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.

The biggest offender though IMHO is being able to do it in the first place.

The Castellan definitely needs a nerf. But the solution isn't to just nerf Guard into obscurity. Guard/Loyal 32 might be the main issue but it's enabled by soup being allowed to be as powerful as it is, and stratagems being so good (one of the worst design decisions they did IMHO; stratagems should have just been generic things, not faction specific as part of the faction identity/abilities)

I am the opinion that many of the old rules that became stratagems should go back to being rules for units, and other new stratagems should be treated that way as well. I wouldn’t be apposed to Scions always having Precision Drop, for example.

Loyal 32 (and variants thereon) are the central issue though when Souping.

They bring only CP to the party. That's it. And in a quantity those they're being donated to normally can't scrape up that easily.

Remove the ability to CP farm, and Soup starts to become less of a sure thing.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

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

Nuance. Almost all the top lists are using Ynnari except for a single Drukhari list that manages to squeeze in between 10-20.

Also, the strong Drukhari units are really strong. Strong enough to make up for the mediocre units that no one takes. Those units(like dissie ravagers) need to be toned down along with flyers. Harlequins are only strong because they are a good counter against the meta that is Castellan/IG.

I know people want to believe soup is the real problem, but if it were an all encompassing problem then we'd see so much more soup having trouble. Yet, considering the data, the trouble soup are more or less all similar.

Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one

IOW - feth T'au, feth Necrons, feth every faction that can't ally.

I would agree with you Mad doc but for the winning list of the LVO. It was a castellan (30%) with AM (the rest). So it was not loyal 32.

Also to those who say: "soup is here deal with it." Fine if you give a Xenos faction keyword. Right now the disparity in soup possibilities is obscene. Specifically OP eldar units /Ynnarri aside.

That topic is getting ridiculous, i have to agree with Marmatag, some fraction have better utilities than the others.
This LVO really proved Castellan is real issue, put it in IG, Admech, IK army and you are doing good. The frontline guys were totally right saying multiple times IG/ Castellan is the top dog and everyone should be prepared to beat it. In the end no one was able to do it, that is like knowing the enemy attack beforehand and still fail to stop it.
Some things i dislike in this topic:

1. Guard math whine - i give you math i have 2 squads and you have 1 squad, can you control more objective than me ?

2. Conscript and commissars are unplayable, well if the guard was 5 pts than we see more conscripts, that don`t hurt IG and increase the coast of the cheap CP generation on the other fraction.

3. Castellan can`t do anything without points, totally wrong, IK list can generate enough points to fuel him, but they don`t have the bodies to control objectives. Nerfing Castellan is good even for IK, cuz it will make the other knights more viable.

4. Eldar soup is top dog - from the 9 players in top 33 only 2 were not Ynnari. Ynnari are currently the reason eldar are on the top, any other combination is less competitive.
The non Ynnari list were using doom + skyweaver combo. With almost 10% of the players bringing knights, that combo is really good in the current metta.

5. Doom + skyweaver is game breaking, well in top 33 you had 2 players using this combo without Ynnari, we also had 2 orc players and 2 tau players. I guess we have to think about orc and tau nerfs ?

6. Whatever changes GW implement soup will be king. Well we had pure IG player on 11 place,2 orc players, necron on 20 and 24 or 25 place custode army, there was pure ultramarine army in the top 33, so that shows nerfs on strong units and combos and buff on certain units effect the metta.

7. Castellan is gatekeeper, well if you assume the gatekeeper should be in front, at and after the gate that is true.

Sadly i can`t see the BCP data in the moment, so its hard for me to find other interesting details.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one

IOW - feth T'au, feth Necrons, feth every faction that can't ally.

Blame the background, in 7TH everybody could ally with everybody and they were so powerful that allies were actually destroying their internal synergies and making the army 100% worse at EVERYTHING


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Earth127 wrote:
I would agree with you Mad doc but for the winning list of the LVO. It was a castellan (30%) with AM (the rest). So it was not loyal 32.

