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.

 cole1114 wrote:
Getting rid of soup won't make the game balanced. It'll just mean a new set of armies get all the top five placements. Bringing back FoCs will have the same effect. The only way to really combat the meta getting stagnant is constant re-balancing, which is difficult in a physical game where you have to keep track of every individual FAQ that comes out. They can't be putting out a new chapter approved every month, and that's about what it'd take to get any real rebalancing done.

...Which is why FFG, CB, and Privateer have all moved entirely to free digital rules as the means of distributing rules for their game.

I think if they just went back to needing a platoon of infantry (2 groups of 10 and 1 group of 5 min per platoon) to fill a troops slot it would fix the CP point farm issue.

I don't get peoples nostalgia about 5th in this thread. You still spammed the best units in your relevant codex (An if you where a comp player you'd buy the best codex).
The whole anti-soup train is weird as it has nothing to do with competitive play. You can change the the rules all you like good job, the pros will work out the next best thing and people will complain again.
This will repeat forever in any game system. 40k is different because rule set is designed for ALL styles of play (Hobby) not some random best of the best TAILORED META ergo the ITC. Even if GW is focused on using information gathered from these events. It also pushes the idea people not talking to each other as to the types of games you want to play. As changing the entirety of the game just because some LVO event that 99.98% of the total Warhammer player base doesn't go to or can invalidate by just saying yeah "not playing that army/mission type/format etc"

I think this addition allows far more player types than any previous edition. If the community wants something to change in the event formats. That's should be on the back of the TO's and the community to work out.

The thing is if GW made books where each has good options to play with this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Soup is a problem first because it invalidates any mono codex, unless GW writes the siad codex to be better then soup in the first place. The stuff people see at tournaments trickle down to local tournaments, and finaly store games too.

I don't know how bad the game in the pas thad to to be, for we play with more units now to be true. There are whole books that are made out of 1-2 good units, some even don't have that. How do you play with a faction that is not worth souping to begin with, or which GW forgot to give an option tos oup up with something int he first place?

whitelion40k wrote:
I think if they just went back to needing a platoon of infantry (2 groups of 10 and 1 group of 5 min per platoon) to fill a troops slot it would fix the CP point farm issue.

No, it wouldn't. Literally all that needs to be done is the same rule that Brood Brothers got where they provide half CPs in their Detachments.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

1.keeping track of 3 CP pools is no harder than tracking the wounds on 3 tanks. If you can't handle that amount of bookkeeping you are playing the wrong game

Maybe for you, but not for your opponent. How can I be sure you pulled the right CP from the proper pool?

I can tell a tanks wounds from the marker next to it. There is nothing preventing 3 pools of CP from getting abused in a face paced game.

So use markers for your opponent's CP pools if you need to. CP pools are just not that much bookkeeping.

Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?

Karol wrote:
Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?

Then the burden of proof is on them. It's not as if they can't do this already if they really want to. Keeping track of the CPs your opponent has left is pretty important so it should be something both players are aware of during the game. If you're already a TFG you won't have a problem making spurious claims over anything that currently exists. Anyone trying this on a regular basis should be quickly found out and banned if necessary.

Karol wrote:
Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?

He can do the same thing with the wounds of a tank "Ey, that vehicle had 3 wounds remaining not 7, you just moved the dice!"

 Galas wrote:

Karol wrote:
Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?

He can do the same thing with the wounds of a tank "Ey, that vehicle had 3 wounds remaining not 7, you just moved the dice!"

that is true, that is why adding more options and entice to do so is not a good thing to do. If one type of mechanic is creating problems, adding more of the same type is not going to fix stuff even at the best of times, and at any other times it will just create more problems.

Karol wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Karol wrote:
Ok, and what if your opponent is an a hole and will try to make it look as if your cheating and calls the judges saying you have less CP, then you actually have to stop a late game vect or wing?

He can do the same thing with the wounds of a tank "Ey, that vehicle had 3 wounds remaining not 7, you just moved the dice!"

that is true, that is why adding more options and entice to do so is not a good thing to do. If one type of mechanic is creating problems, adding more of the same type is not going to fix stuff even at the best of times, and at any other times it will just create more problems.

If the people you play with are like that, then yes you are right.

Typically, if a player "cheated" once (moves the wound die) in a multi-day tournament, they made an unintentional mistake.

If a player "cheated" more than once (moves the wound die a couple times in different games) in a multi-day tournament, they are doing so deliberately, or at best out of a lack of capability.

So if someone cheats, call out the mistake ("You moved the die"), don't call them out as a cheater ("You cheated and moved the die"). That way, if it truly was an honest mistake, and rarely happens, you move on.

