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.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And by consequence Fething up balance for all other overarching factions?

Yeah no, i think i 'll pass. the CP system is flawed to no end.

It really isn't, simply because all the other factions have something similar built in rather than pointlessly spun out into their own thing. Wraith Knights have Dire Avengers in the same codex. People seem unwilling to admit that Orks compete with a single codex because that codex is full of nearly as many sub factions as an entire soup faction and can build armies under the same principles. The only difference is just how many times for the Imperium GW has historically released a new kit and claimed its an entire faction when there's not nearly enough out to support it.

That wasn't my point,like at all.

My point was that some factions have access to good stratagems and also a faction within the overarching one that also generates cheap masses of CP.
Whilest others simply don't.
That is my Crux with the system atm.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And by consequence Fething up balance for all other overarching factions?

Yeah no, i think i 'll pass. the CP system is flawed to no end.

It really isn't, simply because all the other factions have something similar built in rather than pointlessly spun out into their own thing. Wraith Knights have Dire Avengers in the same codex. People seem unwilling to admit that Orks compete with a single codex because that codex is full of nearly as many sub factions as an entire soup faction and can build armies under the same principles. The only difference is just how many times for the Imperium GW has historically released a new kit and claimed its an entire faction when there's not nearly enough out to support it.

That wasn't my point,like at all.

My point was that some factions have access to good stratagems and also a faction within the overarching one that also generates cheap masses of CP.
Whilest others simply don't.
That is my Crux with the system atm.

Pretty much everyone has an option to generate mass CP pretty cheap and pretty much everyone has access to good Stratagems as long as their book is newer than the fall after 8th was released when GW was still nailing the system down. I guess I'm not sure who doesn't have access to cheap CP? Necrons are the one I generally consider the big exception in need of help and even they perform fairly well.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And by consequence Fething up balance for all other overarching factions?

Yeah no, i think i 'll pass. the CP system is flawed to no end.

It really isn't, simply because all the other factions have something similar built in rather than pointlessly spun out into their own thing. Wraith Knights have Dire Avengers in the same codex. People seem unwilling to admit that Orks compete with a single codex because that codex is full of nearly as many sub factions as an entire soup faction and can build armies under the same principles. The only difference is just how many times for the Imperium GW has historically released a new kit and claimed its an entire faction when there's not nearly enough out to support it.

That wasn't my point,like at all.

My point was that some factions have access to good stratagems and also a faction within the overarching one that also generates cheap masses of CP.
Whilest others simply don't.
That is my Crux with the system atm.

Pretty much everyone has an option to generate mass CP pretty cheap and pretty much everyone has access to good Stratagems as long as their book is newer than the fall after 8th was released when GW was still nailing the system down. I guess I'm not sure who doesn't have access to cheap CP? Necrons are the one I generally consider the big exception in need of help and even they perform fairly well.

Good, show me the base cost of all the cheapest battalions.
Then we go into the quality of these battalions.
Cp /pts please.

I am certain that that is a fun excercise to exemplify what i mean by it.

Basically, my main complaint is that not even the Basis for the supposed depth of the game has equal long pikes for all factions involved.

MVBrandt wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
I sum up this topic as people are falling into becoming "advocates" for a specific format like ITC/ETC/NOVA and there is a typical behaviour of "pushing the idea that these formats have actual merit." None of them do, they are all basically house ruled games e.g. the format part. I am not saying it doesn't take skill or game knowledge to play in these formats but when specific people are pushing "this is pinnacle of table top sport." That's when the fanboys come out the wood works. Not to mention the biggest problem 40k has from a competitive standpoint is that the terrain rules play such a massive effect in game when the terrain rules suck or don't exists. Thus leading to biased mechanics that I generally disagree with.