Also to those who say: "soup is here deal with it." Fine if you give a Xenos faction keyword. Right now the disparity in soup possibilities is obscene. Specifically OP eldar units /Ynnarri aside.

Give Orks the possibility of a single Imperium detachment allied (Mercenary Orks btw) and Expand T'au miniatures ranges with Kroot and more.
Only Necrons have no possibility of redemption considering their background

Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.

There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.

 Earth127 wrote:
Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.

There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.

Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could

 Earth127 wrote:
Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.

There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.

Actually, the requirement to be Battle-Forged is for Narrative too, it's just Open Play that allows everything. Although IIRC the whole "not Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/Tyranid" rule is Matched Play only. Which still doesn't help Tau/Orks/Necrons unless you play Open and come up with some wonky situation where they would ally (e.g. the much-maligned Necron+Blood Angel "Brofist") which in and of itself would be a very rare thing to even play a game with that sort of situation; it certainly wouldn't be the sort of thing you saw frequently.

And this is a moot point anyway since Matched Play is the default 99% of the time.

It is incredibly ignorant to say "allies are here deal with it". It's a problem, it should be addressed. The blame is mostly, as usual, on GW for not having it consistent and pushing stratagems as big combos which encourage using soup to power them, and partially the inability to balance superheavies while continuing to push them as part of a normal game rather than relegate them to Apocalypse style games where balance is already largely thrown out the window and it's more about the spectacle of huge armies and gigantic war machines than actually wanting an interesting game.

Guard may be the ones who benefit the most but it's not a case of just nerf Guard and the problem goes away. And IMHO it's foolish to go down the path of well, if you keep nerfing one thing and then the next thing and then the next, eventually you'll get parity because the timelines for that is completely unrealistic. The issues should be fixed in one go, not spread out over time so that there are gaps where OP things run rampant over everything because one problem was fixed and the competitive crowd just moved on to the next best thing until thta also gets nerfed, repeat ad infinitum.

KurtAngle2 771292 10345525 wrote:
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

Soup with IG and castellan is much better then both and IG and a castellan run mono. Saying there is no intreaction, is odd. The whole army is better then everything else, because of interactions. Knights get the objective campers, CP, protection from assaults they would never have if run as a mono list.

Look how the final game went down. The flyers dominated the castellan, but because the soup imperial killed everything non flyer the IG could take the board and the flyers,as superior models as they maybe, just couldn't win. On top of everything IG are so cheap, that unlike other factions that may try to squeez in a castellan, the IG still have enough spare point to buy an actual IG army, or even a third ally detachment.

nerfing IG or castellans will just create a meta shift. Maybe eldar will rule all, maybe orcs jump in to second place. But them game over all will stay the same. The problem is soup, specific builds or units are a bonus not the root of the problem. There were no mono IG or mono knights taking high placments in LVO, and they never will be because both armies as good as they maybe just can't compet with an Inari or eldar soup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.

There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.

Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could

As if GW never changed the fluff just to sell more models.

As if GW never changed the fluff just to sell more models.

Necrons with slamguiniusses!!!!!!!

Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could

Necrons aren't mindless killing robots anymore

Necrons enslave humans

Allies!

Karol wrote:

KurtAngle2 771292 10345525 wrote:
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

Soup with IG and castellan is much better then both and IG and a castellan run mono. Saying there is no intreaction, is odd. The whole army is better then everything else, because of interactions. Knights get the objective campers, CP, protection from assaults they would never have if run as a mono list.

