Soups and 8th Edition

[Mileposter]

Lysere - I like the concept of your suggestion, but to note it punishes those wanting to play pure lists just as much as soupers. I could run 100% Dark Angels, but 4 detachments, and still be put at disadvantage by your system - without gaining the benefit of versatility from other factions.

 

In that light, with some armies, it would promote MORE soup rather than less. If you were to adjust that slip, that might be a good avenue overall.

[Lysere]

Lysere - I like the concept of your suggestion, but to note it punishes those wanting to play pure lists just as much as soupers. I could run 100% Dark Angels, but 4 detachments, and still be put at disadvantage by your system - without gaining the benefit of versatility from other factions.

 

In that light, with some armies, it would promote MORE soup rather than less. If you were to adjust that slip, that might be a good avenue overall.

 

To be honest if you have enough models for four detachments you could probably fit them into two by simply rearranging them. If not you'd have to be running a super focused list such as nothing but elites and HQs, and even then if 12 elites slots and 4 HQ slots can't fit something like a deathwing list then you have to make a choice, do you want 3 more command points or 1 but more elite slots?

 

The problem is currently there is absolutely no incentive to actually fill a detachment and mixing factions is almost always 100% better. My goal with this idea is to change that.

[Kinstryfe]

Hmmmm maybe change detachments to give CP based on how many slots you fill. Yes, it's still technically abusable, but may be a bit better. A lot of the time now it's more sensible to split off into another detachment than to fully fill the first one. Could work.

[Lysere]

Hmmmm maybe change detachments to give CP based on how many slots you fill. Yes, it's still technically abusable, but may be a bit better. A lot of the time now it's more sensible to split off into another detachment than to fully fill the first one. Could work.

 

Exactly, all that I really care about is rewarding people for actually using the detachments they take over just taking another one. My idea is just one of several ways it could probably be done.

 

The other goal is to make list building an actual choice. My main list at the moment is Scions, a Knight, and mechanicus. The knight and scions are the core of the list paired up more for fluff than anything else while the mechanicus are entirely there to make the list more competitive. If I dropped the knight and took some more mechanicus there is Zero incentive to put those models in the existing detachment right now. If I took a third onager and another HQ then I'm rewarded for splitting them off into an entirely different detachment, moreso if I make them an entirely different forgeworld since Ryza doesn't do much for them. There needs to be an actual tradeoff for doing something like this.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I honestly think the best idea so far in this thread is to simply specify that a CP generated by a Detachment from X Faction can only be 'spent' on a unit from X Faction.

 

It gimps WAAC types and doesn't really affect the vast majority of those of us for whom abusive power-gaming is not an issue.

 

I'd maybe go further and specify that a CP from X Detachment can only be spent on a unit from that Detachment, thereby ridding ourselves of abusively constructed Supreme Commands and the like.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Res Ipsa Loquitur

[Lord_Caerolion]

I agree, they need to do something like what they did with Power dice in Warhammer Fantasy, like what Res Ipsa Loquitur suggests, where they made it so that Wizards couldn't use dice generated by other Wizards to power their spells. Just make it that units can only use Command Points generated from the default ones, or from their own Detachment, and I think that'll be a great fix. No more spamming min-maxed Imperial Guard to get CP's for your Astartes, those can now only benefit the min-maxed IG.

 

Then it's a simple act of giving Inquisitors/Agents of the Emperor a rule that they count as a part of every Detachment in a Battle-Forged army they're taken in.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

To be clear, restricting CP usage is not my idea. Somebody else mentioned it earlier, at best I refined it slightly.

[Lord_Caerolion]

That'll teach me for not reading through the thread fully...

[DuskRaider]

It would be far better if they simply changed the rules for some armies where it's not so easy to generate more CP throughout the game. Some of it is just ridiculous.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Yes, but that simply isn't going to happen.

 

It will be an across the board 'simple' fix like restricting CP usage or it won't be. They aren't going to suddenly volte face on the entire philosophy of 8th Ed. and introduce Faction specific rules for CP generation and/or usage.

