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.
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......
I seem to remember some lore arguments against things like Wolfstar, or Beastpack star. That said the things that upset people the most were not based around allies for the most part, but rather around psychic powers. The issues with soup to me are not so much lore based as mechanical
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.
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.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
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.
Karol wrote: 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.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
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.
I did not say anything about prices, i was just questioning the line of them beeing "too restricted" which i feel for what they offer is not true.
that said, werever Carapace armour options went, probably in the same pocket dimension of Trollzyn as marks with actual effects, should get back.
but that is just personal preference.
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.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
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.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
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.
Bharring wrote: "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?
Let me clarify: by "offender" I don't mean "rule/ability that keeps showing up in top placing tables and making them win", I mean "rule that should not combine with other factions as it does right now" Quicken is a CWE power that affects CWE units, so not a Soup "offender" The same goes with Alaitoc Flyers & Rangers. Those are powerful units the CWE can take, yes, but my comment, as with this thread, was targeted specifically at Soup.
Word of the Phoenix & SfD are Ynnair issues, which I did indeed note as a main offender of Aeldari Soup. I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear that is was specific to Soup and not powerful Aeldari units in general
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/14 18:08:55
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
The units themselves though are broken by themselves, though. When a broken unit like a Castellan has mediocre screening, it can at least be easier to reach it.
When Infantry are as stupid good as they are, you gotta hope you'll reach the somewhat okay tanks that can still do damage that Guard has (though Tank Commanders have approached stupid. To me, at least).
So obviously when the internal + external issues like that happen, of course we can try and blame allies. However, when these units were ALREADY shown to be mathematically amazing, shouldn't that be handled anyway first?
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.
I did not say anything about prices, i was just questioning the line of them beeing "too restricted" which i feel for what they offer is not true.
that said, werever Carapace armour options went, probably in the same pocket dimension of Trollzyn as marks with actual effects, should get back.
but that is just personal preference.
Carapace Armor isn't the problem. It's that you're talking about a model which, once the units he buffs are dead is useless in both ranged and melee.
One of the things that Dawn of War did best was introducing the idea of the Commander rocking a sniper rifle, meltagun, or whatever. It was a unique piece of kit for a character to have and it made them feel like they contributed something while still also making them a "backline" character.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
I think we're just at a fundamental impasse then. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about Infantry Squads getting repriced and not making one damn bit of difference because the shift will just continue to be towards whatever the mathhammerers find is the most "cost effective" unit.
I really do feel like:
A) Changing Infantry Squads' composition to make them less attractive(REMOVE THE FRICKING MORTARS FROM THE INFANTRY SQUADS) would go a long way towards balancing things out a bit more. Right now, the biggest reason we see them taken is for the stupid Mortars and capping objectives out of LOS.
B) Changing the Command Point Generation system to grant less CPs with Guard Detachments when souped in(I've suggested this one multiple times--just call it Bureaucratic Infighting and be done with it)
C) Remaking Orders entirely, with a "layered" system of Army->Detachment->Squad(each "layer" having a different effect)
Those three major changes would retain Guard as a viable monoarmy, fix a problem unit without another points cockup that just outright kills them as an option(except in weird circumstances like that one unit of Conscripts for a Valhallan Detachment we saw at LVO), and address the issue of CP generation in Imperial factions.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
The units themselves though are broken by themselves, though. When a broken unit like a Castellan has mediocre screening, it can at least be easier to reach it.
When Infantry are as stupid good as they are, you gotta hope you'll reach the somewhat okay tanks that can still do damage that Guard has (though Tank Commanders have approached stupid. To me, at least).
So obviously when the internal + external issues like that happen, of course we can try and blame allies. However, when these units were ALREADY shown to be mathematically amazing, shouldn't that be handled anyway first?
Have you prove though that guardsmen are broken?
Because i often play mono guard, mainly because the R&H index can atm not really be called an index. I can't say they are bad, but broken?
No.
What is broken is the fact that the CP for Guard, which has, if restricted to guard stratagems, alot less value than many other codices, can be used on the Castellan.