Look how the final game went down. The flyers dominated the castellan, but because the soup imperial killed everything non flyer the IG could take the board and the flyers,as superior models as they maybe, just couldn't win. On top of everything IG are so cheap, that unlike other factions that may try to squeez in a castellan, the IG still have enough spare point to buy an actual IG army, or even a third ally detachment.

nerfing IG or castellans will just create a meta shift. Maybe eldar will rule all, maybe orcs jump in to second place. But them game over all will stay the same. The problem is soup, specific builds or units are a bonus not the root of the problem. There were no mono IG or mono knights taking high placments in LVO, and they never will be because both armies as good as they maybe just can't compet with an Inari or eldar soup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Background is a meaningless term in this discussion.

There is a game mode called narrative where hilariously everything you suggest is possible since the requirement to share 1 faction keyword across all armies is A MATCHED PLAY ONLY rule.

Except for the fact that I'm discussing the reasons why Necrons won't have allies ever: there isn't any part of the background that allows them to have some sort of "Allies" like T'au and Orks could

As if GW never changed the fluff just to sell more models.

You weren't playing in 7TH then, where the interactions were so unlimited and strong that everybody made sure to include few specific things to have THAT thing (Daemon Summoning, Invisibility, etc)

TBF 7th was completely nuts, from summoning greater Tzeentch daemons as eldar to formations that gave you 400-5'00 pts advantage, etc.

I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was horrible.

Edited - BrookM

True enough. I think the implementation of allies as a whole has just been a mess. The command point system in particular is really telling. Even if every army had the same number of command points, armies that took allies would have more stratagems available to use than armies that played mono book.

I was playing in 7th, I think on the xenos side the more hilarious one was Taudar in early 6th; Summoning was a different mess.

I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.

All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Playing MonoCodex in a game of Factions is YOUR PROBLEM, not Soup's one

IOW - feth T'au, feth Necrons, feth every faction that can't ally.

Blame the background, in 7TH everybody could ally with everybody and they were so powerful that allies were actually destroying their internal synergies and making the army 100% worse at EVERYTHING


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Earth127 wrote:
I would agree with you Mad doc but for the winning list of the LVO. It was a castellan (30%) with AM (the rest). So it was not loyal 32.

Also to those who say: "soup is here deal with it." Fine if you give a Xenos faction keyword. Right now the disparity in soup possibilities is obscene. Specifically OP eldar units /Ynnarri aside.

Give Orks the possibility of a single Imperium detachment allied (Mercenary Orks btw) and Expand T'au miniatures ranges with Kroot and more.
Only Necrons have no possibility of redemption considering their background

And in 7th the only real offenders for allies were Wolfstar and Centurionstar. That's why we have the aforementioned units paying for their sins this edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.

All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.

So we need to fix Grey Knights and cost other units appropriately.

How is that a problem with allies? Banning allies doesn't fix Grey Knights whatsoever, nor does it stop Infantry from being the mathematically superior troop.

Karol wrote:
I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.

All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.

The meta has been stale for a while now. The top 2 armies (being Ynarri and IG+Knights+other) have been sitting in the top for several months now. Now, we might see some changes in the FAQ in April (which would still be another 2 month of the same meta), but GW really should have been making some effort to change the game state when they detected the problems (if they even wanted to fix it to begin with).

Darsath wrote:

The meta has been stale for a while now. The top 2 armies (being Ynarri and IG+Knights+other) have been sitting in the top for several months now. Now, we might see some changes in the FAQ in April (which would still be another 2 month of the same meta), but GW really should have been making some effort to change the game state when they detected the problems (if they even wanted to fix it to begin with).

Well, the timing of when those codexes came out placed them out of the CA window. The FAQ did tag them, but it wasn't enough. Small and slow fixes are best, regardless. We'll see what GW has to offer in March.

