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.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
Remove sub-faction traits completely. They are too varied with many never seeing the light of day because they do not have any purpose in the game compared to their more useful counterparts. Although to be fair, limiting those things will more or less do the same. In the case of your suggestion it would just mean most players end up using Alaitoc if they are running Asuryani. Armies will go from using Alaitoc and maybe Saim-hann to everybody using Alaitoc which would just kill the game for Asuryani players unless they like Alaitoc.
Same goes for Drukhari Covens. Why use anything but Prophets of Flesh?
Regarding soup suggestions I think one thing a lot of people are missing. If you take away all traits and stratagems of an allied detachment it means that that those units must function better than being with traits and stratagems so they are worth taking. This brings me to a problem I see with a lot of soup discussions and that is that people want to discourage soup completely except for some narrative plays. This isn't going to happen because people like collecting large and varied armies now and it brings more money to GW which means we get more to play with. Circle of Life and all that.
So all discussions must come from an honest and fair stand point which is: A soup must perform equally to the mono-faction. Because GW already let the beast out and soup is in. People have bought a large surplus of miniature soldiers because soup exists and attempting to invalidate it is no better than making mono-factions unviable and before someone asks: I play almost exclusively mono-faction, but at the same time I think soup is fun and gives me a lot of fun armies to look at and play against. I have a friend who plays Ultramarines with Deathwatch. Super fun to play against and fun to see both UM and DW used together. Remove all abilities of either and my friend would have to play mono-faction and it would be less diverse.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/20 16:50:17
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
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.
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
The Castellan doesn't need that much a points hike. Maybe 100~ points or so, but more importantly we need to create prices for Relics again, especially when Knights can basically take as many as they want along with Warlord Traits.
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.
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Won't that just result in that "1999+1" type of crap like you saw in 7th to prevent double FOC? Not that it wouldn't be a bad idea but either something gets changed so they are always available (if it's 2k or more well tournament games are at 2k so nothing changes) or less likely its changed so you never see them (not a bad thing IMHO).
If you ask me this could only work if it was 2000 or higher to take them and ITC changed the recommended points to 1750 or 1850 or something like that to keep them out.
Otherwise you're doing something like 2500 or more and you'll never see them so might as well just do a blanket ban.
The Castellan doesn't need that much a points hike. Maybe 100~ points or so, but more importantly we need to create prices for Relics again, especially when Knights can basically take as many as they want along with Warlord Traits.
I think it should probably be around 685. As for prices for relics I wouldn't disagree but I think anything that would require an overhaul to the actual rules perfect game will not happen as much as it should
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/20 17:55:23
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Won't that just result in that "1999+1" type of crap like you saw in 7th to prevent double FOC? Not that it wouldn't be a bad idea but either something gets changed so they are always available (if it's 2k or more well tournament games are at 2k so nothing changes) or less likely its changed so you never see them (not a bad thing IMHO).
If you ask me this could only work if it was 2000 or higher to take them and ITC changed the recommended points to 1750 or 1850 or something like that to keep them out.
Otherwise you're doing something like 2500 or more and you'll never see them so might as well just do a blanket ban.
The Castellan doesn't need that much a points hike. Maybe 100~ points or so, but more importantly we need to create prices for Relics again, especially when Knights can basically take as many as they want along with Warlord Traits.
I think it should probably be around 685. As for prices for relics I wouldn't disagree but I think anything that would require an overhaul to the actual rules perfect game will not happen as much as it should
I don't think it would be too hard to add prices to Relics. Weapon ones are easy to me at least.
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.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
I'm fine with "fixes" for soup as long as we also consider two different faction keyword in a list to be considered soup. For instance, if you have a detachment of bad moonz and evil sunz that should be considered soup. A space wolves player can't bring Space Wolves: +1 to hit on charge and Space Wolves: +1" charge factions. They just get the one.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/02/20 18:58:22
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
It's no different than the Space Marine codex having so many unique entries but most of them not being good.
It comes down to internal and external balance. Simple as that. Quit justifying broken units by blaming a mechanic that has nothing to do with them being over the top.
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.
The problem with Mono factionalism/Soup fixes is some issues still won’t be fixed. And many times, the fixes are kneejerk reactions.
The Castellan is a perfect example. It’s worth 450 points to Chaos. It’s worth 500 points if it’s an Questors Imperial knight, it’s worth 600 points if it is House Taranis, it is worth 800 points if it is House Raven. With that range if you point change, it’s just going to become more un-usable to most factions, and still be abused with House Raven, until something else is introduced and its shelved till 10th edition, or someone decides that 500 point Crusaders do nearly as good with Order of the Companion, and reinvents the meta.
