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.

Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

 Carnikang wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.

Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?

This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.

Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.

It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions

In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.

Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.

If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....

But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.

So, I don't think BB can apply to characters, named or otherwise. For instance Strakken can't be taken in a BB army. Secondly, I think all non BB units become BB units, and thus loose their original strats, abilities, etc.

Is this not correct?

Finally, Traitor Guardsmen are called cultists. Human helpers would be fire warriors, and human helpers for orks would be Grots. We don't need to ally everyone with everyone,

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.

Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?

This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.

Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.

It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions

In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.

Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.

If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....

But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.

So, I don't think BB can apply to characters, named or otherwise. For instance Strakken can't be taken in a BB army. Secondly, I think all non BB units become BB units, and thus loose their original strats, abilities, etc.

Is this not correct?

Finally, Traitor Guardsmen are called cultists. Human helpers would be fire warriors, and human helpers for orks would be Grots. We don't need to ally everyone with everyone,

BBs can still use all their original stratagems, psychic powers, and orders. They just replace their "Regiment Tactic" with Brood Brothers, which grants +1LD and the "Willing Sacrifice" or whatever it's called rule.

Wayniac wrote:
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

That would kill soup, which despite everyone here seeming to want, is something I doubt GW will ever actually do.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.

Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?

This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.

Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.

It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions

In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.

Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.

If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....

But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.

So, I don't think BB can apply to characters, named or otherwise. For instance Strakken can't be taken in a BB army. Secondly, I think all non BB units become BB units, and thus loose their original strats, abilities, etc.

Is this not correct?

Finally, Traitor Guardsmen are called cultists. Human helpers would be fire warriors, and human helpers for orks would be Grots. We don't need to ally everyone with everyone,

Addressing your first point/question. A Company Commander is a character, and can definitely be a Brood brother in a Brood Brother Astra Militarum detachment alongside a GSC detachment. I never said anything about special or named characters.
They also simply REPLACE all instances of the <Regiment> keyword with <Brood Brother>. They do not lose any abilities or strategems.

Your second point. I disagree. The fluff has multiple instances of Guard being converted to another aides cause. gue'vesa by the Tau are definitely a thing, and at one point had rules back in 4th or 5th. Traitor Guardsman (who now have legitimate models to differentiate them from cultists) are a HUGE part of the ImperialxChaos war. Digganobz, while a throwback to the yesteryears, would be hilarious and I don't see a problem with giving numerous factions a slice of the Imperial Pie, to say, a faction that is so widespread and pervasive that you can just about anything with it.

As a sidenote I would be super duper jazzed to get White Dwarf rules for a Digganob unit using the Goliath necromunda kit for Orks.

An elite choice unit with Power Hammer or Renderizer on the sergeant, Krumper or Combat shotgun as a special weapon, and choice of melee gear or autogun on the basic digganobz.

 Horst wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

That would kill soup, which despite everyone here seeming to want, is something I doubt GW will ever actually do.

I think for the benefit of the game longterm it has to happen at some point. Soup being allowed in tournaments is ruining the meta, and since GW seems to equate Matched Play with Tournament Play, they have to go together. That allied rule should be specific to matched play.

My guess is that there will another Ynnari change coming up. If they do not change Ynnari then my guess is that they are currently planning an Ynnari codex in the very near future.

I do thing they will address Cp somehow. I think the closest to a fix that MIGHT actually happen is restricting CP to be spent on the detachment that generated it.

as for hopes I would love to see Ynarri units actually be assigned different points than cratworld or dark eldar to balance them with how those unis preform there.

Wayniac wrote:

 Horst wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

That would kill soup, which despite everyone here seeming to want, is something I doubt GW will ever actually do.

I think for the benefit of the game longterm it has to happen at some point. Soup being allowed in tournaments is ruining the meta, and since GW seems to equate Matched Play with Tournament Play, they have to go together. That allied rule should be specific to matched play.

How is it ruining the meta though? If anything, I think it allows more units to be playable. If you implement a rule like you're suggesting here, Eldar and Guard will likely be top tier armies still. Brandon Grant's LVO list could easily swap the Castellan for some Guard heavy artillery and play basically the same, for example. 3 Tank Commanders put out just as much hurt as the Castellan, they're just more fragile, but if the enemy isn't souping in a Castellan they're more viable anyway. The main difference is that you'll see less differences in allied detachments. Custodes units saw play as allies, as did some Space Marine and Knights units. With these proposed rules, these factions that are really mostly used in soup are now non-viable, and so are just used less.