Darsath wrote:

Karol wrote:
I havent, but I don't understand that type of argument. Just because GW did worse stuff in the past doesn't mean we have to accept bad stuff now, It is not 7th ed, it is 8th, soup is clearly a problem. It is even a problem if you play soup, because they are not created equal. You think If I added a castellan to GK they would suddenly become playable ? they wouldn't, specially if I were to play vs other soups. It would only be good as a carry vs non soup lists which are bad, which brings us back to the argument that GW did not think through the interactions between units and armies in 8th ed. No idea if this was tested and then ignored or if it was the plan all along. Who knows maybe 8th is the edition that is suppose to make you hate your own faction, jump to eldar or IG+castellan soup, so in 9th GW can reset the whole thing and remove all the old armies, and make everyone buy a new one.

All I do know is that both Inari and IG+castellan are two things that are warping the way armies are being bought. And if people don't buy armies the enviroment gets stale and boring really fast. People with good armies don't want changes, because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. While everyone else gets the get gud treatment, followed by a good army next time. And that sucks, if someone likes to play SW or necron, they should be able to play with those armies. It is not like GW discounts the bad armies or their books.

The meta has been stale for a while now. The top 2 armies (being Ynarri and IG+Knights+other) have been sitting in the top for several months now. Now, we might see some changes in the FAQ in April (which would still be another 2 month of the same meta), but GW really should have been making some effort to change the game state when they detected the problems (if they even wanted to fix it to begin with).

I kind of disagree, the only think that did`t really change is IG/IK, now we have high placed orcs, tao, necron and 2 mono imperium armies, number 10 is bringing SM list, eldar list are more diverse than ever, the usual dark reapers/spears combo is not in every list and did not do better than other Ynnari builds. So the game is moving slowly in other direction, genestealers will probably have some effect on the game, like Nids last year. Sadly no Ynnari codex annoyance.

Kdash wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:


This is at 24" on planet bowling ball?

I'm considerably aware of terrain - the tournament results for marines at LVO might help us sort the rest of the equation.

Not being snarky, just verifying that your math didn't take terrain into account.

It accounts for cover.

Please forgive me for being late to the comparison party here! But could I make a request, if you still have the numbers available?

What do the numbers look like when using Intercessors over normal marines? Would work out at 22 Intercessors and a Captain + Lieutenant with Master Crafted boltguns for 514 points. (512 if you use Storm Bolters instead)

The numbers for the Guardsmen vs MEQ are easy enough to work out, as you just half the results (to indicate how many models are removed), but I’m curious as to how close the results get using Primaris.

Sure thing.

Note: In doing this I realized I only did one squad worth of attacks for the IG against regular marines. Here is the corrected math for that section:



Anyway...Intercessors

23.3 points per model. Assuming an AGL in each unit. Four of them is 93 points compared to 10 of the fictional 9 point IG.

Shooting

One squad of IG shooting @ 24" w/ FRFSRF

18 * .583 * .333 * .333 = 1.2 // v MEQ x ~2 for 12"
18 * .583 * .5 * .666 = 3.5 // v GEQ x ~2 for 12"

Intercessors

3 * .777 * .583 * .5 = 0.7 // v MEQ x 2 for 15" or standing still
1 * .777 * .777 * .5 = 0.3
-- 1 total or 1.7 double tap

or

4 * .777 * .583 * .5 = 0.9 // v 1.8 w/ double tap




3 * .777 * .777 * .833 = 1.5 // v GEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
3.5 * .777 * .583 * .666 = 1.1 // v GEQ w/ AGL
-- 2.6 total or 4.1 with double tap

or

4 * .777 * .777 * .833 = 2 // 4 with double tap

Melee

One squad 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 .

Intercessors

9 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.4 // v MEQ
9 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 3.6 // v GEQ

Durability

IG (same as before)

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

Intercessor

1 * .333 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 1.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 23.3 / 2 = 0.6 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover

1 * .5 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 23.3 / 2 = 1 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover

1 * .666 * .5 * 23.3 / 2 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 23.3 / 2 = 2.6 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover

(these increased over normie marines considerably)
1 * .666 * .833 * 23.3 = 12.9 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 23.3 = 10.3 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover

Conclusion

-- Shooting
Intercessors have a strong advantage with 30" guns to be able to stay put and get shots without compromising too much on location. It seems, because of the bolter rule the AGL is no longer a significant edge unless you need a krak for something tougher. Intercessors are still worse when forced to move or when IS have you in 12", but they should be at full effect far earlier, so I think this is a wash or the edge goes to Intercessors.