If you want to fix Castellans, change Order of Companions to read this Stratagem cost 4CP for Dominus Class IK, and 2 CP for Questors class IK.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/20 19:07:46
Not Online!!! wrote: I like it except the subfactions that are in the same book should not get penailzed.
A bunch of Ork tribez forming a Waaaaghh! or a mixed warband of base CSM legions should not get penalized for it. However bringing 3+ DP's because i use 3 Codices (CSM, CD and DG f.e.) should not be possible.
Or is suddendly everyone and their mother promoted to DP?
I fail to see how Death Guard, Nurgle Daemons and Bringers of Decay(Black Legion) cannot work together, while you have no issue with World Eaters, Fallen and Emperor's Children in the same army.
Either you divide the factions all the way down or you don't. Claiming fluff as a justification just because you dislike multiple daemon princes in one army is dishonest.
In the end, cherry picking factions for orks or CSM for each unit type is not that much different from eldar picking the best choice for each role from two codices.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
It is not just fluff. If rule of 3 means I can't take more then 3 units of same kind, then a chaos soup player shouldn't be able to take 4 DP,
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
It's no different than the Space Marine codex having so many unique entries but most of them not being good.
It comes down to internal and external balance. Simple as that. Quit justifying broken units by blaming a mechanic that has nothing to do with them being over the top.
Ok so is a Castellen allied with 0CP guard broken or not?
The mechanism that enables a unit & strategums designed with CP costing a minimum of 176 points worth of unit per CP to use CP from a faction that pays 36 points per CP is Soup that is the utterly broken mechanic.
You can argue that the units may or may not be costed correctly but in no way can you blame the unit and it strategums for over performing when it's design constraints have been thrown out the window.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/20 20:47:07
Not Online!!! wrote: I like it except the subfactions that are in the same book should not get penailzed.
A bunch of Ork tribez forming a Waaaaghh! or a mixed warband of base CSM legions should not get penalized for it. However bringing 3+ DP's because i use 3 Codices (CSM, CD and DG f.e.) should not be possible.
Or is suddendly everyone and their mother promoted to DP?
I fail to see how Death Guard, Nurgle Daemons and Bringers of Decay(Black Legion) cannot work together, while you have no issue with World Eaters, Fallen and Emperor's Children in the same army.
Either you divide the factions all the way down or you don't. Claiming fluff as a justification just because you dislike multiple daemon princes in one army is dishonest.
In the end, cherry picking factions for orks or CSM for each unit type is not that much different from eldar picking the best choice for each role from two codices.
My previous statement about omni-dexes was meant as sarcasm but you bring up a good point. How different is too different?
What is the difference between a sub-faction and, for lack of a better term, a mini codex (any codex with a small amount of options i.e., GK, Harlies, IK.)? Why should Eldar and Harley be soup but Salamanders and Ultramarines are not? GW has just arbitrarily divided cultures up into books. Merging or minimizing differences in some books while breaking the cultures up in others. The first example that I can think of is Imperial inquisition. Back in earlier editions you found inquisition options in both sisters and grey knight flavors. Now GK, at least, has lost that option. If inquisition is made into a Codex then what used to be one coherent force would now be considered soup.
Karol wrote: It is not just fluff. If rule of 3 means I can't take more then 3 units of same kind, then a chaos soup player shouldn't be able to take 4 DP,
Yeah, but the honest suggestion is "Hey, GW limit DAEMON PRINCE models to 3 per army, just like commanders!". No one cares that you can take a dozen of predators, terminators, dreads, land raiders and other things that are shared across loyalist and chaos space marine codices.
If you think more than 3 daemon princes is an issue fix that issue. Don't do a blanket ruling that impacts multiple other units that are not an issue.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Amishprn86 wrote: You dont fix mono, you fix soup. Limit detachment for allies, 1 allied detachment with max 500pts and cant use their stratagems, relics, WL traits. Problem solved.
And this fixes the broken units how?
Or you just want the broken units to yourself?
You keep saying that it's the units that are broken not soup, yet you can't provide any lists taking 3 Castellen's or 200 Guardsmen.
That says from an analysis point of view that the individual models are not the main issue it's something to do with the interactions of certain units that is the primary reason.
Soup interactions being the problem doesn't prevent units b3ing unbalanced but untill you fix that issue you can only balance for imperial, choas and Aledari not at a codex level. Screwing everyone who plays those models in non meta lists.
If your out to screw the casual players go ahead and then they'll complain to get competitive lists screwed and the game splits even more into an unbalanced mess.
I think the problem with this is it's potentially broken/OP to have two detachments of the same faction, different subfactions. E.g. alpha legion for cultist blobs and world eaters for melee berserkers to get the best of both worlds. So I'd rather see any non-primary subfaction not get its abilities to prevent detachment stacking with each detachment using the most appropriate subfaction trait.
