Soups and 8th Edition

[Shockmaster]

One problem is that truly Casual players get lumped in with Narrative players when they are not the same at all, Narrative players put more work in to the game then any other type of wargamer, Casual players like my group(in which I am probably the least Casual) don't want to spend their spare time adapting the rules etc, they just want a quick as possible somewhat balanced game to play in their spare one night off from real life stress.

 

I just don't agree that the most commonly played version of the 40k rules should be focused & adapted to the whims of the hardcore competitive scene, when the tournaments themselves are capable of house ruling the game, as that is what happens in the Blood Bowl tournament scene which I play in.

 

If they are spending hours between games honing and analysing the best army lists then they are capable of inventing & discussing house rules that suit what they want from the game better.

[Leif Bearclaw]

That's a distinction I just don't get. Why does a ruleset built and refined to minimise WAAC exploits and provide as solid and balanced a game as possible punish 'casual players'?

 

If game balance is the goal (which it really should be), you're WAAC type are exactly the sort you want stress testing your rules. They will find the unintended exploits, OP combinations, things the designers assumed wouldn't be spammed etc. By incorporating that input, and FAQ-ing accordingly, that's how you maintain a ruleset where "Do you fancy a game? 1500 points? Roll for mission/deployment or pick?" is all the pre game chat you need. Now, only going on actual tourney results carries its own problems, primarily the 'if army X doesn't appear in tourneys, it never gets attention' thing, but WAAC types aren't this strange, other species of gamer, whose viewpoint will inevitably destroy the 'casual game'.

[Shockmaster]

That's a distinction I just don't get. Why does a ruleset built and refined to minimise WAAC exploits and provide as solid and balanced a game as possible punish 'casual players'?

 

If game balance is the goal (which it really should be), you're WAAC type are exactly the sort you want stress testing your rules. They will find the unintended exploits, OP combinations, things the designers assumed wouldn't be spammed etc. By incorporating that input, and FAQ-ing accordingly, that's how you maintain a ruleset where "Do you fancy a game? 1500 points? Roll for mission/deployment or pick?" is all the pre game chat you need. Now, only going on actual tourney results carries its own problems, primarily the 'if army X doesn't appear in tourneys, it never gets attention' thing, but WAAC types aren't this strange, other species of gamer, whose viewpoint will inevitably destroy the 'casual game'.

 

I am not saying balance is bad for casual play at all, I am trying to counter the idea among some players that we should heavily punish or even scrap allies in the name of so called better balance because some players in the hardcore competitive scene abuse the intention.

 

When the reality is for the majority of players balance is mostly fine as it is right now, certainly better balanced then I have ever known it in my 17 years in this game and my local players many of which who have been playing longer then me agree.

 

Small changes like a detachment only being able to use it's own stratagems & generated command points are fine with me but I am worried that GW will end up giving in to those who have the loudest voice on the internet which tends to be the hardcore competitive scene and turn Matched Play, the easiest most used style for most types of gamer's, in to a purely tournament focused rule set that forces in too many restrictions when the reality is that those tournaments could do it themselves if their players want it enough, as that is how the Blood Bowl tournament scene works.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Shockmaster

[Gentlemanloser]

Its not only the hardcore competitve scene that abuses cp.

 

All our groups non tournament casual players build army lists that centre around cp generation.

 

Because that's the way the current game design encourages.

 

Edit. Balance is something we laugh at in 40k. As our eldar player has dominated with his broken army since 4th edition.

 

In every single edition since RT when we came back, eldar have been head and shoulders above most if not everyone. And we've had to face them weekly.

 

Balance isn't better in 8th. Overall gameplay is however.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Shockmaster]

Its not only the hardcore competitve scene that abuses cp.

 

All our groups non tournament casual players build army lists that centre around cp generation.

 

Because that's the way the current game design encourages.

 

Well then maybe I just live in a strange bubble as nobody in the four casual scenes that I have frequented in recent months were spamming cheap Guard detachments to get extra CP for their Marines(or similar situation), their allies are because they wished to have more fluffy variety in their forces.

 

I will make this my last post on the matter, I was just trying to defend the creativity of the game from GW going in too heavy handed to "fix" things in the name of so called balance because of the extreme lists that happen in the hardcore competitive scene but I know I am very much in the minority in the online community on this, best I take a break.