If you have to constantly "remind" them, then a TO should get involved - so there's record of the discord. If they argue that they didn't, call over a TO. Even if it's not provable which way it went, there's no record of this discord.

Point is, this is a small enough hobby where these things get noticed. Consider "If the first person you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, they're the problem. If everyone you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, you're the problem.".

The players who make careless mistakes once or twice get called out, and it gets fixed. The players who make careless mistakes all the time get called out frequently enough that (1) it gets fixed, (2) people know to watch them, and (3), most important for the person making the mistakes, they learn that they need to be more careful.

The person who cheats once or twice and gets called out gets identified as a cheater very quickly. They get punished by TOs, they get watched, and either they clean up or nobody plays them/they get kicked out of tournies.

So there's really no reason to need to prove any one individual case of cheating. Point it out. They'll be watched more closely. If they truly are a cheater, they'll continue to cheat. And other cases *will* get caught.

There have been cheaters in my meta (not many, though). I've known who they were and how they cheated. I avoided games with them. When I did play them, I took steps (which vary based on how they cheat) so they couldn't cheat. I didn't need to prove every cheating case.

(Oddly, one of the two biggest cheaters I've known tended to win most of his games, and the other, despite cheating, lost most of the time.)

Bharring wrote:
Typically, if a player "cheated" once (moves the wound die) in a multi-day tournament, they made an unintentional mistake.

If a player "cheated" more than once (moves the wound die a couple times in different games) in a multi-day tournament, they are doing so deliberately, or at best out of a lack of capability.

So if someone cheats, call out the mistake ("You moved the die"), don't call them out as a cheater ("You cheated and moved the die"). That way, if it truly was an honest mistake, and rarely happens, you move on.

If you have to constantly "remind" them, then a TO should get involved - so there's record of the discord. If they argue that they didn't, call over a TO. Even if it's not provable which way it went, there's no record of this discord.

Point is, this is a small enough hobby where these things get noticed. Consider "If the first person you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, they're the problem. If everyone you meet this morning is an donkey-cave, you're the problem.".

The players who make careless mistakes once or twice get called out, and it gets fixed. The players who make careless mistakes all the time get called out frequently enough that (1) it gets fixed, (2) people know to watch them, and (3), most important for the person making the mistakes, they learn that they need to be more careful.

The person who cheats once or twice and gets called out gets identified as a cheater very quickly. They get punished by TOs, they get watched, and either they clean up or nobody plays them/they get kicked out of tournies.

So there's really no reason to need to prove any one individual case of cheating. Point it out. They'll be watched more closely. If they truly are a cheater, they'll continue to cheat. And other cases *will* get caught.

There have been cheaters in my meta (not many, though). I've known who they were and how they cheated. I avoided games with them. When I did play them, I took steps (which vary based on how they cheat) so they couldn't cheat. I didn't need to prove every cheating case.

(Oddly, one of the two biggest cheaters I've known tended to win most of his games, and the other, despite cheating, lost most of the time.)

This is pretty much spot on. Forgetting/misunderstanding a rule once, even in different games, doesn't necessarily mean someone is cheating. But all of these "cheaters" do it every game, sometimes more than once in the same game. If it happens frequently, then I agree you should call a TO so they are aware that this person *could* be cheating. That way the ones who do it often will be repeat offenders (TOs called continually to their table) and at that point it can be safely assumed they are doing it on purpose because if they are told the first two times they are doing it wrong and keep doing it, it's on purpose.

My round 5 opponent cheated outright. I didn't catch it until after, though, because I was getting sick and i was exhausted.

It is my responsibility to catch this. I went 5-1 at LVO because I didn't catch my opponent cheating. A better player than me catches this. Nanavati catches it. Gonyo catches it. inControl catches it.

And allies aren't a problem, but there is one faction that exploits the current mechanics of the game pretty hard. The answer is to adjust that faction. But here come the monobirds, crying mono, when the game isn't a mono game in the first place.

 Marmatag wrote:
My round 5 opponent cheated outright. I didn't catch it until after, though, because I was getting sick and i was exhausted.

It is my responsibility to catch this. I went 5-1 at LVO because I didn't catch my opponent cheating. A better player than me catches this. Nanavati catches it. Gonyo catches it. inControl catches it.

And allies aren't a problem, but there is one faction that exploits the current mechanics of the game pretty hard. The answer is to adjust that faction. But here come the monobirds, crying mono, when the game isn't a mono game in the first place.