Because the principle of CP scarcity for the Knights just goes out the window.
That is my personal experience.
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.
For what it's worth, I've been taking Lascannons in my allied Infantry squads when I use them. I go the Cadian or Vostroyan route so get a good amount of use from that. Mortars have amazing appeal though don't they?
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
And this seems to be why you and I keep having a disagreement.
Your argument seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to be setup around there being an "active" component to synergy as the OP part while ignoring that passive synergy can be just as damaging.
Synergy isn't just "Unit A makes Unit B do something cool". It is also "Unit A can take advantage of Unit B simply standing there as part of Army 2 to do something cool that Unit A could not normally do in an Army by itself."
Unit A might still be powerful in an Army by itself, as we've seen with Castellans, but there is literally no denying the fact that as powerful as it is--it is the ability to feed Command Points into it that is the problem.
I simply don't think broken units + broken units is really synergy. I merely want Castellans and Infantry to be priced correctly per pure standards. I really do believe this basic fix will leak into allied armies being more "fair", as the units you're taking are all "fair". If that makes sense. Otherwise I'll try and elaborate more.
Compared to last edition, I don't see a lot of active synergy like I'm thinking of in mixed armies. Sure, Typhus + Huron/Ahriman + Cultists is just one example (at least if you want to look at "mixed" armies compared to this edition) but there are definitely others for sure.
What if, just consider this, both take away the counter play options an player has against one of them?
So basically they only really work if in tandem.
I belive it was also allready shown somewhere back.
The units themselves though are broken by themselves, though. When a broken unit like a Castellan has mediocre screening, it can at least be easier to reach it.
When Infantry are as stupid good as they are, you gotta hope you'll reach the somewhat okay tanks that can still do damage that Guard has (though Tank Commanders have approached stupid. To me, at least).
So obviously when the internal + external issues like that happen, of course we can try and blame allies. However, when these units were ALREADY shown to be mathematically amazing, shouldn't that be handled anyway first?
Have you prove though that guardsmen are broken?
Because i often play mono guard, mainly because the R&H index can atm not really be called an index. I can't say they are bad, but broken?
No.
What is broken is the fact that the CP for Guard, which has, if restricted to guard stratagems, alot less value than many other codices, can be used on the Castellan.
Because the principle of CP scarcity for the Knights just goes out the window.
That is my personal experience.
Compared to any other troops you can get? Absolutely I would call them broken. The current 7 point Rangers are an issue too, though that isn't the topic at hand (I want them to go back to the same pricing as Vanguard though).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/14 18:24:06
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.
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.
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.
You keep talking about synergy. I don't think your definition is as specific as mine.
Castellans are just too good. Infantry are just too good. Is it really synergy when they're put together? Nah.
Typhus last edition creating Fearless Zombies and using your HQ slot for Huron or Ahriman to Infiltrate them? That's slightly more synergistic. Does that make sense?
I guess I can see that, but I think it applies in this case too at least through the CP generation if nothing else, and they are clearly more powerful together than they are strictly within their own respective mono-lists.
That's not to say that we also shouldn't look at individual units, we should, but we there are also very definitely issues with mix-n-match soup beyond just the units themselves.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I see the finger being pointed at soup, specific units (i.e. Castellan), points costs, army builds, benefits vs. weaknesses, stratagems, blah, blah, blah...
Root cause analysis... The problem is the command point system.
Stratagems bump power and effectiveness... The resource (i.e. Command Points) that facilitates the use of stratagems is too abundant.
Go back to Battalions being 3 CP's and Brigades being 9 CP's.
The incentive to "farm" CP's needs to be removed. Period!
I see the finger being pointed at soup, specific units (i.e. Castellan), points costs, army builds, benefits vs. weaknesses, stratagems, blah, blah, blah...
Root cause analysis... The problem is the command point system.
Stratagems bump power and effectiveness... The resource (i.e. Command Points) that facilitates the use of stratagems is too abundant.
Go back to Battalions being 3 CP's and Brigades being 9 CP's.
The incentive to "farm" CP's needs to be removed. Period!
