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 lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.

Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".

And here is where your lore argument is wrong:

There are regiments that work very well in tandem with each other and then there are the "macabian Jannisaries, DKoKs that are rarely liked by other regiments, However most of those mixed Guard regiments get an overarching General Staff with CLEAR hierarchy.


But i do agree a mono IG force would not care about 6+- CP since on what would you spend it really.

Lag post

I think, inherently, you can't have true balance from the moment you begin to add character/flavour. Chess is a great example of a balanced game (as close as you could possibly be), yet each player has to have the same pieces to play the game. You can't pick and choose pieces, you can't upgrade their ranges etc, everything is exactly the same so true balance is never going to be available when you start allowing the picking and choosing of units, abilities etc.

Soup in its present incarnation is a bit overstated as being this huge game breaking issue. It's the most competitive way to play and if you don't like that, it's just kind of tough. Sometimes in reality there's a new way to do something that comes on the block that surpasses the old way. There's no point in the fluff, logic, reason or rhym to say that soup is wrong other than an aversion to change or a preferred way as to how things have been or are in other games. Armies can be played mono and they may do well, that's fine but, naturally, if you want to be the best you can be, you'll call upon your allies to help plug short comings.

I'm a huge soup fan. I think it's great and fits the fluff more than it doesn't. Could there be changes to it? Absolutely. Despite being a fan I do think there are some things that would need changing.

- Stratagems are only usable by the warlord's detachment with the exception of the core rule book ones.
- Better balance at that meta soup level but, as someone rightly pointed out earlier in this discussion, that comes down to seeing where the imbalances are - castellans are part of almost every imperium list whilst the Eldar can bring a variety. Ergo, imperium needs a better balance as a whole against the Eldar. Similarly with Chaos.
- Non Soup lists do need a bonus of some kind. Personal suggestion being that remove the blanket 3CP everyone gets, this applies to non soup lists only.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?

You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?

Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.

Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --

12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without

(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage

This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.

The easiest way to "fix" soup it to rejig the way CPs are generated. There are several ways this could be done, but I personally think it needs to involve lowering the detachment generated CPs, and increasing Battle-Forged CP.
Maybe even doubling CPs for detachments that share 2+ keyword with your WL to encourage taking more of the same faction without completely nerfing Allies

How I would do this is to take Battalions/Brigades back down to 3/9CPs as they were when 8E came out than do just ONE of the following:
A) Any detachment that shares 2+ keyword with your WL (or rather 1+ non-Battle Brother keyword) gains double the CP bonus. So the "Loyal 32" would only give 3CPs, unless you have a Guard WL, or
B) Just bump Battle Forged to 5-6CPs, or
C) Battle Forge stays are 3CP, but generates those at the beginning of each Battle Round as long as your WL is alive.

Any of those would significantly change the appeal of Soup list, either by reducing the benefit of taking Allies, or increasing the benefits of taking the same faction.
Some of those options would still benefit from Allies, but not to the extreme extent as now. The disparity would be much lower

-

Ice_can wrote:

Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.

But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.

Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.

What sort of situation are we encountering where we have multiple different Regiments in a single detachment? Attempting to do that now already results in regimental Doctrine bonuses being turned off.

 Galef wrote:
The easiest way to "fix" soup it to rejig the way CPs are generated. There are several ways this could be done, but I personally think it needs to involve lowering the detachment generated CPs, and increasing Battle-Forged CP.
Maybe even doubling CPs for detachments that share 2+ keyword with your WL to encourage taking more of the same faction without completely nerfing Allies

How I would do this is to take Battalions/Brigades back down to 3/9CPs as they were when 8E came out than do just ONE of the following:
A) Any detachment that shares 2+ keyword with your WL (or rather 1+ non-Battle Brother keyword) gains double the CP bonus. So the "Loyal 32" would only give 3CPs, unless you have a Guard WL, or
B) Just bump Battle Forged to 5-6CPs, or
C) Battle Forge stays are 3CP, but generates those at the beginning of each Battle Round as long as your WL is alive.

Any of those would significantly change the appeal of Soup list, either by reducing the benefit of taking Allies, or increasing the benefits of taking the same faction.
Some of those options would still benefit from Allies, but not to the extreme extent as now. The disparity would be much lower

-

I would go with B as it's more level and doesn't reward trying to tripple battalion as much for some armies, which would make them seriously unfun to play with or against. Also A wouldn't stop the current AM/Castellan list, it might actually help it as 18 CP for the guard brigade alone is broken.

