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.

Soup is a problem no doubt but I don't think its as simple as just removing soup either, a lot of armies can't stand on their own and removing soup would create some juggernauts that would be worse than the current issue. I also think just removing CP from non WL faction would be a poor choice. I think the best idea I have seen some 1 put out there in the past has been removing the connection between detachments and CP. If you are Battleforged you get say 12-14 CP somewhere. 1 faction gives you exactly that 12-14 cp, a 2nd faction costs you 1-2 CP a 3rd faction costs you an additional 2-3 CP (think like the strategems for relics). This would mean a mono faction gets 12-14 cp a double faction would get between 10-13 cp and a triple faction would end up at around 7-11 CP somewhere. The range accounting for balancing the CP costs. This covers your 3 detachments. The other question on soup is where does Ynnari fall? There is no question Ynnari is a problem, and part of that is the same reason soup is a problem combined with 2 shooting phases for reapers of course. The above doesn't solve Ynnari either as they would still be running around with 12-14 happily skirting the balance. Do you just dock Ynnari a static 2-4 CP just for being Ynnari and having access to almost everything or do you break it down into stratagem sniping groups they use?

Honestly though no matter what, if anything, GW does to try to improve the current situation its undoubtedly going to divide on the community.

 Smirrors wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


Anyway, on the topic of balance - FLG is unmistakably correct. The game is the most balanced it's ever been. Almost any codex CAN compete with the right allies.

Correct balanced does not mean equal opportunities to win at the top table. I dont think they have stated that.

For the lastest podcast they believe if armies can achieve a 50:50 win rate they are "balanced". I think their stats back this up. The problem armies are in the 60s or 70s.

What the stats dont state is that all armies have an equal chance to win a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Whether it's being to cheap on it's own, some weird ally interaction, Strats, CP generation or etc. The IOM version of the Castellan is largely broken to a weird combo of all the above.

The Castellan must be broken due to the reroll all 1s strat, fire at full BS for 1cp and the 3++ warlord trait. These are what makes it better than a renegade and the reason chaos dont take it at all.

I suspect taking away the ability to 3++ is going to go along way. And making firing at full bs for 2 or 3cp (similar to rotate being 1cp/3cp depending on chassis). The price feels ok.

You can`t make such assumption because the data is not collected in isolated environment, ignoring the tournament metta.
1. Most players build armies that could handle IK Castellan and using the weaker chaos version don`t give the player any real benefit.
2. There was big chance you meat IK on the tables and the weaker chaos Castellan don`t have the tools to handle it
3. Chaos prefer other tools to be competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GrinNfool wrote:
Soup is a problem no doubt but I don't think its as simple as just removing soup either, a lot of armies can't stand on their own and removing soup would create some juggernauts that would be worse than the current issue. I also think just removing CP from non WL faction would be a poor choice. I think the best idea I have seen some 1 put out there in the past has been removing the connection between detachments and CP. If you are Battleforged you get say 12-14 CP somewhere. 1 faction gives you exactly that 12-14 cp, a 2nd faction costs you 1-2 CP a 3rd faction costs you an additional 2-3 CP (think like the strategems for relics). This would mean a mono faction gets 12-14 cp a double faction would get between 10-13 cp and a triple faction would end up at around 7-11 CP somewhere. The range accounting for balancing the CP costs. This covers your 3 detachments. The other question on soup is where does Ynnari fall? There is no question Ynnari is a problem, and part of that is the same reason soup is a problem combined with 2 shooting phases for reapers of course. The above doesn't solve Ynnari either as they would still be running around with 12-14 happily skirting the balance. Do you just dock Ynnari a static 2-4 CP just for being Ynnari and having access to almost everything or do you break it down into stratagem sniping groups they use?

Honestly though no matter what, if anything, GW does to try to improve the current situation its undoubtedly going to divide on the community.