The problem is punishing mixing subfactions while you might not like it won't promote mono codex list or add to balance as if your loosing your bonuses by mixing cadians and Valhalla you may aswell grab those dawneagles and castellen anyway.
Not to mention mixing legions chaptors etc doesn't have the same impact as mixing codex's, it might need a slight cost, but it certainly shouldn't be punished the same as pulling units from 3 codex's.
Uh so just 80 or so Infantry is fine (as everyone is for the most part going over the minimum requirement) and proves they're not a problem? You're not serious are you?
Way to totally dodge the question, not to mention totally misrepresent my point.
If soup is totally balanced where are the mono lists spamming these utterly broken units to dominate events?
Or as I contend is there more involved in the problem which is why actual analysis isn't as black and white at identifying these "undercosted OP units".
Yet it does show AM plus Castellen out performing mono lists.
Aeldari soup outperformed mono codex.
It is more than just the units,
Is it that there is no downside to cherry picking.
Is it that you bypass the designed to be exploited weaknesses of those units.
You keep screaming that it's just the units but can't explain why it's only certain combinations.
It's no different than the Space Marine codex having so many unique entries but most of them not being good.
It comes down to internal and external balance. Simple as that. Quit justifying broken units by blaming a mechanic that has nothing to do with them being over the top.
Ok so is a Castellen allied with 0CP guard broken or not?
The mechanism that enables a unit & strategums designed with CP costing a minimum of 176 points worth of unit per CP to use CP from a faction that pays 36 points per CP is Soup that is the utterly broken mechanic.
You can argue that the units may or may not be costed correctly but in no way can you blame the unit and it strategums for over performing when it's design constraints have been thrown out the window.
Yes, I will argue Castellans even getting just one RIS off is broken. Knights need a whole redesign, period. They're supposed to be designed as a pure army AND something you splash in, just like last edition.
Execution still leaves a lot to be desired, but damn does a well painted Knight look good on the table.
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.
Reece asked for the stats of Orks vs Eldar as he believes that we have the right tools to deal with Eldar effectively, they are thus; "47% win rate against Dark Eldar [very close apparently], 52% win rate against Ynarri and 43% win rate against CWE [that they immediately played down]". They admitted AoV is a problem for Orks shutting down Grot Shields and Green Tide.
Sean claimed that Eldar "have" to tech to beat Orks which is something I strongly disagree on since they actually tech'd to beat Guard + Castellan and someone claimed that the Ynarri flyer list was "designed" to beat Orks (hence why we didn't get any players in the top 8, of course) which is something I also completely disagree with since it almost won the entire thing and Castellan+Guard made up almost 30% of the field.
Actually, CWE are very good at normal horde armies like Ork, they are played completely differently than Ynnari CWE. They are different list, a non-ynnari CWE is normally Bikes, Wave Serpents, Flyers. With lots of S6 shooting at 24-36" on highly fast moving platforms that cant be stopped in melee combine with Flyer blocking and extra MW's from shields everyturn. Its more likely to win against Orks for sure. A typical CWE list could shoot from 72-110 S6 shots and 80 S4 shots, with the large units getting re-rolls to 1's to hit, and key uits being Doomed/Jinx.
If Orks becomes a thing, then we will see more CWE compare to Ynnari
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/21 00:53:44
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/21 00:45:49
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
I feel like this "just a small tweak" response that I see a lot is very much mis-informed. Really, we've seen a lot of "small tweaks" in the past 6 months, and it's still the same dominating lists we see. If we ignore the format of the tournament (which would almost guarantee that 1 list of a poor faction would reach the top 50), we can see that just another "small tweak" is another way of saying "things are basically fine as is". Really, many people making these suggestions probably were the same people who felt that Chapter Approved also only needed small tweaks to fix the issues that stand. You could argue "just keep making small tweaks" until the issue is resolved (slowly but surely fix it), but after the time that has stood, and coming up on nearly the full life-time of the last edition, playing it slow does a dis-service to everyone.
That is true. How many small tweeks did eldar and Inari got since the edition started? If they were any other faction they should be as playable as BA right now. Yet they are still running around top tables. IG with Castellans are probablly the same. There is just no easy or small tweek way to fix them, specially if one also doesn't want to see those armies become unplayable.
I mean a blanket 50% cost rise on everything IG, eldar or Knight would "fix" the meta too. not sure if people like that kind of a fix though.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I don't get how anyone can say with a straight face that the Castellan isn't a problem when huge portions of various codexes are rendered useless by it being around for relative cheap points for what it can do and how quickly it goes from great to beyond auto include once you at in the loyal 32 cheering it on and making it fight much better.