Or...

D) Implement rules within the books that need it to help them out.

Stuff like the Drukhari getting bonus CPs from Patrols was a good start--it's a shame that tournaments screw that up thanks to limiting numbers of Detachments.

this could "fix" the 32 problem. I don't think it would change IG armies taking a castellan though. He is just a more efficient shadowsword, even with less CP.

Don't think it would "fix" the eldar soup problem either. Those aren't about generating CP, but more about overlaping rules. Using vect one less time in an Inari list, will dimish its power, but not by that much.

Yeah, Aeldari Soup just needs the change suggested earlier for <Craftworld> to apply to the psyker bits.

Semper wrote:
I think, inherently, you can't have true balance from the moment you begin to add character/flavour. Chess is a great example of a balanced game (as close as you could possibly be), yet each player has to have the same pieces to play the game. You can't pick and choose pieces, you can't upgrade their ranges etc, everything is exactly the same so true balance is never going to be available when you start allowing the picking and choosing of units, abilities etc.

Soup in its present incarnation is a bit overstated as being this huge game breaking issue. It's the most competitive way to play and if you don't like that, it's just kind of tough. Sometimes in reality there's a new way to do something that comes on the block that surpasses the old way. There's no point in the fluff, logic, reason or rhym to say that soup is wrong other than an aversion to change or a preferred way as to how things have been or are in other games. Armies can be played mono and they may do well, that's fine but, naturally, if you want to be the best you can be, you'll call upon your allies to help plug short comings.

I'm a huge soup fan. I think it's great and fits the fluff more than it doesn't. Could there be changes to it? Absolutely. Despite being a fan I do think there are some things that would need changing.

- Stratagems are only usable by the warlord's detachment with the exception of the core rule book ones.
- Better balance at that meta soup level but, as someone rightly pointed out earlier in this discussion, that comes down to seeing where the imbalances are - castellans are part of almost every imperium list whilst the Eldar can bring a variety. Ergo, imperium needs a better balance as a whole against the Eldar. Similarly with Chaos.
- Non Soup lists do need a bonus of some kind. Personal suggestion being that remove the blanket 3CP everyone gets, this applies to non soup lists only.

You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.

Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".

And here is where your lore argument is wrong:

There are regiments that work very well in tandem with each other and then there are the "macabian Jannisaries, DKoKs that are rarely liked by other regiments, However most of those mixed Guard regiments get an overarching General Staff with CLEAR hierarchy.


But i do agree a mono IG force would not care about 6+- CP since on what would you spend it really.

Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.

Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, Aeldari Soup just needs the change suggested earlier for <Craftworld> to apply to the psyker bits.

To be fair, the 2 biggest offenders for Aeldari soup is Ynnari, which desperately needs and overhaul, and Doom, which can easily be Erratta'd to only affect <Asuryani> units

-

Breng77 771292 10346922 wrote:

You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.

To me trying to balance soup factions vs non soup factions seems illogical. There is no way GW can make all the mono factions balanced against each other and balanced as soup. Oddly enough if one looks at how mono factions perform vs each other, IG vs eldar or IG vs Knights doesn't seem too one sided. The bad factions stay bad vs everything. But the real problem come when a good area denying army mixed up with some great fire power, or a good shoting or melee unit gets boosted in to the sky by a combo of doom, or a ton of CP. For balance it would be better if soup was a thing in narrative and open games only.

Of course GW won't do that, because most armies bought are matched play. So in the end it is probably best to save up money buy a good army just post a CA or big FAQ and get a few good months of playing, anything else seems foolish or hope based that suddenly GW makes the army you have top tier.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.

Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.

There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.

I remain adamant in me naming it that way, since the Rule bloat growth rate, Formations ,etc have had a eerily similar way of behaviour to a tumor and was unhealthy for the game.

Also "was" not you would get.
The only way i can see you actually get it would be if you drank all paint pots and worked on resin, made lines out off the dust and took that line down.

5th was good, 6 th showed the bloat rate and 7th was in that case the absolute endpoint.

Also as someone that actually has to regulary get tumors cut out of himself i could care less about your sentiment about it.

If you're not going to listen to me, can I suggest you listen to the mod who posted in big red text just after me?