[Gentlemanloser]

I know you won't respond, but so called balance?

 

I think everyone can see how and exactly how, soups unbalamce the game.

 

I've never been to a tournament. So i can't be part of the hardcore competitive scene.

 

Yet i still base my list building around how i can use the units i want to use into the best combination of detachments.

 

Solely to maximise my CP.

 

I really wish we as a community would stop using competitive, WAAC, hardcore, casual and other labels. They're totally innacurate as they are impossible to globally define.

 

And just detract and derail discussions.

[Biscuittzz]

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.

 

I think so far the best idea is the 'CP generated by a certain faction can only be used on that faction's units itself'. Keeps the idea that CPs are an essential factor in the DNA/identity of the faction itself.

 

I guess something tournament organisers could do is put a hard limit on CPs themselves i.e. Max 10 even if your overall army would grant say 13/14/15 etc. Would hopefully get players to not bring the min maxed guard brigade.

 

Downside is that it would harm those who bring full guard brigades in  fluffy mono builds as an example.

[Dragonlover]

Personally I think the only way to do this is change how CP are given to players. Divorce it from detachments/unit choices entirely, and make it a flat amount based on the size of the game you're playing. Otherwise the law of unintended consequences will strike, and there'll just be a new optimal soup. I suggest 1 CP per 250 points of game size.

 

Also I'd be able to write Chaos lists without putting Cultists in just to keep up, which would be really goddamn nice.

 

Dragonlover

Edited February 16, 2018 by Dragonlover

[spafe]

Would this work:

 

Only the Primary faction you choose can generate CPs, and they must have at least half your points spent on them and contain your warlord. That way an ally faction is jsut that. It is a small part of your force. So people wanting to bring guard to max out their cps, find themselves having to use 1001 points or more on guard in a 2k list and their warlord will be a company commander or similar.

[Gentlemanloser]

Still does nothing to even out armies that need ro spend 500 points to get 3CP. To those that need only spend 200.

 

CP needs to be divorced from detachment and units.

 

Or each army needs to have the sane ability to generate similiar CP levels if they choose.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[spafe]

okay... Can someone explain to me why CP's are equal?

 

Like, a 2 strat thing to make a chaos termie unit shoot twice, or a 1 strat thing to make a guard inf shoot twice... so who would care if the guard have more CP's tp spend, the chaos get way more bang for their proverbial buck... right?

 

or am I missing something?

 

Also those numbers were made up, no idea what strats are actually in both dexs of top of my head

[Beams]

They shouldn't be. Guard had mostly bad out mediocre strategems (1cp for +1 to saves. Would be great on Marines, but going from a 5+ to a 4+ isn't going to save too many guys) but can use a lot of them. Grey knights have some legit ones (+1 to rolls on invulns? So an executive 2++ on my giant monster robot? +1 Str and +1 ap on all that monsters guns?) But have to use them super sparingly, because some of them can alter the game signifacntly (I had a dread knight tank 3000 pts oof shooting with heed and a command point reroll)

 

The problem is that people are taking cheap sections of guard to allow them to spam other armies strategems, that are much more powerful.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Beams

[Halandaar]

(1cp for +1 to saves. Would be great on Marines, but going from a 5+ to a 4+ isn't going to save too many guys) 

 

Eh? It's mathematically the same; you're ~17% more likely to pass the save with a +1 to your roll, regardless of whether it's a Marine or a Guardsman. If anything, because Guardsmen are easier to wound you end up benefiting more from this stratagem on Guardsmen than Marines simply by virtue of that bonus being relevant on more occasions.

[Beams]

 

 

(1cp for +1 to saves. Would be great on Marines, but going from a 5+ to a 4+ isn't going to save too many guys)

Eh? It's mathematically the same; you're ~17% more likely to pass the save with a +1 to your roll, regardless of whether it's a Marine or a Guardsman. If anything, because Guardsmen are easier to wound you end up benefiting more from this stratagem on Guardsmen than Marines simply by virtue of that bonus being relevant on more occasions.

It may be "mathematically the same" as an increase, but there is a huge difference between having a 2+ save and having a 4+ save. Or is a Terminator save not considered good?

 

That's also ignoring how AP works, which basically means a -2 to a Guardsmen is hopeless, and there is little to no point in using that strategem (a 6+ is terrible), but a space marine with a similar strategem would benefit greatly (3+ to 2+ to 4+, and judging from how annoyed opponents get with my 4++'s, I'd say it's be worth it)

Edited February 16, 2018 by Beams

[Halandaar]

It may be "mathematically the same" as an increase, but there is a huge difference between having a 2+ save and having a 4+ save. Or is a Terminator save not considered good?

 

But this isn't the point I'm making; the increase in the armour save is of equal value to both types of model. Of course a 2+ is better than a 4+, but the difference between the two is built in to the statlines of the respective units, and which you are paying 9 points per model for.

 

That's also ignoring how AP works, which basically means a -2 to a Guardsmen is hopeless, and there is little to no point in using that strategem (a 6+ is terrible), but a space marine with a similar strategem would benefit greatly (3+ to 2+ to 4+, and judging from how annoyed opponents get with my 4++'s, I'd say it's be worth it)

 

A Guardsman going from a 5+ to a 6+ (-2 from AP, +1 from stratagem) is exactly the same as a Marine going from a 3+ to a 4+. The impact on the number of saves passed/failed is the same in both cases, therefore the stratagem is of equal value to both.

 

Anyway, all of that is situational; you could equally say the stratagem is of zero benefit to Marines in cover (who can never get better than a 2+ save), but will help the Guardsmen a lot (taking them from a 5+ to a 3+).

[spafe]

The problem is that people are taking cheap sections of guard to allow them to spam other armies strategems, that are much more powerful.

Okay, I thought that was the case... which my sugestion would solve above, I just thought I had missed something because of this:

Still does nothing to even out armies that need ro spend 500 points to get 3CP. To those that need only spend 200.

 

 

Surely it doesnt matter how many they generate, they are not worth equal amounts so it makes sense some lists get less than others...

[Beams]

 

 

It may be "mathematically the same" as an increase, but there is a huge difference between having a 2+ save and having a 4+ save. Or is a Terminator save not considered good?

But this isn't the point I'm making; the increase in the armour save is of equal value to both types of model. Of course a 2+ is better than a 4+, but the difference between the two is built in to the statlines of the respective units, and which you are paying 9 points per model for.

That's also ignoring how AP works, which basically means a -2 to a Guardsmen is hopeless, and there is little to no point in using that strategem (a 6+ is terrible), but a space marine with a similar strategem would benefit greatly (3+ to 2+ to 4+, and judging from how annoyed opponents get with my 4++'s, I'd say it's be worth it)

A Guardsman going from a 5+ to a 6+ (-2 from AP, +1 from stratagem) is exactly the same as a Marine going from a 3+ to a 4+. The impact on the number of saves passed/failed is the same in both cases, therefore the stratagem is of equal value to both.

 

Anyway, all of that is situational; you could equally say the stratagem is of zero benefit to Marines in cover (who can never get better than a 2+ save), but will help the Guardsmen a lot (taking them from a 5+ to a 3+).

Clearly, you are caught up in math and averages, and aren't weighing the fact that A) only failing on 1's means you have about a 40% (up from 18% for 1 & 2) chance to not roll any fails vs a 3% (up from .4 on 1,2,3,4) when faced with 5 wounds. So obviously, a space marine likes it a little more, since you are taking into account not just an increase on one dice rolled, but for multiple wounds.

 

And most importantly B ) a space marine squad is vastly more important than a guard squad. Like you said, you pay points cost for them already, and Guardsmen aren't expensive, and aren't nearly as good as say a Terminator squad, who this strategem would be bonkers on (reduce a plasma gun wound to a 3+? Basically stormshields om a squad for a single cp!)

 

Using this strategem once a turn on a guard infantry unit, isn't really amazing, and the best option for it are bullgryns, since the rest of guard infantry are very squishy.

 

That said, you are getting hooked on an example of one strategem, when that wasn't my point or even the point of the thread.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Beams

[Schlitzaf]

Just for clarity sake all else equal, 5+ > 4+ a much bigger deal then 3+ > 2+. 5+ > 4+, increases model survivability by 50% or 33%, depending how want you calculate it. 3+ > 2+ is an effective increase of 25% or 20%. Basically the two ways to look at the increase.

1) How many more models do you effectively save (50% or 25% increase. If I take 12 Wounds, a 5+ only save 4, while a 4+ saves 6. A 3+ would save 8, while a 2+ saves 10).