Ynnari armies without dark reapers did better, than the list with dark reapers.
Spamming reapers was worst than having 1 squad. Pure CWE armies are running away from DR.
So no DR were not problem in this tournament.

I have no issues with soup as a concept, it helps make fluffy armies, interesting combinations and adds freedom to how people want to hobby which are all good things.

The main issues that I see it creates are:

- Shoring up weaknesses in main faction.
- Gaining access to lots of extra command points.
- Gaining access to additional stratagems.

My fix (we all have one :-) ) would be to make it so you don't gain best use all of these benefits, taking a detachment of a different faction should offer some bonuses but shouldn't just be strictly better than taking more of your main faction.

So I propose making your primary faction (as defined by the detachment your warlord comes from) the basis of your army and reducing the benefits of additional detachments taken from other factions. They should still be useful, especially for filling in gaps in your main army but they don't come with quite so many extra benefits.

- Detachments drawn from a different faction to your primary faction half the number of Command Points they generate (rounding down).
- Stratagems drawn from a different faction to your primary faction cost an additional command point to activate.

This would hopefully have the effect of the main faction being what the army is based around, allies are still useful but are not as efficient as they would be if they were your primary faction. As if they had a separate command structure of something :-)

Some soup armies are quite fluffy though. Also the people that make the fluffy army soups don't do it for advantages, in game. I have a guard army with Celestine as warlord, because I modelled the army of an in lore army that Celestine helped. Her warlord trait is usless and a few of her abilities are useless in my army, but I use her because of the fluff, not the in game advantage. Then for my 10,000 point army, Guard again, with one knight, Celestine, and allarus custodes. The knight because for in lore battles of that size there would always be at least 1 knight. Celestine for reasons already explained, and the custodes because there is a group of custodes that are assigned to guard commanders on certain campaigns for being legends.

I think you should be able to make soup armies, but you have to have 85% plus of the points as a "mother faction" and all the other parts of the army can only be auxillary support detachments, if taken from another faction, like guard and celestine. That will stop the abuse of CP, prevent the massive soup abusive lists, and a penalty for souping.

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Some soup armies are quite fluffy though. Also the people that make the fluffy army soups don't do it for advantages, in game. I have a guard army with Celestine as warlord, because I modelled the army of an in lore army that Celestine helped. Her warlord trait is usless and a few of her abilities are useless in my army, but I use her because of the fluff, not the in game advantage. Then for my 10,000 point army, Guard again, with one knight, Celestine, and allarus custodes. The knight because for in lore battles of that size there would always be at least 1 knight. Celestine for reasons already explained, and the custodes because there is a group of custodes that are assigned to guard commanders on certain campaigns for being legends.

I think you should be able to make soup armies, but you have to have 85% plus of the points as a "mother faction" and all the other parts of the army can only be auxillary support detachments, if taken from another faction, like guard and celestine. That will stop the abuse of CP, prevent the massive soup abusive lists, and a penalty for souping.

Soup might be fluffy sometimes but the majority of uses you see for it is to ignore weaknesses in a codex or to make cheap CP batteries to farm the good stuff. That's what needs to be curbed because it's bad for the game overall.

In general, I think the detachment system was a huge mistake in practice, although in theory, it sounds great. It should have been like how 7th edition was where you had ways to unlock things as Troops (so you could do those all Terminator/Biker armies), and just been the old FOC style with a Patrol for up to 1000 points, Battalion for like 1000-2000 points, Brigade (with reduced requirements say 1 Elite/Fast/Heavy) >= 2000 points, and allow like 1 Flyer/LOW/etc and not let you do detachments of entire Fast/Elite/Heavy, just controlled ways to make them Troop choices (with an addendum perhaps that units which are made troops, rather than began as Troops, do not get Objective Secured). Maybe even go older and allow you to swap 2 of one type to take an extra of a different type (such as back in 3.5 where Iron Warriors could trade 2 Fast Attack for a 4th Heavy Support).