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.

Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.

There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.

I remain adamant in me naming it that way, since the Rule bloat growth rate, Formations ,etc have had a eerily similar way of behaviour to a tumor and was unhealthy for the game.

Also "was" not you would get.
The only way i can see you actually get it would be if you drank all paint pots and worked on resin, made lines out off the dust and took that line down.

5th was good, 6 th showed the bloat rate and 7th was in that case the absolute endpoint.

Also as someone that actually has to regulary get tumors cut out of himself i could care less about your sentiment about it.

If you're not going to listen to me, can I suggest you listen to the mod who posted in big red text just after me?

analogy
/əˈnalədʒi/
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

Secondly i like how you tried to paint my point as telling something gives you "cupcakes" instead off actually seeing the analogy/ respectivly reading propperly , I would be the last one to wish it upon anyone, yet you still belittled me, painting me as a Simpleton with this:
"There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them"

Enough said.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?

You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?

Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.

Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --

12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without

(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage

This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.

My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.

Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?

You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?

Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.

Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --

12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without

(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage

This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.

My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.

Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them

Any types of troops? You just said they can't do Scions. Conscripts are dead, and no one uses them. That leaves Guardsmen. What "any types of troops they have" are you talking about?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?

You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?

Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.

Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --

12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without

(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage

This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.

My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.

Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them

Any types of troops? You just said they can't do Scions. Conscripts are dead, and no one uses them. That leaves Guardsmen. What "any types of troops they have" are you talking about?

Yet we saw them at LVO........


Also Conscripts and Guardsmen are the troops they have?
Which you will also field, sure you can't buff vehicles like certain other Charachters but imo the general better effects of the order imo make that a zero sum game no?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.

Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".

And here is where your lore argument is wrong:

There are regiments that work very well in tandem with each other and then there are the "macabian Jannisaries, DKoKs that are rarely liked by other regiments, However most of those mixed Guard regiments get an overarching General Staff with CLEAR hierarchy.


But i do agree a mono IG force would not care about 6+- CP since on what would you spend it really.

Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.

Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......

You keep saying that it's the units that are broken so where is thr tripple castellen list, if it's so broken?
Where is the 140 or 200 guardsmen lists?

Or will you admit that their is synergy between codex's that punishing mono codex's for though points costing will not rebalance.

If Castellan is so broken what was the highest Knight primary faction list placing again?

Does a Castellan or specifically cawls wrath need tweaking yes, doesn't mean just making a castellen 1k+ fixes balance like you keep suggesting.

Because your willingness to throw everything under the bus to preserve the lopsided allies rules is really poor show.

Spoletta wrote:


My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.

Right - which is why losing a single Catachan fully buffed is very much like losing a 9 point model. Bobby has the ability to get into melee, but how often does he or how often do lists he is in support that?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?

You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?

Well...yes and no. When my 9 point Catachan dies the IG player didn't actually lose 9 points - he lost 4 points and 5 points of potential. And, I think this is a really important concept that illuminates other issues. While the commanders are still on the field and able to potentially do "something" they are likely no longer giving out two orders and become redundant. Marine HQs are more present and useful, but only when they're being brought close for melee, which is not something you do if the squads they support are not kitted for it.

Take Bobby and 27 bikes. It makes those bikes 35 points and a lot of potential is lost when they die, because --

12 * .888 * .888 * .666 = 6.3 GEQ with Bobby
12 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 3.5 GEQ without

(35 - 21) / 21 = 66% more points
(6.3 - 3.5) / 3.5 = 80% more damage

This was a good investment paid for by the existence of RG. He is a combat monster worth about 200 points perhaps, but if you don't use that thoroughly then you transfer all that potential to the buffed units.

My point was that IG support elements are quite restricted in what they can support, so once you take out the supported units, the supports too are neutralized. Orders can target a quite restricted range of models, and only a couple of units really benefit from those. Same for priest and straken.
In SM the auras apply to everything. If GMan is no longer buffing those bikes, he can change position and buff a Dnaught, or a predator or whatever, because SM support elements are general purporse.

Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them

Any types of troops? You just said they can't do Scions. Conscripts are dead, and no one uses them. That leaves Guardsmen. What "any types of troops they have" are you talking about?