 

Also, only play against painted models. Someone who paints at least 61 Guardsmen deserves their CP.

[Gentlemanloser]

There are currently 2 iirc codex armies (obviously GK being one of them) that do not have any way to regain CP.

 

everyone else has some variation of regain/refund CP on 5+.

 

Heck Guard have both.

 

This is another heavy push towards souping Guard.

 

GK have little better options than a Tempestor Prime with both the CP warlord trait and CP relic.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

So?

 

Assuming, without deciding, that the GK codex is in fact a 'miss', is it seriously your position that they should overhaul the entire system to fix an issue you have with your Faction?

[Gentlemanloser]

If they don't fix the factions themselves, then yes.

 

Do You think it's ok to have a few factions CP handicapped for no reason?

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I personally don't believe that any Factions are necessarily handcuffed and I believe - and my experiences support - that CP shenanigans just aren't much of an issue for the overwhelming majority of us.

 

Insisting on an overhaul to the system to appease a small, but loud, part of the fanbase is ludicrously entitled. It is akin to insisting that all Imprezas be sold at WRC spec in WRC livery because maybe five people will take one on a rally track, someday.

 

If WAAC tournament types (which, for clarity, I use as a descriptive, not a pejorative) have an issue with other WAAC tournament types beating them (which is what these threads always boil down to) then the solution is for TOs to sort it out, not GW. Why subject the rest of us to a restrictive solution to a problem we don't have?

Edited February 13, 2018 by Res Ipsa Loquitur

[Gentlemanloser]

Entitled? This is mearly highlighting another issue with soups. The point of this thread.

 

CP is a massive issue for the propensity to soup. And it's not just for gaining CP.

 

A Tempestor Prime as warlord with relic is a cheap as chips option for CP longevity. Something some armies weren't gifted to have by GW. But a cheap option even for those who were.

 

Want to limit souping? Then this aspect of CP abuse needs to be tackled as well.

 

And yes. Being denied an option, any option, to regain spent CP is a massive handicap.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Lysere]

I personally don't believe that any Factions are necessarily handcuffed and I believe - and my experiences support - that CP shenanigans just aren't much of an issue for the overwhelming majority of us.

 

Insisting on an overhaul to the system to appease a small, but loud, part of the fanbase is ludicrously entitled. It is akin to insisting that all Imprezas be sold at WRC spec in WRC livery because maybe five people will take one on a rally track, someday.

 

If WAAC tournament types (which, for clarity, I use as a descriptive, not a pejorative) have an issue with other WAAC tournament types beating them (which is what these threads always boil down to) then the solution is for TOs to sort it out, not GW. Why subject the rest of us to a restrictive solution to a problem we don't have?

 

The detachment and command point rules are almost entirely built around matched play and should be balanced for such. If the competitive scene is having an issue with mixed factions, command points, and the way detachments are used then the rules for that section of the game should be looked at.

 

Personally the larger issue as I've mentioned is the lack of incentive to use detachments that you take. Fill the minimum and move on. By rewarding people for not doing that you don't have to overhaul the whole system and can make people have to actually choose between allies or more command points.

 

Just because your experience says something isn't an issue doesn't mean it's fine anyway. I didn't think dark reapers or Eldar were an issue until the LVO, because absolutely no one in my area plays Eldar at the moment. That's not to say that I don't somewhat agree, in friendly games command points are just something we end up with and use as best we can and nothing really needs to be changed there. When you sit down to make a strong list though you're almost always rewarded more for taking allies than not. The only choice you're making is to limit yourself simply because you don't like an idea.