These kinds of posts spank of not really knowing much of anything. The NOVA format, for example, has never advocated a sport feel or anything similar (in fact, I'd say we staunchly oppose any effort to turn 40K into a sport); merely presenting as fair a format and experience for all player types as possible within a 40K tournament. As far as being house rules, well ... our on-site judges include the guy who wrote 40K 8th and is the senior rules writer for the game. I don't imagine he'd agree with your assessment, though one never knows.

This thread remains an entertaining read, however. 40K is a game, it's a fun game, and it's fun to play games. It wasn't built for tournament play in 8th edition, and it's neat that the thousands of people who enjoy playing in 40K tournaments have a robust community of organizers out there to provide them with even more fun times. Whether it is competitive isn't really as important as the fact lots of people have tons of fun playing in tournaments, and spend almost 0 time insulting or being offended by people who *Don't* like tournaments. It's too bad it doesn't work the other way around so often.

Completely missing the context of my post. You say I don't know what I an talking about but you post nothing to contradict my statements. I was referencing that it is human behaviour to treat formats with more legitimacy than they merit (GW change rules/points because of how some armies where preforming for example). Seriously the sports comment was my humour more directed to the ITC. It sounds I hit a nerve with the truth these events are nothing more than "House Rules." the only difference is the number of people who accept these "house rules." What I have nothing against do what you wanna do, I was talking about the threads topic. Toxicity in my view is when people take these formats / "house rules" as gospel and create tribalistic groups of "outsiders" "insiders".

The whole "meta-narrative" of 40k and is even more a joke. Simply put 40k is not a game that is very good at the "strict comp play style." This is why we have those 3 ITC/ETC/NOVA they cater to the players that go. What is perfectly fine and I have nothing against them in that regard.

Just doing a quick check on the Xenos that don't really have allies:

Orks: 200 with Big Meks and Gretchin
Tau: 189 with Fireblades and Strike Teams
Necrons: 375 with Lords and Immortals :(

I think its worth remembering though that an Imperium list with the Loyal 32 isn't paying 180 points to unlock each Battalion. For example, the Blood Angels detachment is going to be 265 minimum and much like the minimums posted above, isn't going to be that low because points will be spent to upgrade the HQs to something worthwhile. Imperium is full of factions that to add to your soup you need to pay a pretty significant premium, where other factions either have access to their own version of soup, or pay a slightly higher, but more consistent tax for their CP.

 LunarSol wrote:
Just doing a quick check on the Xenos that don't really have allies:

Orks: 200 with Big Meks and Gretchin
Tau: 189 with Fireblades and Strike Teams
Necrons: 375 with Lords and Immortals :(

I think its worth remembering though that an Imperium list with the Loyal 32 isn't paying 180 points to unlock each Battalion. For example, the Blood Angels detachment is going to be 265 minimum and much like the minimums posted above, isn't going to be that low because points will be spent to upgrade the HQs to something worthwhile. Imperium is full of factions that to add to your soup you need to pay a pretty significant premium, where other factions either have access to their own version of soup, or pay a slightly higher, but more consistent tax for their CP.

Nope.
Ork 40/CP
Tau 36..../CP
Necrons close to 80/CP
Chaos Space Marines RC Warpsmiths csm 39..../CP non RC 54/cp
IG 36 /CP

And on and on and on.

Now we look at general effectiveness of stratagems.
IG stratagems, gak.
Csm stratagems, very good.

So not only is cp gain not fair the stratagems behind them, which should determine the ressources required are also not fair.

So again, does this look like a reasonable position to even start balancing?

It would be a bigger problem if those rates turned into 2000 * CP/Point but it doesn't. Realistically, its hard to spend more than 700ish on CP generation because at that point you hit the 3 detatchment cap. The rest is what you make of it. If that 700 isn't very good but you have better options, then its worth spending more to generate your CP, which is very common with the HQs. In fact, one of the big things people should be doing is spending points to upgrade those cheap commanders to Tank Commanders now that the laurels aren't ridiculous. The point is, generating CP isn't really a burden on anyone (except Necrons.... poor, poor, Necrons) if they're using the tool available to them to do so. The Imperium is just in a place where that often requires Guard, because so many of their factions can't make a battalion without spending a fortune on it.