I guess that he meant Non-Auxiliary infantry. You can order guards, conscripts, heavy weapons teams and special weapon teams, but really only guards justify the cost of the order, except maybe and heavy weapon team with big weapons.

Compared to that, the SM HQs buff the entire codex. Now, we can discuss about the efficency of those units in the first place, but surely an HQ will always have someone to buff. If not then you got tabled.

Karol wrote:

Breng77 771292 10346922 wrote:

You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.

To me trying to balance soup factions vs non soup factions seems illogical. There is no way GW can make all the mono factions balanced against each other and balanced as soup. Oddly enough if one looks at how mono factions perform vs each other, IG vs eldar or IG vs Knights doesn't seem too one sided. The bad factions stay bad vs everything. But the real problem come when a good area denying army mixed up with some great fire power, or a good shoting or melee unit gets boosted in to the sky by a combo of doom, or a ton of CP. For balance it would be better if soup was a thing in narrative and open games only.

Of course GW won't do that, because most armies bought are matched play. So in the end it is probably best to save up money buy a good army just post a CA or big FAQ and get a few good months of playing, anything else seems foolish or hope based that suddenly GW makes the army you have top tier.

I don't think there is any need to get rid of soup... and let's be honest it never will because its a great way to encourage the sale of more models (like model x but not its whole faction just bolt it onto the one you like). But soup does need to be hindered right now soup
1. cherry pick the best units from different codexes
2. Cover built-in weaknesses of books by bolting on books without that weakness
3. Is not available to non super faction
4. Has way to many combinations for playtesting to ever fully address
They either need to give some major boost for mono faction build or a hindrance to souping. Leave soup in the game for sales and fluff but bring it down a peg so its not always the competitive choice

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Don't forget that, just this last edition, I was able to run Typhus and Ahriman in the SAME detachment with no consequences.

Nobody was complaining about lore there. Maybe it's because the units at hand weren't broken and people still want their broken Knights and Infantry......

Hrm, while true that you could run both in the same detachment, army construction and faction breakdowns and how that all worked was radically different than 8E with substantially less synergy stuff to worry about that supercharges lists today, and people would very much poke fun at these kinds of lists when people did run them for giggles, just as they have bemoaned Magnus/Morty lists, and some older editions had animosity rules.

As is, the biggest issue appears to be Castellans and Guardsmen together. While there are many arguments about these units, it is clear that in combination they are far more powerful than otherwise, and spammed on their own or used in conjunction with other forces they dominate in the same way.

Asmodios wrote:

I don't think there is any need to get rid of soup... and let's be honest it never will because its a great way to encourage the sale of more models (like model x but not its whole faction just bolt it onto the one you like). But soup does need to be hindered right now soup
1. cherry pick the best units from different codexes
2. Cover built-in weaknesses of books by bolting on books without that weakness
3. Is not available to non super faction
4. Has way to many combinations for playtesting to ever fully address
They either need to give some major boost for mono faction build or a hindrance to souping. Leave soup in the game for sales and fluff but bring it down a peg so its not always the competitive choice

^^^^

If we're gonna keep soup, we need to acknowledge it's issues and adjust accordingly.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them

Can you order a Chimera? Sentinel? Ratlings? Ogryns? Crusaders?
How about a Heavy Weapons Squad outside of 6"? Special Weapons Squad at the same distance?

There's a ton of things that can't receive Orders than you seem to be thinking--and not just in regards to the whole "Infantry can't Order vehicles" and "Vehicles can't Order infantry". There's also the issue of Voxcasters(a supposedly integral part of the army) being restricted to 5 units(Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Scion Squads, and both flavors of Command Squads) and that Tank Commanders literally can only "Order" one specific vehicle type.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them

Can you order a Chimera? Sentinel? Ratlings? Ogryns? Crusaders?
How about a Heavy Weapons Squad outside of 6"? Special Weapons Squad at the same distance?

There's a ton of things that can't receive Orders than you seem to be thinking--and not just in regards to the whole "Infantry can't Order vehicles" and "Vehicles can't Order infantry". There's also the issue of Voxcasters(a supposedly integral part of the army) being restricted to 5 units(Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Scion Squads, and both flavors of Command Squads) and that Tank Commanders literally can only "Order" one specific vehicle type.

I don't deny that, still feel that orders are overall equal to aura charachters.