2) How many more models did the increase save effectively, over what was is rolled (in theory). To take the above examples, 4+ Save vs 12 Wounds, saves 6. 1/3 Of those saves will 4.

 

Increasing the save value from X to X is not the same relative value all else equal. 6+ to 5+ a massive jump in effective survivability for exactly that reason (a 100% increase. To take the above 12 wound example. 6+ only saves 2 Models. A 5+ saves 4). Each interval of ‘additional saved’ is only 16% increase in models saved when subtracted from the total wound count. But the net increase of relative models saved favors low armor save.

 

That said everything not equal. In that 12 wound example. A Gaurdsman Squad taking 6 wounds. Fails battleshock on a 2+ likely taking more casualties. The GK example, the character who receive the buff is well a character. And difference between taking 4 wounds and 2 wounds is much more important. 4 Wounds puts you small arm killable range, as you have one wound remaining maybe 2. 2 wounds keeps you healthy and needing a anti-armor or high melee damage weapon to finish the job.

 

And the IV save is not modifier by AP, while for obvious reasons an Armor Save. Similar Strategems but instrintically different.

[Gentlemanloser]

Spafe. Clearly.

 

When Deamons can generate 14 cp and use 2 to bring a 30 man squad or daemon prince back to life fully.

[Thorakitai]

How's this for an idea.

 

An army gets 3 CP's for each faction keyword shared across the army. So an imperial soup list gets the 3 it gets now for being battleforged, but a pure Salamanders army, for example, gets 9. 3 for Imperium, 3 for Adeptus Astartes, and 3 for Salamanders.

 

This won't invalidate any current army or strategy, and gives a nice bonus to "pure" armies. I feel like it's better to reward the purists than to indiscriminately punish soup, and hurt a bunch of fluffy players for the sake of punishing competitive players that will just find something else to exploit in a month anyway.

[CaptainMarsh]

If you look in Chapter Approved you'll find detachments that are unique to Stronghold Assault and Planetstrike. These generate a large number of CP for use only on associated Strategems. The concept, therefore, of CP being generated and only being spent on a small subsect of strategems is there.

If the Codices had unique Detachments that gave good CP to armies from those same books and restricted the CP generated to being spent on strategems from that book, you could award single-codex armies as long as the Detachments and CP Generation are good enough. Not only that but with the advent of Regimental rules, Chapter Tactics, Forge World Dogmas, Hive Fleet, Craftworld, etc. it would be a fun and flavorful addition that could have other, unique benefits.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I am not a fan of soup lists because it encourages players to bring armies devoid of any real background. For every one player trying to create cool unique warband there are ten who just want the biggest brick possible to crush face. Almost every Imperial soup list I see has Saint Celestine - whoa girl you sooooo busy. I think these types of armies are an oversight due to when there was just indices and hopefully GW will address this sooner than later.

[Schlitzaf]

And that be any different if soup’ing was banned?

[Lord_Caerolion]

I am not a fan of soup lists because it encourages players to bring armies devoid of any real background. For every one player trying to create cool unique warband there are ten who just want the biggest brick possible to crush face. Almost every Imperial soup list I see has Saint Celestine - whoa girl you sooooo busy. I think these types of armies are an oversight due to when there was just indices and hopefully GW will address this sooner than later.

 

People will WAAC however they can, soup or no soup. Personally, I think that given the number of times we're shown multiple Imperial forces fighting side-by-side in the fluff, that it's weird to say that doing so makes your army "devoid of any real background". What about the Inquisitors with their requisitioned Guard armies and Grey Knight support, or Imperial Crusades, or the many, many times Guard and Astartes have fought together? Limiting people to a single Codex doesn't encourage people to make fluffy armies, any more than allies encourage against it. Unless I'm missing the Codex tendency to have 5-man las-plas squads spammed endlessly? Does every Eldar Craftworld have an abundance of Dark Reaper shrines?

 

Soups make it easier for WAAC players to min-max to their hearts content, but the problem has always existed. People will always try to find ways to abuse the rule-set.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It is devoid of any real background when it is an army designed to crush face. Saying people abuse the rules is no reason not to curb them from doing so. Now if somebody wants to design a cool warband they can use multiple detachments... no one said anything about limiting an army to one codex.