-- Melee
No one can really compete with IG here.

--Durability
Two wounds really shines and Intercessors are about twice as durable...except when D2 weapons come in and then they're half as durable.

So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?

I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.

This is why I say the math is garbage.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?

I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.

This is why I say the math is garbage.

He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.

What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.

Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.

Spoletta wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?

I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.

This is why I say the math is garbage.

He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.

Him including the cost of the character in the calculation wasn't my point. It's that he just throws "points v points" into things. Geegollywillickers, the army that has cheaper infantry can throw more infantry at you!

Who knew! What a shock!

What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.

Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.

And another reason I loathe the math. Running the numbers is great and all but if you consistently are adding variables without expressing them?

It's an issue.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?

I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.

This is why I say the math is garbage.

If you wanna add his cost in there, sure. Remember you get the shot on a 3+ at best when using a Relic slot. Then go ahead and add an equivalent number of points to Imperial Guard for appropriate calculations.

Daedalus's math is the best one that i have seen until now provided on this subject.

At least he is not trying to pit one infantry against the other and see who wins, but is checking the behaviour against multiple situations.

Results obtained like this have some merit for discussion. I don't agree 100% with the model used, but at least it IS a model.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Loyal 32 (and variants thereon) are the central issue though when Souping.

They bring only CP to the party. That's it. And in a quantity those they're being donated to normally can't scrape up that easily.

Remove the ability to CP farm, and Soup starts to become less of a sure thing.

The soup meta feels like it has moved on a bit from just CP farming.

Aeldari/Ynnari are not really souping up for CP farming so much as to stack all the buffs including psychic powers.

The Castellan lists I saw towards the top of the LVO were moving away from the Loyal 32 and tended to have a lot more AM in there than the bare minimum.

CP generation is part of what is happening here but some of it is wombo-combo building and some plain old pick-the-best.

The winning AM list looks much like a classic AM list but replaces the heavy artillery element with a Castellan because the knight is just outright better than equal points of AM big guns that would fill the same role. Honestly I rather like that winning list other than the fact that it has too many under-costed things so there is just too much of it on the table for most opponents to feasibly deal with. If everything in that list were costed right the general approach of the list would be just fine and because it would not be stupidly good we would not have the boredom issue of meeting essentially the same thing so many times in a tournament.


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.

Cities of Death rules rather than the ITC rules would definitely shift things around a bit - the whole terrain vs shooting thing would become a lot less binary and a lot more interactive. That would be really bad for Dark Reapers for example which are currently immune to any shooting weapon which requires LOS so long as the CP don't run out.

But honestly just create a tournament level reward for non-allied armies. Change the dumb ITC faction rules so that you actually have to play the faction to count as that faction, none of this "680 points of GK so I am running a GK army" stuff. Then have good enough prizes at the faction level that everyone has a decent prize to be playing for. That leaves the allies players all competing for just one prize and the rest of the goodies all up for grabs by the non-allied armies. I knowingly took an army to my last big tournament that risked running into an unwinnable scenario (which did indeed happen) but I was aiming for best of faction and I knew that if shooting was crippled in one scenario then the other T'au players would be just as crippled as me. So I lost that game but I got best in faction anyway, which was my aim all along.

Rewarding each faction for being itself will promote variety of lists in a tournament more than "fixing soup" which will just switch from the current 2 or 3 dominant list archetypes to a new and different 2 or 3 dominant list archetypes. Unless you have an aesthetic dislike of allies lists i think the objective is to make for more varied interesting tournaments in which more players have something worthwhile to play for - right??