 LunarSol wrote:
It would be a bigger problem if those rates turned into 2000 * CP/Point but it doesn't. Realistically, its hard to spend more than 700ish on CP generation because at that point you hit the 3 detatchment cap. The rest is what you make of it. If that 700 isn't very good but you have better options, then its worth spending more to generate your CP, which is very common with the HQs. In fact, one of the big things people should be doing is spending points to upgrade those cheap commanders to Tank Commanders now that the laurels aren't ridiculous. The point is, generating CP isn't really a burden on anyone (except Necrons.... poor, poor, Necrons) if they're using the tool available to them to do so. The Imperium is just in a place where that often requires Guard, because so many of their factions can't make a battalion without spending a fortune on it.

So the quality of that 700 pts terrible is fine compared to 700 generating and actually beeing decent?

Chaos literally has R&H that generate CP even cheaper then guard, yet you don't see them.
Why? Because they suck.
So you are stuck with the RC battery. Which has the added disadvantage that as a detachment it pays close to necron price. And gives you 2 Warpsmiths and 15 csm, which as do tacticals, suck. (altough with tacticals now at 12 pts they hillariously suck even more )

So a 3rd of an 2000 pts list beeing forced into gak for one side whilest the other actually get's a benefit out of them is fine?

 auticus wrote:

and spend almost 0 time insulting or being offended by people who *Don't* like tournaments. It's too bad it doesn't work the other way around so often

I had to have a chuckle at this one because I am around plenty of the other side as well. (I'm around both pretty much equally)

I read that and it took me a second to realize he was serious.

Most competitive chaos armies just take Daemons for CP generation and screening. Arguing the cost per cp for their regular troops is asinine, because nobody uses them. Might as well take some Daemons and get good, useful troops like Plaguebearers, horrors, and bloodletters.

So if you're gonna take those units anyway, since they are very good, then why bother arguing about how much CP it costs per point?

Exactly. CSM don't have a good CP battery in their codex, but they do in their allies, just like Custodes completely lack a good CP battery unless they take Guard.

What, are the Red Corsairs not a good CP battery?

Nurglitch wrote:
What, are the Red Corsairs not a good CP battery?

I like them. I got a list with CSM 5x man unit. Bolt Pistol, Chainsword. Getting Shock Assault soon is great. If CSM go to 12 ppm

Nurglitch wrote:
What, are the Red Corsairs not a good CP battery?

Not really, the issue is that whilest the price / Cp is actually really competitve, it also is one of the more expensive and useless Battalions overall to field.
(i am sorry to say this, as i absolutely love my 60 new CSM, but CSM don't work. They don't, and also with the recent pirce shifts in their comparable mirror unit just shows that they are still overpriced for what they do.)

This is why you still see Daemon battalions. Instead of RC battalions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThatMG wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
What, are the Red Corsairs not a good CP battery?

I like them. I got a list with CSM 5x man unit. Bolt Pistol, Chainsword. Getting Shock Assault soon is great. If CSM go to 12 ppm

BIG if.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Competive 40k is self contradicting term anyway so what's the matter anyway.

Highly inclined to disagree with you. High level play is completely different to the average beet and pretzels game of 40k.

Dwight Schrute has entered the chat.

Serious: I am a competitive person. Not win at all costs, but I like to know where I stand amongst my peers when anything of skill is involved.That said I much prefer the tournament scene of Age of Sigmar which revolves more around camaraderie and good times had by all with people using optimized armies and know their rules, vs 40k where it seems to be about stepping on someone's back as a means to claw there way to the top of nerd mountain.

AoS balance is so much of a joke that you really can't take it seriously though.

The same could be said of 40k 'balance'

stratigo wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Competive 40k is self contradicting term anyway so what's the matter anyway.

Highly inclined to disagree with you. High level play is completely different to the average beet and pretzels game of 40k.