Eliminating soup will not change which armies have good codex and which have bad, it will just make it so you can't sure up weaknesses with good units from codex that aren't viable solo.

Soup is a big problem for balance. When there is no restriction on what a force contains then it results in unforeseen combos, many units never seeing play (as an ally unit is better,) and results in a loss of army flavour. In my opinion mono dex armies should generate more CP than soup, while soup has the benefit of using ally units to shore up weaknesses in the codex.

If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.

 Horst wrote:
If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.

How does Nerfing Soup affect how units perform? If you move towards monodex armies more units from those will see play, rather than a select few and then some beatstick/CP battery from another army.

I would genuinely like to see your reasoning.

 Horst wrote:
If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.

How does that work? Soup is what makes a lot of units never used. Why take a bunch of tacticals when you can just take guard? Why take most of marine codexes when you can take the more effective Knights? Soup allows a free for all and therefore makes many units redundant as there will be a better choice in another army... the same choice many others will take.

 Carnikang wrote:

 Horst wrote:
If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.

How does Nerfing Soup affect how units perform? If you move towards monodex armies more units from those will see play, rather than a select few and then some beatstick/CP battery from another army.

I would genuinely like to see your reasoning.

Because some armies are just not top tier if you look at their codex without allies. Knights without allies are SLAUGHTERED by Eldar, and often even buy Guard. Custodes are the same way, their codex, when played as a mono-dex list, is really not that good because they have so few models. Knights see a lot of play though, because Guard synergize with them so well. Custodes as well see a lot of play with Guard allies. If you nerf allies though, then Guard will just make due without allies. Yes, jetbike captains are great, but you can probably just include a 9 man squad of Bullgryn to act as a heavy melee component and play it a bit differently but still make it work. Yes, Guard + Knights is great, but if allies are nerfed then Guard will just spam tanks or artillery to make up for their loss.

Moving towards monodex doesn't change the fact that many codex are just overall inferior to others. Guard, Drukhari, Aeldari, and Harlequins would still be some of the best codex out there, you just see even fewer imperial and chaos models in play if they can't soup in select good units from other (generally weaker) books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chnmmr wrote:

 Horst wrote:
If you wanna buff mono-dex lists, that's fine, but nerfing soup IMO is just gonna reduce the number of playable units in the game even further.

How does that work? Soup is what makes a lot of units never used. Why take a bunch of tacticals when you can just take guard? Why take most of marine codexes when you can take the more effective Knights? Soup allows a free for all and therefore makes many units redundant as there will be a better choice in another army... the same choice many others will take.

Mono dex will not make tacticals any more viable. You'll just see less marine units on the tables, period. Now they at least function as allies to some degree. That won't be the case otherwise.

Wayniac wrote:
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

This doesn't solve the problem.

The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

This doesn't solve the problem.

The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.

Since when was "dividing by two, rounding down" funky math?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

This doesn't solve the problem.

The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.

Since when was "dividing by two, rounding down" funky math?

To be fair to Marm, this is a GW game. But then again I remember when they streamlined everything from 2nd -> 3rd because "maths is hard" (seriously that was one of their reasons, that 2nd had too much math).

I don't think that reversing how detachment works are any sort of viable solution not because it's bad, but because it requires adjusting the idea of the game. There's already a precedent for not giving different factions traits and halving their CP (i.e. Brood Brothers), so it's something that could be a Matched Play addendum in an FAQ or chapter approved or something.

I kinda agree with Horst that it will just reduce the number of units played per army and not increase. Mostly because units are picked because they are viable and not because you have to. So if you are picking X from one army and Y from the next which results in a set of Z units. Mono-ing those armies just means you pick X and not Y and the result becomes Z-Y.

How does that work? Soup is what makes a lot of units never used. Why take a bunch of tacticals when you can just take guard?