There is no reason at all why you should be able to take a detachment of Flyers or Superheavies (barring things like Knights which IMHO were a mistake anyways but that's another topic). The myriad of detachments are turning out to be a really bad thing IMHO.

Step 1. Make more diverse universal stratagems.
Step 2. Faction specific stratagems can be used in Matched play only if your army is monofaction

Only problem I see with the "making up for weaknesses" argument is that all the main soups are just using units that are tactically and thematically similar to their own. IG + Castellan could just be IG + Shadowsword except the Shadowsword is priced better than the Castellan(ie not as OP). All the Aeldari are pretty much very similar with a few tricks on each(psychic powers perhaps being the largest gulf between Non-Drukhari and Drukhari). Aeldari tend to be low T models with high str weapons with good range regardless of faction. Even when you try to single out the oddities like coven with their high T close combat you also more or less have that in the Craftworld Wraithguard. It's not like Orks with gak shooting allying with Tau for good shooting. That would be a more explicit making up for a weakness compared to the current problem children.

So it always comes down to the same original point: Some units are inherently too powerful, and some traits are inherently too powerful. Therefore these things should be fixed before larger changes. A system that allowed the type of allying people are complaining about was 6th and 7th where you could ally Ork and Necrons; two wildly differing factions.

Wayniac wrote:
There is no reason at all why you should be able to take a detachment of Flyers or Superheavies (barring things like Knights which IMHO were a mistake anyways but that's another topic). The myriad of detachments are turning out to be a really bad thing IMHO.

Completely agree. Wargames work best when there are meaningful restrictions on what you can take, in order to facilitate balance. The problems began with Formations in 7th and 8th cranked that up to insane proportions with effectively unrestricted army selection rules. Seeing something like the 7-flyer Ynarri list that was in the LVO final is a pretty terrible indictment of the game, IMO. More than one of my gaming friends who do not play 40k have commented on how bad the game looks when there is nothing that seems to represent an army on the board, just giant mechs and hordes of flyers/monsters. In addition, that specific army was taking advantage of the shoddy rules for flyers and using them to block movement through them, which is a great example of how the 40k rules are creaking under the strain of having to represent everything from the lowliest Grot to supersonic jets and towering mechs.

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
There is no reason at all why you should be able to take a detachment of Flyers or Superheavies (barring things like Knights which IMHO were a mistake anyways but that's another topic). The myriad of detachments are turning out to be a really bad thing IMHO.

Completely agree. Wargames work best when there are meaningful restrictions on what you can take, in order to facilitate balance. The problems began with Formations in 7th and 8th cranked that up to insane proportions with effectively unrestricted army selection rules. Seeing something like the 7-flyer Ynarri list that was in the LVO final is a pretty terrible indictment of the game, IMO. More than one of my gaming friends who do not play 40k have commented on how bad the game looks when there is nothing that seems to represent an army on the board, just giant mechs and hordes of flyers/monsters. In addition, that specific army was taking advantage of the shoddy rules for flyers and using them to block movement through them, which is a great example of how the 40k rules are creaking under the strain of having to represent everything from the lowliest Grot to supersonic jets and towering mechs.

See, I liked the *concept* of Formations in 7th because to me they were a shopping list of sorts. e.g. I have one of these models if I buy two more and this other model I can field them and get some cool bonuses. The issue was their balance was all over the place and the super-formations were just ridiculous (e.g. Decurion, Gladius).

I also feel that we need 0-1 restrictions again or 1 per X restrictions again. It's a sad testament to the game IMHO that GW abandoned that concept because they figured 0-1 means they can't sell 3, rather than realize 0-1 was good for the health of the game overall (and just because this always gets trotted out, the desire to make money does not preclude the desire to put out good quality; I always see this "well they're a business they want to make money" as though that somehow excuses sacrificing the game's quality. Seriously I've had people argue that having a good game is somehow exclusive with GW making money!)