Dwight Schrute has entered the chat.

Serious: I am a competitive person. Not win at all costs, but I like to know where I stand amongst my peers when anything of skill is involved.That said I much prefer the tournament scene of Age of Sigmar which revolves more around camaraderie and good times had by all with people using optimized armies and know their rules, vs 40k where it seems to be about stepping on someone's back as a means to claw there way to the top of nerd mountain.

AoS balance is so much of a joke that you really can't take it seriously though.

As a big fan of AoS and play both casually and competitively I have to completely agree.

But I am confused as to how that differs from 40k.

AOS balance is definitely lol. Its supporters will say that its great and balanced because at the tournament level there is so much diversity (which I'd contend is also false) in the winning percentages. At the casual level its definitely blow out city in many games due 100% to the list mismatches.

40k I quit and sold my stuff off a couple years ago so I can't comment though I'd have to say I would find it hard to believe there is any balance there after having played 3rd - 7th edition and it never existing at all in those editions either.

 auticus wrote:
AOS balance is definitely lol. Its supporters will say that its great and balanced because at the tournament level there is so much diversity (which I'd contend is also false) in the winning percentages. At the casual level its definitely blow out city in many games due 100% to the list mismatches.

40k I quit and sold my stuff off a couple years ago so I can't comment though I'd have to say I would find it hard to believe there is any balance there after having played 3rd - 7th edition and it never existing at all in those editions either.

40k has balance if both players bring meta lists... and there are a lot of those from every race. Even Necrons. Only GK have no chance. Still, casual games are often blowouts unless the person with the stronger army intentionally tones it down to match his opponent, because there are a lot of very bad choices tou can make building an army.

If every army is tournament viable minus one or two that is a step up.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And by consequence Fething up balance for all other overarching factions?

Yeah no, i think i 'll pass. the CP system is flawed to no end.

It really isn't, simply because all the other factions have something similar built in rather than pointlessly spun out into their own thing. Wraith Knights have Dire Avengers in the same codex. People seem unwilling to admit that Orks compete with a single codex because that codex is full of nearly as many sub factions as an entire soup faction and can build armies under the same principles. The only difference is just how many times for the Imperium GW has historically released a new kit and claimed its an entire faction when there's not nearly enough out to support it.

Ummmm no...Orks don't have even close to as many sub factions as even eldar soup has nevermind imperium. Nobody gets even remotely as close to sub factions as Imperium and orks are by far behind.

 Horst wrote:

 auticus wrote:
AOS balance is definitely lol. Its supporters will say that its great and balanced because at the tournament level there is so much diversity (which I'd contend is also false) in the winning percentages. At the casual level its definitely blow out city in many games due 100% to the list mismatches.

40k I quit and sold my stuff off a couple years ago so I can't comment though I'd have to say I would find it hard to believe there is any balance there after having played 3rd - 7th edition and it never existing at all in those editions either.

40k has balance if both players bring meta lists... and there are a lot of those from every race. Even Necrons. Only GK have no chance. Still, casual games are often blowouts unless the person with the stronger army intentionally tones it down to match his opponent, because there are a lot of very bad choices tou can make building an army.

I would agree. If both players are bringing meta lists then the balance isn't that bad. There's the rub. The meta lists change regularly and you have to constantly change out your army if you want balance. You are in essence locked into a small handful of builds. Thats always been a feature of GW games though (and yes all games to an extent, though GW games are the worst offenders I have found)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If every army is tournament viable minus one or two that is a step up.

I think most people don't have enough experience with competitive gaming to recognize how incredibly rare this is.

Also, even GKs can do okay as long as they're taken with some other options. Probably not going to win LVO but there are plenty of other tournaments out there.

 LunarSol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If every army is tournament viable minus one or two that is a step up.

I think most people don't have enough experience with competitive gaming to recognize how incredibly rare this is.

Also, even GKs can do okay as long as they're taken with some other options. Probably not going to win LVO but there are plenty of other tournaments out there.