That simultaneously makes elite armies weaker and gives the advantage to cheap battalions, which IG can do thereby bringing us back to square one.
The problem with soup is that it messes up the core dynamic of the game.
You pick your army, that army has strengths and weaknesses.
Soup allow you to fill your weaknesses with other units that are strong.
Overall this doesn't seem to be an issue until you remember that not armies have the access to soup, hence the same armies always appear in the top ratings, because the others don't have access to plug their flaws.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Soup is great but it should not be allowed for matched play or for tournaments. Makes sense from a lore stand point but overall it just overly punishes players far too much.
There are other problems such as just rampant abuses of -1 to hit and just the issue with having d6s.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/14 21:41:19
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Why does the game prioritize minimally filing detachments, over completely filling ever larger detachments to get max points.
Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Reemule wrote: Why does the game prioritize minimally filing detachments, over completely filling ever larger detachments to get max points.
Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Perhaps, what if we gave someone an additional command point for every slot type they filled, say a battalion with six troop unit gets 6 command points instead of five.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
I see the finger being pointed at soup, specific units (i.e. Castellan), points costs, army builds, benefits vs. weaknesses, stratagems, blah, blah, blah...
Root cause analysis... The problem is the command point system.
Stratagems bump power and effectiveness... The resource (i.e. Command Points) that facilitates the use of stratagems is too abundant.
Go back to Battalions being 3 CP's and Brigades being 9 CP's.
The incentive to "farm" CP's needs to be removed. Period!
That simultaneously makes elite armies weaker and gives the advantage to cheap battalions, which IG can do thereby bringing us back to square one.
I disagree.
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 3 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes! 2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes! 3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/15 22:09:07
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 5 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes!
2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes!
3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
Perhaps something which would prevent the sharing of CP between armies? Use similar rules to Battle Brothers so that you have to share a (non-Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids) keyword in order to use CP generated by another detachment.
Sumilidon wrote: The problem with soup is that it messes up the core dynamic of the game.
You pick your army, that army has strengths and weaknesses.
Soup allow you to fill your weaknesses with other units that are strong.
Overall this doesn't seem to be an issue until you remember that not armies have the access to soup, hence the same armies always appear in the top ratings, because the others don't have access to plug their flaws.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Theoretically, armies have strengths and weaknesses. The issue is that doesn't really happen even with pure armies.
Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered? How about Orks? How about Dark Eldar?
Armies end up having units that cover roles, which invalidates the very idea of weaknesses. For example, Infantry COULD be poor in melee, except they aren't. They can also fall back literally and metaphorically) on Ogryn/Bullgryns. Assuming proper balance, what's the weakness?
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.
Just make each faction, especially mono factions, have access to a big ass robot that can kick some ass. The models are already there, just bump up their rules to make them somewhat competitive.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Theoretically, armies have strengths and weaknesses. The issue is that doesn't really happen even with pure armies.
Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered? How about Orks? How about Dark Eldar?
Armies end up having units that cover roles, which invalidates the very idea of weaknesses. For example, Infantry COULD be poor in melee, except they aren't. They can also fall back literally and metaphorically) on Ogryn/Bullgryns. Assuming proper balance, what's the weakness?
Guard is good pure (daresay balanced), but a Castellan which it uses itself in soup, invalidates most of the guard AT/armor options (Baneblade variants, Leman russ). The weakness of guard is also having to rely on the most part BS4+ and in a meta which can spam -1 to hit that hurts a little. Guard also lacks invulnerable saves army wide (other than Bullgrn) so most things that shoot will hurt.
A mono guard list would have no chance against AH list in the finals. In many of Brandon Grants match ups it was a close game, and the only thing that stopped Ynnari from walking over the list was the Castellan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/14 23:23:56
Smirrors wrote: Just make each faction, especially mono factions, have access to a big ass robot that can kick some ass. The models are already there, just bump up their rules to make them somewhat competitive.
This is not to say I am against soup, more that the lack of it for all armies is what causes these kinds of threads
Theoretically, armies have strengths and weaknesses. The issue is that doesn't really happen even with pure armies.
Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered? How about Orks? How about Dark Eldar?
Armies end up having units that cover roles, which invalidates the very idea of weaknesses. For example, Infantry COULD be poor in melee, except they aren't. They can also fall back literally and metaphorically) on Ogryn/Bullgryns. Assuming proper balance, what's the weakness?
Guard is good pure (daresay balanced), but a Castellan which it uses itself in soup, invalidates most of the guard AT/armor options (Baneblade variants, Leman russ). The weakness of guard is also having to rely on the most part BS4+ and in a meta which can spam -1 to hit that hurts a little. Guard also lacks invulnerable saves army wide (other than Bullgrn) so most things that shoot will hurt.
A mono guard list would have no chance against AH list in the finals. In many of Brandon Grants match ups it was a close game, and the only thing that stopped Ynnari from walking over the list was the Castellan.
Pretty much this, the knights cover the guards weaknesses, and themselves profit on top of it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/14 23:34:26
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.
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered?
The weakness is supposed to be lack of mobility. IG are an unstoppable force that can overwhelm anything with sheer volume of dice and bodies, but they're slow to apply that force and are easily outmaneuvered by faster armies. An IG player who screws up their positioning or makes the wrong call on which objectives to go for can find themselves thoroughly camped on their deployment zone but unable to do much besides keep those objectives 100% secure and hope for a stray Basilisk shot to finish off the enemy unit claiming something on the other side of the table. That's why the few fast IG units are either aircraft (which can't score at all) or one-shot suicide weapons (storm troopers) that are really just a Basilisk shot on round bases. But 8th edition has two problems with this theory:
1) Lack of a reasonable LOS system. If nothing blocks LOS then gunlines are too good and a lack of mobility doesn't really matter. There's nowhere to hide an objective camping unit, so who cares if you're out of position? Just declare a target on the other side of the table and kill it with no penalty.
2) Soup giving IG units they aren't supposed to have. Suffering from a lack of fast units that can wreck stuff in the inevitable melee combat that happens when you move up to claim objectives? No problem, just ally in some jetbikes or a melee knight.
Fix both of these things and IG are much less of a problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/15 02:38:33
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I honestly would've said suffering alot more from -1 to hit, morale and relatively impactless stratagems.
Morale however does rarely play a factor because msuIG squad spam.
The cp can be used on other armies.
-1 is still an issue somewhat but again see above.
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.
I can accept that ‘soup’ is not the problem, because all factions have access to infantry, artillery, armour and air assets. So even a ‘mono’ list is ‘soup’ because of the wide variety of units available.
I’m of the opinion that points values should reflect the offensive and defensive ability of the unit - how you use them is what we call tactics.
Stratagems should have a points value, and each use should be paid for.
Similarly with auras/other buffs - points should be paid for any benefits you get.
YMMV
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/15 14:10:54
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
The current system rewards taking as many detachments as possible, filled to the minimum possible, to build the biggest pile of CP.
I feel the refutation of your point that its to take more core units isn't true, as if it was, the Patrol Detachment would still give CP.
I'd much prefer a system that encouraged balanced forces (I.E troops) and rewarded people that went above and beyond in taking those troops. But we don't have that with the current system.
My Views
1: I have no issue with soup lists. I like that my dudes can ally with my dudes, if the lore is the same.
2: I liked when someone said 40k is designed for ALL players. Not just some not-so fringe unique format ergo the ITC event with a ton of players.
3: A wide sweeping change will end up only hurting the bad armies more than the BEST armies and/or players.
4: Top Players will exploit anything to win, thus the ally system isn't the real issue. You are only playing whack a mole / and or moving the goal posts.
If there was enough support from the community that likes the ITC event style games.
You could have detachments/ Ally rules for
standard 40k (ergo the rulebook as it stands)
Then an Event Only Rules.
-however that would take a lot work...to not mess up more than you do.
I doubt this is something that can even be fixed in 8th ed. More so should be part of the design of 9th Ed...
- 10,000 pts CSM 