If it were up to me I'd scrap the multiple detachment things entirely as I said above. Instead, you'd basically just have Patrol/Battalion/Brigade that corresponds to the general size of the game (Small, Average, Large) and then each codex might have specific ways to unlock certain units as other types. Similar to how in 7th if you took IIRC a Bike captain in a marine force, you unlocked Bikers as troops. So for example, a Night Lords force might unlock Raptors/Warp Talons as troops; Saim-Hann makes Jetbikes troops; a Terminator captain (or give the option for a Veteran captain) would give you Vets and Terminators as troops. With the caveat as I said above, only native Troops get the ObSec equivalent.

40k as it is though is pretty ridiculous. That 7 flyer list at LVO was disgusting and a travesty and really shows how bad things can get. But that was always the issue; 40k, as it stands, can't represent close firefights and large-scale conflict. The rules re not made for that. GW really should have gone the Warpath route Mantic did and have two sets of rules, one for normal games that have more detail and one for larger games that have abstractions (say optionally use round movement trays or something) so the rules can best reflect those types of warfare without trying to apeal to everyone and as a result do everything poorly.

advantage of the shoddy rules for flyers and using them to block movement through them

This is perhaps the weirdest design GW has made. I don't understand why they didn't just use clear bases and then declare enemy units could stand on them.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
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.

Well cause you are wrong....

If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.

The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.

I think your saying you don't understand balance either.

I'll try to clear it up for you. To achieve balance fix the broken things. If the Stratagems and Relics are the problem, fix those. Don't fix the part that isn't broken. Cause if the Castellan was broken, it would be tearing up the Chaos Meta. Its not.

Change the point cost on the castellan is a stupid idea, and I will continue to point out the clearly poor thinking that goes into that. If you do raise the point cost on the castellan, its either still going to be worth it to the admech to drop a squad and keep running it, while further making sure it is useless to None admech armies, until people think it needed another raise in points. And if that happens, then Admech will swap to Porphyrions or Crusaders, and its a paperweight on shelf cause it was fixed the wrong way.

Everyone agree's its not the Castellan that is the issue. Its the Relic and Stratagems. So change them. Fix what is broken. Change the Order of Companions to be 2 CP for knights, and 4 CP for Dominus Class knights. If that doesn't do it, nerf Cawl's wrath. Perhaps make it do 2MW when it gets hot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Step 1. Make more diverse universal stratagems.
Step 2. Faction specific stratagems can be used in Matched play only if your army is monofaction

I liked this idea for a long while, but I think it loses steam with the assassin rules release. Something like this gives them no ability to use stratagems ever.

At this point, I really feel the only path forward is to:

1 Set CP based of the points of the game.
2 Lose CP for multiple detachments, and for adding other factions.
3. Re-cost stratagems in CP cost to reflect how effective they are.
4. Reduce most stratagems for many armies, and add a large amount of Stratagems to the universal use group.

Universal Stratagems should include:
Command Reroll, Turn 1 Cover Stratagem, Suicidal bravery, Reroll 1's to hit for a unit, Vehicle acts as if its not damaged for the turn, 5+ save for Mortal wounds for the rest of the turn for unit, Interrupt fight phase to attack. Fight again at end of turn for unit. Heroic sacrafice for a Charecter to shoot/fight. And Controversially, I think there should be the mechanic to pay one more than the Strat cost to cancel an opponet strat, but they are refunded the Strat cost. Like an agent of vect for all.

Reemule wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
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.

Well cause you are wrong....

If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.

The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.

I think your saying you don't understand balance either.

I'll try to clear it up for you. To achieve balance fix the broken things. If the Stratagems and Relics are the problem, fix those. Don't fix the part that isn't broken. Cause if the Castellan was broken, it would be tearing up the Chaos Meta. Its not.

