CP. I'm going to try and find it.
Also of we already KNOW the unit is too cheap JUST like with Infantry, why are we blaming allies? I already pointed out being able to bring several broken units in an army is the issue, not allying itself. If anything, it shows that RIS is an issue, is it not?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 12:29:16
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.
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.
I really feel a bit dumb having to do that, when everyone in this thread already told why it is like that, but here i go.
First assumption: A castellan in a soup will use more stratagems than one in a mono knight list. Reasoning:
1) A mono knight list is extremely short on CPs, and will hardly have more than 8-9. An imperium soup grants no less than 6 more CPs over that figure and adds CP regeneration to it.
2) In a mono knight list there are other knights who could be in need of using the same stratagems of the Castellan. Since a stratagem can be used only once per phase, this means that the castellan could have to compete with other knights for them.
Second assumption: In both cases, the knight detachment is of the House Raven.
Thid assumption: In a mono knight list the Castellan is the warlord and has the Ion Bulward warlord trait and is given the Cawl's Wrath relic. In a soup list this is not true, and 2 CPs are spent to make it happen.
I will limit the model to 3 stratagems only, Rotate Ion Shields, Machine spirit resurgent, Order of Companions.
The effects of those are as follows:
Rotate ion shields: Increases the save of the castellan to 3++ for one shooting phase. This means that the durability is increased by (1/2)/(1/3)-1= 50% against ranged weapons with an AP value of at least 1.
Machine spirit resurgent: The castellan can use the top bracket of the wound chart. This in mathemathical terms means that he goes from 22,16 full power equivalent wounds to 28, an increase of 26%.
Order of companions: Allows the castellan to reroll all results of 1. After a bit of math you can see that this translates to:
+69% damage from Cawl's wrath
+36% damage from Shieldbreaker missiles
+85% damage from Siegrebreaker cannons
+79% damage from Volcano Lance
From this you can see that having more stratagems translates to it being mathematically superior to a version which has no access to it
After 1 use of each, the Castellan in a mono knight list will become a knight without stratagems.
A knight in a soup list will get to use each of those stratagems twice before running short on CPs.
Now, i'm not going to delve in the fact that the souped one has screens, objective grabbers and stuff like that. Too hard to math out, so i will leave it out.
I'm also going to say that the rest of the list is equivalent in effectiveness in both cases. The only difference is that one generates more CP.
Direct question. Given equal point cost of the model, and after seeing the numbers generated by those stratagems, would you pick the model which can use the stratagems only once, or the one who can use those twice?
Mathematically speaking, there is only one possible answer.
Now, after wasting a lot of time on this, let's contribute something useful to the thread.
Look at these number and ask yourself. Why Chaos doesn't play the renegade version?
Oh and don't forget that Cawl's wrath increases the damage of the plasma decimator by 50-100%, depending on target.
The castellan model stat wise is fine. What you are fighting on the field is something buffed by over 150%.
The fix here is not on the point cost of the model. Restrict CP, nerf Cawls wrath and Ion bulwark. Leave it a the current point cost.
You haven't wasted time on this at all.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
Aaand that's what i call a fix to soup.
Not the one i would like, but definitely a fix to soup.
Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
Additionally by that logic everything in th3 came can't be a problem as it was intentionally writen into the game by GW. Oh wait they FAQ and CA the heck out of the stuff they wrote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 13:00:37
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
Invisibility was OP because the effect was too strong for the cost (there were no modifiers in 7TH) and you could cast it on EVERYTHING, something that is literally absent in the case of 8TH with the Keyword system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/13 13:05:27
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 8TH that the only thing you share is specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Some armies can't take allies, so saying that it's a "self imposed limitation" is a fabrication. Many armies are very underpowered and fail to compete. By your logic, is this also intended by the game designers, and was done on purpose?
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 8TH that the only thing you share is specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Some armies can't take allies, so saying that it's a "self imposed limitation" is a fabrication. Many armies are very underpowered and fail to compete. By your logic, is this also intended by the game designers, and was done on purpose?