 

As a great example if you were to run any sort of Imperial Knight list you are always better off squeezing in some sort of mechanicus allies. Not only will it usually give you more command points but it will also give you a stratagem that is almost a must have for knights. While this might be fixed when Knights finally get a codex you'll still get the extra CPs as well as infantry for holding objectives and some limited ability to repair damage, two things that would otherwise not be available to the list. There's no need to take the advantage of taking allies away but it shouldn't be the better option the vast majority of the time, it needs to be made into an actual choice that people can work through when designing a list.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I'm well aware that anecdotal evidence is to be given very, very little weight - though the relative popularity of my posts here suggests there is some credibility to my anecdotes - and I'm not arguing that this isn't a problem in the tournament scene because how would I know? I don't do tournaments.

 

I'm arguing that if it is a problem in tournaments (which frankly is far from established in any event) then it is a problem that needs to be solved in a way that doesn't impact the rest of us who don't face this problem.

 

The easiest ways to achieve this are for tournaments to solve their own problems, or for a minimally-restrictive CP usage rule, as outlined above, to be introduced.

 

Wholesale changes that run counter to current design philosophies and are designed to fix a problem that most do not have will not happen and it is incredibly unreasonable (and entitled) to expect that they will.

 

Let's also not pretend that "matched play" is synonymous with 'competitive' in all respects. That is a preposterous argument.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Res Ipsa Loquitur

[Shockmaster]

Is matched play meant only for the hardcore competitive/tournament scene?

 

As my group increasingly uses the matched play rules because we are casual players who on our one free night to game want whatever is fastest to get going, we don't want to put the extra effort in that is needed for Narrative or Open play.

 

I support there being fixes for those of you in the hardcore competitive scene but I would prefer the tournaments dealt with it rather then GW for the sake of groups like mine.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Shockmaster

[Gentlemanloser]

Extra effort? Open is the simplest way to play 40k.

 

Just put down whatever and have a laugh.

 

Matched is the closest effort to a balanced game however, with PL supposidly in the middle.

 

This whole discussion really isn't focused on tournaments. They bring thier own house rules.

[DuskRaider]

Yeah, you wouldn't catch me dead at a tournament or in competitive play and I generally attempt to avoid "those" players, but a lot of this still annoys me, mainly the CP farming abilities and the abuse of lore to run OP soup lists... I suppose a lot of that can go directly back to the armies in question and GW's lack of play testing, though.

[Commander Dawnstar]

Is matched play meant only for the hardcore competitive/tournament scene?

 

Not even slightly. By GW's own definition Matched Play is for games where the two forces are "intentionally balanced against one another," and its section in the rulebook puts forward that playing with Power Levels or even a metric as simple as the number of wounds fielded are totally valid ways of approaching Matched Play. It's not supposed to be some super-tight competitive ruleset but a slightly more in-depth ruleset for games where both players are looking for an 'even' game rather than a narrative-driven game where the forces might be deliberately asymmetrical or a casual game without restrictions on what they can bring.

[Shockmaster]

Extra effort? Open is the simplest way to play 40k.

 

Just put down whatever and have a laugh.

 

Matched is the closest effort to a balanced game however, with PL supposidly in the middle.

 

This whole discussion really isn't focused on tournaments. They bring thier own house rules.

 

Okay fastest with the best chance of having a closely balanced/matched nights game then is what I should have said, although you knew what I meant I expect.

 

My point still stands though that Matched Play is used by plenty of players who either don't need or that would have their play negatively effected by GW coming in too heavy handed with a fix to a problem that does not actually exist to us.

 

A minor fix would be fine but some of the ideas I read on here including the extreme examples like ban all allies from Matched Play would be a major blow to the fun groups like mine currently have, sure we could then put the extra effort in to house rule what we don't like but then the same could be said for the groups who want major changes to the current Matched Play rules, why don't you just house rule what you don't like. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Shockmaster

[totgeboren]

I basically never attend tournaments, but the way CP is handled is obviously a problem, even if you just play casual.

The idea behind CP simply cannot be that armies that pick the best/most useful unit from each codex, min-max and spam should also be the armies that receive the widest access to Stratagems and the most points to spend on them.

That is exactly how the rules are currently written, but by looking at the formations, it was obviously the idea that themed or well-rounded armies should receive more CP to offset their handicap.