Change the point cost on the castellan is a stupid idea, and I will continue to point out the clearly poor thinking that goes into that. If you do raise the point cost on the castellan, its either still going to be worth it to the admech to drop a squad and keep running it, while further making sure it is useless to None admech armies, until people think it needed another raise in points. And if that happens, then Admech will swap to Porphyrions or Crusaders, and its a paperweight on shelf cause it was fixed the wrong way.

Everyone agree's its not the Castellan that is the issue. Its the Relic and Stratagems. So change them. Fix what is broken. Change the Order of Companions to be 2 CP for knights, and 4 CP for Dominus Class knights. If that doesn't do it, nerf Cawl's wrath. Perhaps make it do 2MW when it gets hot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Step 1. Make more diverse universal stratagems.
Step 2. Faction specific stratagems can be used in Matched play only if your army is monofaction

I liked this idea for a long while, but I think it loses steam with the assassin rules release. Something like this gives them no ability to use stratagems ever.

At this point, I really feel the only path forward is to:

1 Set CP based of the points of the game.
2 Lose CP for multiple detachments, and for adding other factions.
3. Re-cost stratagems in CP cost to reflect how effective they are.
4. Reduce most stratagems for many armies, and add a large amount of Stratagems to the universal use group.

Universal Stratagems should include:
Command Reroll, Turn 1 Cover Stratagem, Suicidal bravery, Reroll 1's to hit for a unit, Vehicle acts as if its not damaged for the turn, 5+ save for Mortal wounds for the rest of the turn for unit, Interrupt fight phase to attack. Fight again at end of turn for unit. Heroic sacrafice for a Charecter to shoot/fight. And Controversially, I think there should be the mechanic to pay one more than the Strat cost to cancel an opponet strat, but they are refunded the Strat cost. Like an agent of vect for all.

You don't understand balance even remotely either. Your logic is so bad.


The strats wouldn't be broken in a codex that was just the strats and no Knights to use them on either, just like the vice versa. SO CLEARLY THE STRATS ARE FINE and we must Nerf EVERY SINGLE KNIGHT

Nerfing the strats etc would affect multiple units in the dex, punishing them all for one definitively overpowered unit. Yet some of them may be a problem too. We use the power of critical thinking that god gave us and recognise the individual offenders in a dex, rather than comparing to what is strong in a dex that lacks all the tools that this one has. I personally think Rotate Ion Shields for a 3++ shouldn't exist.

It's almost like the issue is more complex than "this one thing is broken and needs to be nerfed". The reality is that there isn't one thing that GW has to do to balance the game. They need to both adjust the points cost of multiple units and give soup some sort of drawback to give people a reason to play mono-codex. Both options should be viable in the competitive meta.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
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.

Well cause you are wrong....

If the Castellan was a problem it would have been in every Chaos list and a problem there also. It wasn't. You failed to understand balance.

The Chaos Castellan doesn't have access to the strats. I feel like this is the worst "gotcha" I've ever seen on here. This is like saying Smash Captains aren't good without the relics or Hive Guard are overpriced if you don't double shoot them. These things are part of the unit.

I think your saying you don't understand balance either.

I'll try to clear it up for you. To achieve balance fix the broken things. If the Stratagems and Relics are the problem, fix those. Don't fix the part that isn't broken. Cause if the Castellan was broken, it would be tearing up the Chaos Meta. Its not.

Change the point cost on the castellan is a stupid idea, and I will continue to point out the clearly poor thinking that goes into that. If you do raise the point cost on the castellan, its either still going to be worth it to the admech to drop a squad and keep running it, while further making sure it is useless to None admech armies, until people think it needed another raise in points. And if that happens, then Admech will swap to Porphyrions or Crusaders, and its a paperweight on shelf cause it was fixed the wrong way.