If I recall 3 of the top 8 lists took one and it was incredibly common among imperial players. If something is that much of an auto include then it needs to be tweaked, there should be no brainless options.
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
I feel like this "just a small tweak" response that I see a lot is very much mis-informed. Really, we've seen a lot of "small tweaks" in the past 6 months, and it's still the same dominating lists we see. If we ignore the format of the tournament (which would almost guarantee that 1 list of a poor faction would reach the top 50), we can see that just another "small tweak" is another way of saying "things are basically fine as is". Really, many people making these suggestions probably were the same people who felt that Chapter Approved also only needed small tweaks to fix the issues that stand. You could argue "just keep making small tweaks" until the issue is resolved (slowly but surely fix it), but after the time that has stood, and coming up on nearly the full life-time of the last edition, playing it slow does a dis-service to everyone.
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
skchsan wrote: Why not just nerf castellan? That thing has way too many things going on for a 600 pt unit. It should be more like 1,200 points.
Alternatively, why not make LOW's something that you unlock? Back in 3rd ed, in order to take a named character, your army has to be X points or more.
Make it so that ALL LoW options can only be included if you have more than xx PL/x,xxx pts included in your army.
This will also solve problems for smaller games where people keep bringing an AR to a fist fights.
Lol at crazy statements like this. Basically a pointless post.
The Castellan is not that far off being balanced. A tweak to some strats and CP value. A small price increase.
You may find the Castellan boring as it dictates how people build lists and how people play against it but its far from broken as the hysteria suggests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
I feel like this "just a small tweak" response that I see a lot is very much mis-informed. Really, we've seen a lot of "small tweaks" in the past 6 months, and it's still the same dominating lists we see. If we ignore the format of the tournament (which would almost guarantee that 1 list of a poor faction would reach the top 50), we can see that just another "small tweak" is another way of saying "things are basically fine as is". Really, many people making these suggestions probably were the same people who felt that Chapter Approved also only needed small tweaks to fix the issues that stand. You could argue "just keep making small tweaks" until the issue is resolved (slowly but surely fix it), but after the time that has stood, and coming up on nearly the full life-time of the last edition, playing it slow does a dis-service to everyone.
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
True - the Castellan hadn't even been released when the LVO was on last year, for one thing.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
But wasn't the last years LVO pre knight? how did the BA, DA, SW, GK, tau or necron armies change comparing to the last LVO. The only thing that change is that now there is an army that can fight eldar soups on a level playing field.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Smirrors wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chapter Tactics Podcast, I felt that it was pretty balanced reporting. What does chapter tactics have to gain from saying that the game is fairly balance?
In summary they feel it just needs a few tweaks to ynnari and castellan lists (who had higher win%) and something to support the lower tier lists in GK, SN and necrons (lower win%). This makes sense, there is no need to make huge changes.
As for Orks, once again it was their opinion that many of the orc lists went 4/2 which is quite a good result.
As for the top 62, there was representations from almost all factions that went 5/1 (outside of GK and BA). That is a pretty good result. As ynnari and castellan lists made a great number of that top 62, their suggestion was these lists need slight tweaks to reduce.
Where is the bias reporting that you guys are reading into?
Read my post in full and the things I have raised there. I believe I show where some straight incorrect things are said as if fact.
Every faction made it into the top 62 except BA. What they failed to discuss was the frequency of factions compared to their total number of players.
As to what do they have to gain? Well some of the members sit on the balance team so are responsible for where we are now. If they said balance was out of whack (as it is) its admitting they (and GW) have done a poor job.
I think Reece gets it and knows that Orks aren't strong. He's not going to admit that publicly until it is more obvious but reading between the lines of some of the things he says I get the impression he knows this. He always had concerns about Orks performing in the LVO meta and he has acknowledged that CA kicked us in the nuts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/21 08:43:40
No it isn't. The lists that dominated LVO this year are completely different from the lists that did so last year. The only thing that's the same is the overarching faction. That's it.
But wasn't the last years LVO pre knight? how did the BA, DA, SW, GK, tau or necron armies change comparing to the last LVO. The only thing that change is that now there is an army that can fight eldar soups on a level playing field.
Last LVO was after CWE codex release, before nids, DE, harlies, Tao, Necrons, IK... codex release.
The CWE codex was new and hot and Ynnari made it look broken. But people forget that the next big tournament Adepticon was won by Impirial soup BA/IG. Nids were performing really good, before their nerfs and were on the top places.
Generally speaking the whine on the forums forced changes make the game worst for some fractions, before even all codexes were released.
You can`t really balance game when you introduce big change every mouth, but that make the game more dynamic.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