You sure it isn't mono codex? Necron, Tau, ork codex's say it's still a mono codex game?

But as to the largest offenders do you think the new brood brother's rule being just the flat CP rule for the problem child would be enough to unstagnate the current meta?

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My round 5 opponent cheated outright. I didn't catch it until after, though, because I was getting sick and i was exhausted.

It is my responsibility to catch this. I went 5-1 at LVO because I didn't catch my opponent cheating. A better player than me catches this. Nanavati catches it. Gonyo catches it. inControl catches it.

And allies aren't a problem, but there is one faction that exploits the current mechanics of the game pretty hard. The answer is to adjust that faction. But here come the monobirds, crying mono, when the game isn't a mono game in the first place.

You sure it isn't mono codex? Necron, Tau, ork codex's say it's still a mono codex game?

But as to the largest offenders do you think the new brood brother's rule being just the flat CP rule for the problem child would be enough to unstagnate the current meta?

Considering we're talking about deflecting to mono-codex to avoid balancing the two S-tier armies (Imperial Guard, Ynnari) and not the A-tier armies (Orks, Tau) or the B-tier armies (Necrons). Your comment is a non sequitor.

And that wouldn't change anything. The Imperial Guard list will still be incredibly dominant with a Shadowsword in place of a Knight. The army is too damn strong.

Come to Horus Heresy. No Soup.

What is horus heresy?

7th with most of the garbage stripped out.

So like 9th age, pass then

Karol wrote:
So like 9th age, pass then

Lol no. It's a separate game system perpetuated by Forge World to fight the battles of the Horus Heresy, the biggest lore event in the mythos of 40k.

It's mostly Marine centric, with a dash of other factions.

Karol wrote:
So like 9th age, pass then

If 9th age was officially supported, then yes. Horus Heresy is Forgeworld, just it's a cleaned up 7th edition ruleset rather than 8th.

Having played variations of Guard throughout this ITC season I can assure you that Guard plus Shadowsword is not in the same zip code as Guard plus Castellan. I would rank it as Guard plus Castellan > Guard plus other shooty Knight >>> Guard with Guard super heavy.

I believe in another thread you referenced the Tau loss as being on account of terrain. As you mention cheating in this one any particular Tau perfidy that others should watch for?

Alpharius Walks wrote:
Having played variations of Guard throughout this ITC season I can assure you that Guard plus Shadowsword is not in the same zip code as Guard plus Castellan. I would rank it as Guard plus Castellan > Guard plus other shooty Knight >>> Guard with Guard super heavy.

I believe in another thread you referenced the Tau loss as being on account of terrain. As you mention cheating in this one any particular Tau perfidy that others should watch for?

But if they are all >>> than Orks, Tau, Necrons who don't have allies while still mono they need rebalanced.

I still contend that soup not having a downside is a problem.
Having codex's like Astra Millicheese and Drukari and index free activities is a problem
Both need to be solved independent of the other, but solving one and not the other won't actually balance 8th edition.

 Eldarain wrote:
7th with most of the garbage stripped out.

Not sure about this.

The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"

I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.

Tyel wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
7th with most of the garbage stripped out.

Not sure about this.

The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"

I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.

Most of the garbage stripped out, right.....

I heard phosphex was fun and interactive.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
7th with most of the garbage stripped out.

Not sure about this.

The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"

I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.

Most of the garbage stripped out, right.....

I heard phosphex was fun and interactive.

They literally took care of that in the last errata.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
7th with most of the garbage stripped out.

Not sure about this.

The thing about Horus Heresy is that it costs so much most people are in it for the collecting aspect of the hobby. Its more about "look at my amazing models you may never have seen before with a labour of love paint job" than "and this unit hits on 2s, wounds on 2s, and does ten thousand mortal wounds, just take them off the table right now I WIN!!"

I think 7th is still a very janky ruleset - but yeah, if people self-moderate its okay.

Most of the garbage stripped out, right.....

I heard phosphex was fun and interactive.

They literally took care of that in the last errata.

After how long?
Don't get me wrong but something like that shouldn't have passed the internal playtesting.

Horus Heresy is the Pabst Blue Ribbon of wargames. There are some who legitimately think it is the superior option, but those of use with working taste buds wish you'd just shut the hell up about it stop bringing it to the party.

 EnTyme wrote:
Horus Heresy is the Pabst Blue Ribbon of wargames. There are some who legitimately think it is the superior option, but those of use with working taste buds wish you'd just shut the hell up about it stop bringing it to the party.

Not nice,
It does have some merit to bring it up, that said saying it is 7th with less "garbage" is simply also not true.