Everyone agree's its not the Castellan that is the issue. Its the Relic and Stratagems. So change them. Fix what is broken. Change the Order of Companions to be 2 CP for knights, and 4 CP for Dominus Class knights. If that doesn't do it, nerf Cawl's wrath. Perhaps make it do 2MW when it gets hot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Step 1. Make more diverse universal stratagems.
Step 2. Faction specific stratagems can be used in Matched play only if your army is monofaction

I liked this idea for a long while, but I think it loses steam with the assassin rules release. Something like this gives them no ability to use stratagems ever.

At this point, I really feel the only path forward is to:

1 Set CP based of the points of the game.
2 Lose CP for multiple detachments, and for adding other factions.
3. Re-cost stratagems in CP cost to reflect how effective they are.
4. Reduce most stratagems for many armies, and add a large amount of Stratagems to the universal use group.

Universal Stratagems should include:
Command Reroll, Turn 1 Cover Stratagem, Suicidal bravery, Reroll 1's to hit for a unit, Vehicle acts as if its not damaged for the turn, 5+ save for Mortal wounds for the rest of the turn for unit, Interrupt fight phase to attack. Fight again at end of turn for unit. Heroic sacrafice for a Charecter to shoot/fight. And Controversially, I think there should be the mechanic to pay one more than the Strat cost to cancel an opponet strat, but they are refunded the Strat cost. Like an agent of vect for all.

You don't understand balance even remotely either. Your logic is so bad.


The strats wouldn't be broken in a codex that was just the strats and no Knights to use them on either, just like the vice versa. SO CLEARLY THE STRATS ARE FINE and we must Nerf EVERY SINGLE KNIGHT

Nerfing the strats etc would affect multiple units in the dex, punishing them all for one definitively overpowered unit. Yet some of them may be a problem too. We use the power of critical thinking that god gave us and recognise the individual offenders in a dex, rather than comparing to what is strong in a dex that lacks all the tools that this one has. I personally think Rotate Ion Shields for a 3++ shouldn't exist.

Except you know what gives a mono Knights or even a primary knights list a lower win percentage including a Castellen.
And here in lies the problem with soup 1 model in an army with 15 or 20 CP can benifit from a 3 CP strategum 4 times.
A knight list with 9CP can use it maybe twice
Kights plus battalion can get maybe 3.

At no point along that train is their a CP cost for the strategum thats fair to mono and to the Astra Free CP list opponents.

You either fix the units for CP spam and remove knights from any other faction. And CP farm finds a new unit to cheerleader.

Or you fix the cheerleaders and stop treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

But hating on knights is cool so go ahead and join the mob, just don't expect sympathy when it's your codex taking a nerf bat beating for acquiring the effection of the cheerleader roid rage brigade if the emperors wrath.

Ice_can wrote:
Except you know what gives a mono Knights or even a primary knights list a lower win percentage including a Castellen.
And here in lies the problem with soup 1 model in an army with 15 or 20 CP can benifit from a 3 CP strategum 4 times.
A knight list with 9CP can use it maybe twice
Kights plus battalion can get maybe 3.

At no point along that train is their a CP cost for the strategum thats fair to mono and to the Astra Free CP list opponents.

You either fix the units for CP spam and remove knights from any other faction. And CP farm finds a new unit to cheerleader.

Or you fix the cheerleaders and stop treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

But hating on knights is cool so go ahead and join the mob, just don't expect sympathy when it's your codex taking a nerf bat beating for acquiring the effection of the cheerleader roid rage brigade if the emperors wrath.

I would agree with this. The issue is that thanks to soup Knights can use their incredibly powerful stratagems many times. It's likely that part of their balance is that they wouldn't have a lot of CP to spend, therefore their stratagems are more powerful. That limitation gets completely dismissed when you can take a dirt cheap Guard battalion to funnel CP towards the good Knight stratagems.

The goal of the game is that every piece in every list should have some consideration when deciding your list. And every stratagem available to you should have some place in play.

It too bad that some people don't understand that, and advocate fixes that will marginalize some models.