There's a discrepancy between what Game Designers wanted and what the game actually is. Having some armies be gak tier is not something they purposefully wanted (and they should receive a buff or rework in that case), but "Soup" (Stop using this term for feths sake) is 100% intentional and there is no problem in having a "Soup" army be strong than a Monocodex (that would only means that that Monocodex is broken as feth).
Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/13 13:09:54
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 8TH that the only thing you share is specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Some armies can't take allies, so saying that it's a "self imposed limitation" is a fabrication. Many armies are very underpowered and fail to compete. By your logic, is this also intended by the game designers, and was done on purpose?
There's a discrepancy between what Game Designers wanted and what the game actually is. Having some armies be gak tier is not something they purposefully wanted (and they should receive a buff or rework in that case), but "Soup" (Stop using this term for feths sake) is 100% intentional and there is no problem in having a "Soup" army be strong than a Monocodex (that would only means that that Monocodex is broken as feth).
Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one
Yeah, I use the term "allies" instead of "soup" since it better describes what's actually happening.
As far as your position goes, just to clarify, would you recommend make all of Chaos or all of the Imperium balanced as though they were a single faction? What about armies who don't have allies as options? If the game was designed with allies in mind, then what happens there? It's clear that a few Imperium, Eldar and Chaos factions and units would need some nerfs. Not to mention the command point system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
Invisibility was OP because the effect was too strong for the cost (there were no modifiers in 7TH) and you could cast it on EVERYTHING, something that is literally absent in the case of 8TH with the Keyword system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Right now soup or allies or whatever you want to call it is not fine because it is affected by non linear interactions.
The interaction between factions should be zero, that was the whole purpose of the keyword system. Then i would be 100% fine with it.
Would it matter at all if ITC adopted the Cities of Death terrain rules? Make it harder to just blow somebody off the board.
Also, the issue with soup is as people say it lets you ignore your faction weakness, which throws any sort of balance out the window. If a faction's weakness is, for example, lots of cheap troops that die easily but no heavy hitters and you can just "ally" in big heavy hitters from another faction, what is your drawback?
Each faction should have distinct strengths and weaknesses that help balance them; if some can ignore the weaknesses entirely, then it's unbalanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 13:28:08
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
That's like saying that invisibility was fine in 7th because the game was designed with psy powers from the ground up.
Soup is fine and we all (almost all) like it, but if it has unintended interactions then it should be refined.
Invisibility was OP because the effect was too strong for the cost (there were no modifiers in 7TH) and you could cast it on EVERYTHING, something that is literally absent in the case of 8TH with the Keyword system.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Soup is not a problem for the sole reason that the game was designed as a FACTION GAME from the ground up and Allies were INTENTIONALLY put there, not a mere afterthought
Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that balancing was done taking into consideration all of the interactions.
The interactions between armies are so limited compared to 7TH that the only things you actually share are specific buffs that affect a Faction (purposely intended by Game Designers) and CPs. Asking for nerfs because "mono armies" can't compete is a problem of self imposed limitations, not a game's fault
Right now soup or allies or whatever you want to call it is not fine because it is affected by non linear interactions.
The interaction between factions should be zero, that was the whole purpose of the keyword system. Then i would be 100% fine with it.
It's not up to you to decide if interactions between Factions are fine or not. For sure Game Designers think otherwise (Check IK/Custodes/Guilliman for buffs that affect IMPERIUM units) and I wholeheartedly agree with them
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Would it matter at all if ITC adopted the Cities of Death terrain rules? Make it harder to just blow somebody off the board.
Also, the issue with soup is as people say it lets you ignore your faction weakness, which throws any sort of balance out the window. If a faction's weakness is, for example, lots of cheap troops that die easily but no heavy hitters and you can just "ally" in big heavy hitters from another faction, what is your drawback?
Each faction should have distinct strengths and weaknesses that help balance them; if some can ignore the weaknesses entirely, then it's unbalanced.
But factions do generally heavy some distinct weaknesses and when that isn't happening (aka IMPERIUM), you should nerf the biggest offenders that ruin the factions balance
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 13:30:25