"To be fair, the 2 biggest offenders for Aeldari soup is Ynnari, which desperately needs and overhaul, and Doom, which can easily be Erratta'd to only affect <Asuryani> units "

How does <Doom> rate so high in an army with:
-Word of the Phoenix
-Quicken
-Alaitoc Flyers/rangers/etc
-Disintigration Cannons
-SfD
etc.

How is <Doom> a top-5 Aeldari OP-problem?

It's like saying Guardsmen should be S2, because that'll fix them. Sure, it'll certainly nerf one of the problems (no more S4 guardsmen). But it's not one of the biggest problems.

Karol wrote:

Breng77 771292 10346922 wrote:

You are right to a point, however if Soup exists then the macro factions that can soup, must be balanced on that level against those factions that cannot. i.e. Imperium needs to be the same level of power as Orks or Tau, and its component parts are then weaker. I think this is a limiting view where less things are viable though, I would prefer a significant mono faction advantage (more than 3 extra CP) I always liked the idea of having levels of stratagems an traits that reward focused armies, maybe have stratagems be cheaper or more expensive, some be only allowed in mono-faction lists etc. make choices meaningful. Right now as you point out competitively there is no choice you soup if you want to win.

To me trying to balance soup factions vs non soup factions seems illogical. There is no way GW can make all the mono factions balanced against each other and balanced as soup. Oddly enough if one looks at how mono factions perform vs each other, IG vs eldar or IG vs Knights doesn't seem too one sided. The bad factions stay bad vs everything. But the real problem come when a good area denying army mixed up with some great fire power, or a good shoting or melee unit gets boosted in to the sky by a combo of doom, or a ton of CP. For balance it would be better if soup was a thing in narrative and open games only.

Of course GW won't do that, because most armies bought are matched play. So in the end it is probably best to save up money buy a good army just post a CA or big FAQ and get a few good months of playing, anything else seems foolish or hope based that suddenly GW makes the army you have top tier.

It is not illogical. If an army cannot soup, it needs to be able to compete with those that can. You present the other side which is do away with soup and balance all the mono-factions. TO me there are 3 ways to go about this.

1.) NO SOUP - all armies are designed to stand alone and balanced that way. Soup is not allowed in matched play.
2.) Balanced SOUP - All factions are balanced considering all their available allies, against other factions w/ available allies. Mono-faction armies that cannot take allies are stronger than mono-faction armies that can in order to compete with soup.
3.) Bonus/Penalty - Either a significant Bonus to playing a more restricted army, or a significant penalty to playing a soup army.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Are they? I mean a order can be given to any type of troops they have (excluding Scions) Granted conscripts half the time don't know what the order wasbut still.
It is more specific because of how many orders can be given out / commander that is true, whilest auras technically can influence as many units as you manage to squeze into them/ congaline them

Can you order a Chimera? Sentinel? Ratlings? Ogryns? Crusaders?
How about a Heavy Weapons Squad outside of 6"? Special Weapons Squad at the same distance?

There's a ton of things that can't receive Orders than you seem to be thinking--and not just in regards to the whole "Infantry can't Order vehicles" and "Vehicles can't Order infantry". There's also the issue of Voxcasters(a supposedly integral part of the army) being restricted to 5 units(Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Scion Squads, and both flavors of Command Squads) and that Tank Commanders literally can only "Order" one specific vehicle type.

I don't deny that, still feel that orders are overall equal to aura charachters.

They are and they aren't.

They provide a bit more "oomph" than most auras do, but they also are heavily restrictive when outside of specific circumstances.

People loooooooooove to talk about FRFSRF being broken, but they always also love to ignore that:
a) It's restricted to one weapon type(lasguns--normal and hotshot variety).
b) The squads that most benefit from it(Scions and Infantry/Veteran Squads) both are coming in from the outset with only 9/10 models able to benefit from the perk. That doesn't include any Heavy Weapons Teams in Veteran/Infantry Squads or Special Weapons in all three varieties of squads.
c) Orders lock out the unit from receiving a second Order, unless Laurels of Command are taken on one specific Officer and you roll a 4+, and it 'consumes' one of the Officer's Orders, again unless that one specific Officer happens to be your Warlord and you are playing Cadians.

It also continually ignores that Commanders are paying for a 5+ save with a basically nonexistent Invulnerable and a single Laspistol, plus Orders.

You want Commanders to be pricier? They damn well had better get better options.