I get that people don't want their stuff to be nerfed. I don't think any unit choice should be worthless taking, but saying that castellan stragagams shouldn't be nerfed, because someone in the world plays a mono knight lists without a castellan or gallants, seems a bit odd.

In the end the whole CP and stratagem mechanic devoided of points and in a setting where some armies can get bucket loads, while others don't, is just bad and should be scraped.
Now this can only happen in a new edition. Right now it would be get a change that doesnt kill the IK as a faction and an ally, but also stops the game being about everyone being IG+IK or eldar soup. Now IMO there is a higher chance to achiving such a change by tweeking the stratagems. Either their rules or their cost. Probably both.

Changing point costs will have the dark reaper effect. Castellans in same set up are going to be run in IG list even if they cost 100pts more, and the moment when they cost too much everyone drop castellans as a hot potato and they will sit next to BAs waiting for next edition.

Here's another idea - Stratagems cost +1 CP when the battle forged army is not a monodex. This does not affect universal stratagems (command reroll, counter offensive, insane bravery).

my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.

You'll find that this suggestion is actually not that simple. We've had multi-page post on how to go about making this work, and it required entire overhaul of CP gerenated for detachments etc.

 skchsan wrote:
Here's another idea - Stratagems cost +1 CP when the battle forged army is not a monodex. This does not affect universal stratagems (command reroll, counter offensive, insane bravery).

Nice finally a solution that is simple enough that GW might actually impliment it in 8th edition and it hits at the crux of the matter with minimum wording.

 skchsan wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.

You'll find that this suggestion is actually not that simple. We've had multi-page post on how to go about making this work, and it required entire overhaul of CP gerenated for detachments etc.

this is 8th, GW wants everything simple.

I have read this whole thread, played a ton of games, and have almost every faciton in that game as an army/with play time. I think this is just the simplest and most viable solution. maybe add a chart for scale like 3 cp for sub 1k, 4 cp for 1k-1500, 5 cp for 1500+. but honestly even that is more complicated than it needs to be. It makes using your command points more impactful, and it gets rid of a lot of the advantages of soup.

... also remove soulburst completely, its a garbage mechanic and outshines everything else in the game (as well as making more complicated) in a game of limited numbe rof actions per unit unless spending rare/finite resources somehow one faction just gets extra actions)

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
my solution is simple, each player gets a set amount of strategem points per game turn. then the organization beyond that is only needed to assign faction key words to function.

You'll find that this suggestion is actually not that simple. We've had multi-page post on how to go about making this work, and it required entire overhaul of CP gerenated for detachments etc.

this is 8th, GW wants everything simple.

I have read this whole thread, played a ton of games, and have almost every faciton in that game as an army/with play time. I think this is just the simplest and most viable solution. maybe add a chart for scale like 3 cp for sub 1k, 4 cp for 1k-1500, 5 cp for 1500+. but honestly even that is more complicated than it needs to be. It makes using your command points more impactful, and it gets rid of a lot of the advantages of soup.

... also remove soulburst completely, its a garbage mechanic and outshines everything else in the game (as well as making more complicated) in a game of limited numbe rof actions per unit unless spending rare/finite resources somehow one faction just gets extra actions)

I think many of us here agreed with your suggestion at one point, and some of us are still continuing to play with similar ideas trying to develop it into readily implementable level.

The issue is that changing how CP is generated & spent at a fundamental level as a whole causes a cascade of changes that needs to be made, which we all jokingly end up at "maybe in 9th ed".

If we focus on making a command point more impactful per CP spent, it will actually benefit armies comprised of 1 CP spender and rest CP generator more than it does now.

True, a lot of earily codex had unit rules changed in to stratagams. Later codex got their rules as rules. To balance the discrepancy, some old stratagams would have to be made 1 or even 0 CP in cost.

But how much stuff should cost is a thing to find out for people smarter then me.