So basically it's fine, if you can soup or just go to a tournament where the specific ruleset is better for your army then for others?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If every army is tournament viable minus one or two that is a step up.

I think most people don't have enough experience with competitive gaming to recognize how incredibly rare this is.

Also, even GKs can do okay as long as they're taken with some other options. Probably not going to win LVO but there are plenty of other tournaments out there.

So basically it's fine, if you can soup or just go to a tournament where the specific ruleset is better for your army then for others?

Doesn't have to be a specific ruleset; Winning LVO is just the hardest hill to climb so it probably shouldn't be your barometer for success.

And... yeah.... soup is the answer given to a lot of the game's balance challenges. It's a consolidation of factions that had splintered entirely out of hand. That's why the edition was sold under the banner of essentially 3 factions to begin with. It's a great opportunity to find better places for elite units that GW tried to stretch far beyound what they had interesting design space for.

Yeah, looking over the past few pages of posts,
some interesting comments, but what strikes me most is the
way that the game is spoken of, e.g. take this for CPs, who has the best CP farm, which "builds" are "competitive", and so on...
It is all about gaming the game system...
and the thing is that it is not that difficult to game this game system, I mean it is effectively made that way to con people into chasing 'meta-list' madness...
On its own, Ok, I understand, but as part of this thread it is a bit ironic, and at the same time useful, because look, this is the sort of tacit regard for the game that many people find off-putting. Once someone uses the word "build" in the conversation, worlds divide.

Metas are an odd thing. To a degree they are created by the players but they're also something developers are looking to shape so that the game looks the way they envision it. A lot of the time this is done through restrictions; FOC or what have you. Other times its the result of incentives put into the system to encourage players down certain paths.

From the beginning, 8th edition has pushed the latter and as much as players have insisted there's something "wrong" with soup; its how the edition was originally sold and most updates have further encouraged mixed builds taken from multiple, but ultimately related sources. Terms like "soup", "farm", "tax" and "battery" are player created (often intentionally derogatory) shorthand for things the developers keep rewarding.

It may just be that I'm relatively new to 40k on the tabletop, but honestly the main reason I don't really see this stuff as gaming the system is that its created the world as I've experienced it in videogames and other media. 2000 points of marines looks ridiculous to me, as my experience with the world tends to cap them around 10, with the rest of the army being Guard, maybe a knight or some inquisitors or something. Chaos Marines among hordes of daemons, mutated cultists backed up by their tyranid masters, etc. The lines drawn by the codex don't really show up anywhere but in the game, and by consolidating a lot of factions under bigger keywords, I see more of the world that I enjoy. It's all perspective, but the mixed armies of 8th look substantially less "gamey" to me than when I've looked into the game in the past and largely seen 10 or so of the same thing copied over and over. It's diverse and interesting and far less mechanical to me.

To be fair, the edition was also envisioned to be using the "Auxiliary Detachments" where you take single units and pay a CP penalty.

That's where players become a problem as they ignored it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
To be fair, the edition was also envisioned to be using the "Auxiliary Detachments" where you take single units and pay a CP penalty.

That's where players become a problem as they ignored it.

I think a lot of the detachment design space got abandoned in favor of battalions once they started designing strategems as a major game element. I actually don't like Aux Detachments as a design space, as it leads to more of a "guest starring, broken dude" style of inclusion. The battalion focus at least ensures each ally has a decent table presence. I do think a lot more could be done with the other detachment types, but given the whole system is basically bolting a resource economy onto to the game; I suspect GW is sidelining a lot of additional gimmicks to make sure the core of it works correctly. You can see the bits that fall outside of their focus when they actually react by cracking down on things like Imperium keyworded Supreme Commands or the whole Vect thing.

Disagree. You can see where the design space was intended to head towards the Auxiliary Detachments, but somewhere along the way it was shifted(and I have my hunches it's from the tourney playtester crowds) to the current soup-y system we have.