 

The rules as written promote the exact opposite of what was intended, and that is of course a problem.

Edited February 14, 2018 by totgeboren

[Shockmaster]

I basically never attend tournaments, but the CP is handled is obviously a problem, even if you just play casual.

The idea behind CP simply cannot be that armies that pick the best/most useful unit from each codex, min-max and spam should also be the armies that receive the widest access to Stratagems and the most points to spend on them.

 

That is exactly how the rules are currently written, but by looking at the formations, it was obviously the idea that themed or well-rounded armies should receive more CP to offset their handicap.

 

The rules as written promote the exact opposite of what was intended, and that is of course a problem.

 

That is not true, as if you only play Casual like the majority of players then you will never see the min max allies list only chosen to take the most powerful units/factions armies that are so prevalent on the internet.

 

That being said I do agree they could do something minor like that has been suggested making it so that you can only use Stratagems on units from the same codex and/or you can only use CP's on the detachments that generated them.

 

What I don't support is the most commonly played version of the game being changed in a drastic way for us all, just to counter those people who do min max, as I don't want a return to the dark days of no creativity when allies were treated as some crime against the game , especially now that GW has decided to split more & more armies in to separate codices.

 

As the idea that for example Khorne & Slaanesh Daemons in the same army is pure but stick those same Khorne daemons in an army with a Khorne worshipping CSM is terrible soup is obviously laughable but some players do seem to want others to be punished for their fluffy armies even if they are not built in an abusive way.

[totgeboren]

 

That is not true, as if you only play Casual like the majority of players then you will never see the min max allies list only chosen to take the most powerful units/factions armies that are so prevalent on the internet.

 

You misunderstand me. It's not about what people may or may not face.

 

First of all, in casual settings (like I usually play), you can always discuss with your opponent what rules you want to use/change/ignore/add. In many ways, having a discussion like this thread about rules is entirely pointless if we are not talking about tournament-like settings, since they are the only time house-rules and discussions beforehand isn't feasible. If GW changed the rules for CP and detachments tomorrow, people who play casual are much freer to simply agree to use the old rules. People who participate in competitive settings can't really do that (of course, the organizers can, but the more house-rules you implement as a organizer, the more people you will alienate from your event). If you want to attend a tournament, you use the rules there or you don't attend.

 

Secondly, my point was that I think GW tried to write rules that would reward armies that field a wide variety of units, instead o spam. I base this on the progression of the Patrol-Battalion-Brigade detachments, where you get a larger "reward" in the form of CP if you field an army that contains a bit of everything, and a lot of Troops.

But they obviously didn't want to punish armies that were themed, like bike armies and such, so added some extra detachments for them. But the end result of all this is that you receive the highest reward in the form of CP if you pick the cherries from the cake and spam optimal stuff from many different sources.

It's not a question of if people do this in casual settings. It's an issue of the rules-as-written rewarding the exact opposite of what they were intended to reward. 

How could the rules for detachments and CP be written so that well-rounded and themed armies receive a handicap in the form of extra CP, while and one-trick-pony-spam armies don't? Because that is obviously the intent.

 

I think it would make more sense to have something like: "1 CP per X pts. -1 CP for each duplicate unit in the army except Troops. +1 CP per extra Troop above Y mandatory units. -3 CP per Codex used."

 

That was a rough suggestion, where X could be say 200 pts, and Y 1 per 500 pts or something. So a 2000 pts army would get 10 CP base and need 4 mandatory Troops.

 

Dunno, I don't think Detachments as written are fulfilling the role they were interned for. Back when they were introduced in 3ed, the idea was to get people to take Troops and not just spam special stuff, and kinda worked when you only had a single Battalion. I mean, this was on the heels of 2ed, where armies of only Terminators and unkillable characters were the norm. It was a step up. But the basic idea doesn't really work now that we have so many detachments.

Edited February 14, 2018 by totgeboren