Mono Space-Marine armies tend to take scouts over tacticals to begin with so there is your problem. Limiting selection will not magically fix what people select, it just means you pick more of what you were already picking. I play mono-Craftworlds for the most part and I am not picking much of the units that you wouldn't pick in a soup army. I am still picking the core units and if anything I am fielding more of the same compared to the soup army. Only times I'd go beyond that is when I know I am going for an explicitly casual or narrative game.

Which brings to the core point that people seem to refuse to see and that is that there are ton of units that just won't see the light of day in any tourney/competitive setting because they are just worse than the best units in the army. If we would magically make every single unit 100% viable on the battlefield then soup would be a harder choice because picking soup means you can pick less from one army as you are picking stuff from another army. Only reason I can imagine people not realizing that is because a lot of people seem to be stuck in a bit of a rock-paper-scissor mentality where one army counters another and so on and so on which to be frank is a horrible game design. Every army should be able to counter each other. No army should be a hard counter to another army. Unit against unit perhaps, but never a whole army.

Also, make CP a fixed number and cost stratagems accordingly. Then you'd get rid of all CP batteries forever. Then drastically change Ynnari with their own separate point cost and you will have a much more balanced game. There are straightforward ways to address the big problems right now.

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yup, after considering it a bit more I'd agree. It does mean you can min-max detachments within the same faction but different subfactions, but that's not as big a deal as legit soup.

So for posterity's sake:

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
A Battleforged army needs to declare a detachment as its Primary detachment. All other detachments which do not share at least one keyword (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranid) with the primary detachment are considered Allied detachments. Allied detachments do not get access to their army-specific traits or relics, and do not unlock stratagems (although stratagems that would affect them work as normal). In addition, Allied detachments grant half the normal Command Points, rounding down? (or up? Whatever the default is) to a minimum of 1.

This doesn't solve the problem.

The better solution is to just give everyone 15CP, and subtract from that for each <faction> keyword, super heavy, and non-battalion or brigade detachment. Then you don't need to mess around with funky math and everyone gets equal footing.

That would defeat the intended design of CP to reward an organic army. Your mono tank SM vanguard would have the same CP as a tau brigade. Just no.
The current CP system is fine as a basic idea. What is needed, is to hardcap the CP that a detachment can give based on the cost of it, like max 1 CP per 100 points spent on the detachment. This way factions with cheap troops and HQs do not have an inbuilt advantage on CP.

I agree that introducing a FLAT cp for every battle forged army will make all MONO codex armies a lot more viable.

Custodes and marines will be far less likely to take the loyal 32, but they still might just for screens and bodies.

It'll be a nerf to straight guard army's CP total, but they don't need 20 CP when they play mono anyway.

It will bring back triple vanguard/spearhead detachment armies, but that's fine. Those lists tend to lack the amount of bodies to hold objectives or have good board control.

I am honestly a fan of soup conceptually. It fits the setting and you get to fun favorite factions next to each other. That's great. but it's clearly broken balance in 8th.

So, if you don't want to make soup more balanced to mono-codex via detachment/cp/ect. limitations then units need to be balanced according to their potential global-optimum use in soup armies. That's where the trouble is. Soup get to cherry pick, everybody else gets what they got in the book.

That means you either need to hit some globaly-optimum units, like the Castellan (Which I'm gonna pick on here, but it's not like it's the sole issue), with the nerf bat or buff up many codex units. Or really do both - if nerfing the Castellan to soup-appropriate levels hits pure-dex Knights too hard, the IKs need buffs in other ways.

If a Castellan was truly a similar power compared to 3 Tank Commanders, as was suggested earlier in the thread, this whole soup argument wouldn't exist like this.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Which brings to the core point that people seem to refuse to see and that is that there are ton of units that just won't see the light of day in any tourney/competitive setting because they are just worse than the best units in the army. If we would magically make every single unit 100% viable on the battlefield then soup would be a harder choice because picking soup means you can pick less from one army as you are picking stuff from another army. Only reason I can imagine people not realizing that is because a lot of people seem to be stuck in a bit of a rock-paper-scissor mentality where one army counters another and so on and so on which to be frank is a horrible game design. Every army should be able to counter each other. No army should be a hard counter to another army. Unit against unit perhaps, but never a whole army.

So much this. If mono armies have all the tools they need then allies become a thematic choice, not a crunch choice.