Best CP-miner detachment?

[Panzer]

Panzer, that was my point. It’s being used, but to what effect? None. I’m acknowledging the fact we have to give up something off ours to make this happen, not that it is a steep price. I used Eldar as an example in that their mechanic has been nerfed already, and it’s still stronger than ours. I just see this as the Imperium’s answer for resource manipulation.

 

Brother Crimson, that is the point I was looking to make. You just did it more eloquently. I hope GW doesn’t make any knee jerk sweeping nerfs. CP are way more precious to us than many other competing armies. Granted, I’ve done fine without this, but I’ve also felt limited in what I can accomplish as a pure BA army that isn’t just a red marine gun line.

Dunno, BA were quite successfull at LVO and one of them was even a pure BA army. Imagine what he could've done with more CP available.

 

And yes we're obviously talking about Imperium armies who don't get many CP easily and have good use for them. I didn't think there was a need to mention that.

[Calistarius]

 

Panzer, that was my point. It’s being used, but to what effect? None. I’m acknowledging the fact we have to give up something off ours to make this happen, not that it is a steep price. I used Eldar as an example in that their mechanic has been nerfed already, and it’s still stronger than ours. I just see this as the Imperium’s answer for resource manipulation.

Brother Crimson, that is the point I was looking to make. You just did it more eloquently. I hope GW doesn’t make any knee jerk sweeping nerfs. CP are way more precious to us than many other competing armies. Granted, I’ve done fine without this, but I’ve also felt limited in what I can accomplish as a pure BA army that isn’t just a red marine gun line.

 

Dunno, BA were quite successfull at LVO and one of them was even a pure BA army. Imagine what he could've done with more CP available.

 

And yes we're obviously talking about Imperium armies who don't get many CP easily and have good use for them. I didn't think there was a need to mention that.

The pure BA player misplayed a strategem that essentially crippled his opponent’s army. He was successful, but who knows how often this occurred to get him there. Success is relative. Yeah they were more successful than in years passed.

 

It’s worth mentioning because it’s the basis for the entire issue. If something like this is taken away then I’d say we’ve seen the peak of our success until a major FAQ overhaul once all codices are released.

 

I’ll just agree to disagree with you, friend. I wasn’t trying to start a debate with anyone. Just expressing some thoughts I had after reading through the “balancing the game” thread. There is a lot of fear mongering going on in there.

[Panzer]

 

 

Panzer, that was my point. It’s being used, but to what effect? None. I’m acknowledging the fact we have to give up something off ours to make this happen, not that it is a steep price. I used Eldar as an example in that their mechanic has been nerfed already, and it’s still stronger than ours. I just see this as the Imperium’s answer for resource manipulation.

Brother Crimson, that is the point I was looking to make. You just did it more eloquently. I hope GW doesn’t make any knee jerk sweeping nerfs. CP are way more precious to us than many other competing armies. Granted, I’ve done fine without this, but I’ve also felt limited in what I can accomplish as a pure BA army that isn’t just a red marine gun line.

Dunno, BA were quite successfull at LVO and one of them was even a pure BA army. Imagine what he could've done with more CP available.

 

And yes we're obviously talking about Imperium armies who don't get many CP easily and have good use for them. I didn't think there was a need to mention that.

The pure BA player misplayed a strategem that essentially crippled his opponent’s army. He was successful, but who knows how often this occurred to get him there. Success is relative. Yeah they were more successful than in years passed.

 

It’s worth mentioning because it’s the basis for the entire issue. If something like this is taken away then I’d say we’ve seen the peak of our success until a major FAQ overhaul once all codices are released.

 

I’ll just agree to disagree with you, friend. I wasn’t trying to start a debate with anyone. Just expressing some thoughts I had after reading through the “balancing the game” thread. There is a lot of fear mongering going on in there.

 

First time I'm hearing that. What exactly did he wrong?

 

Yeah I didn't even read the thread. The title alone suggests a lot of wishlisting, halfbaked opinions and whining so I stayed the hell away from it.

[Brother Crimson]

@sfpanzer

My point was more that many imperium players have access to good cp regen, we have to work with combined force to bring it in by using a detachement.

Yes the cost can be low (less than 200 pts) and it can bring a lot of good stuff for our army but expecting a nerf is a bit surprising when you rely on a t3 5+ model as a warlord.

Also we lose the artisan of war captain in the process.

CP engine has great potential, really helps with many builds but I doubt it is broken to the point of getting BA consistently to the top.

One list on the top 8 LVO used that approach and it shows that it can work but there was also a pure BA list (which apparently made a mistake I’d like to hear about). I would prefer that BA gets many ways to be competitive than having just one build. Nerfing CP engine for will cut a good list that brings diversified list building.

[Crimson Ghost IX]

For those asking about the top BA player mistakes at LVO I linked the youtube video in that LVO thread so as not to clog this one.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/343806-las-vegas-open/page-6

[superwill]

Yeah, regardless of what a search may have turned up (I don't think he's necessarily called the CP miner everywhere. In fact, I'm not sure whether I introduced that term here or it just happens to be the same name we gave him in our gaming group when the AM codex first released...) he is a very common choice. Was at a recent tournament locally and over half the imperial players were using him.

 

Even though I'm benefitting from him as much as anyone, I'm keen to see him go. If there's a unit that everyone is willing to break fluff just to include in their imperial army, that's not fun for the game, and I'm prepared to take the hit for the sake of the game.

[Crimson Ghost IX]

I don't think using a Guard detachment in an Imperial force breaks fluff myself personally.

Definately no more so than Slaanesh and Khorne, or Eldar and Dark Eldar armies etc, anyhow.

Background and books are full of these examples last few editions especially.

If IG sucked people would think it was super fluffy, kinda like playing with BA last edition...

 

I don't feel a warlord from any imperial detachment is necessarily out of fluff either, but do think warlord should be from your most expensive detachment pointswise perhaps. A change I have seen discussed for tourneys here and there anyhow.

 

I also think the miner is OP as is for armies like ours and things I am hearing for the new custodes etc.

 

I am not sure where the name came from either, but feel the nerf needs to swing here somehow while not wrecking IG players themselves just for having a good HQ warlord ability. It is not considered THAT good for them as they can get cp normally pretty readily. So it will be interesting to see what if anything GW does.

 

Could see a once per game rule on the entire warlord ability maybe?

Could see tourneys adopting warlord has to be from biggest detachment rule too perhaps.

[Blackcadian]

Honestly, I dont see the AM miner as terribly overpowered either. Like Brother Crimson said you have to give up the Artisan of War and end up relying on a T3 5++ model which a determined opponent can surely get to. I dont see Blood Angels dominating every tournament. Wow we got into the top 8 at LVO - ummm shouldnt we be happy to be competitive for once? Nobody here is forced to play the miner and at tournaments I‘ve yet to see the major impact, so whats the problem? If you dont like him fluff wise dont play him. And if you expect to come out on top at a tournament with a fluffy army Ive got bad news for you - its not gonna happen. Edited February 18, 2018 by Blackcadian

[superwill]

A group of IG and BA fighting alongside each other is fluffy enough. But every time I take a full BA army with a random Guard Commander and 3 inquisitorial acolytes I hate myself a little bit more each time.

[Panzer]

Yeah AM detachments together with BA detachments are perfectly fine fluff-wise. Especially considering there are lots of narratives that give examples of something that would otherwise be a no-go fluff-wise. Special scenarios and such.

However taking just one AM Commander and make him your warlord so your BA perform better is weird as hell still.

[Calistarius]

Yeah AM detachments together with BA detachments are perfectly fine fluff-wise. Especially considering there are lots of narratives that give examples of something that would otherwise be a no-go fluff-wise. Special scenarios and such.

However taking just one AM Commander and make him your warlord so your BA perform better is weird as hell still.

I totally agree. That’s why I was considering the heavy weapons squads. Taking the Commander alone feels dirty to me, but I lie to have a narrative reason to take allies even in competitive matches.

[NTaW]

Blood Angels showing up to evacuate/save the last vestiges of an Imperial outpost, even just for key leadership personnel, is about as fluffy as it gets I'd say.

 

....I mean, they may end up going bat:cuss crazy and killing the defenders but they show up with the best intentions anyway :lol: