GW endorsing the loyal 32?

[Dracos]

I agree to a certain extent but singling out the Imperium for this scale problem is not fair. Chaos is equally to blame, <DELETED BY ORDER OF THE INQUISITION> How many battles with 10 - 20 marines and a load of cultists are realistically going to see several daemon princes turn up? Hardly any but what do you see time and again in chaos lists? How many skirmishes would Guilliman/Magnus/mortarion really be involved in against a handful of troops? Now I know they’re not necessarily allies as they’re often in the same codex but if we are talking scale, I don’t see a difference between 30 guardsmen plus 30 marines fighting together regularly and a horde of cultists who’ve managed to bring along 3 daemon princes with them.

The scale and allies/appropriate units issue is not an issue with the Imperium, it’s an issue with the game in general. I agree it would be nice to address it but without adding in a lot more restrictions to army building I don’t see how you can :(

Exactly . . . Let’s not forget the TRUE enemy here Brothers . . . the Eldar

 

;)

[chapter master 454]

As far as I know and been told, tournaments actually get REALLY boring at the top tables with the middle tables being the most fun, sadly sort of like how card-games are really.

 

The middle tables tend towards the rogue-brews and those who want to try out a certain comp BUT THEN that guy came along with his net-list and read a 5 minute article on how to stop thinking and won because he copied something someone else did and can't think for themselves...ahem...sorry...bit of my experiences in card games getting mixed in.

 

Part of the problem with "Top Lists" is how often we see them as people quickly forget what the game is about. The objective is the win, yes. The point however is to have fun. Don't mix them up. Many people I knew and even myself when I played card games had "those decks", our main guns that if you came in looking for a paddling then we can deliver and the same should be for 40k. You can have your meta-list but don't bust it out all the time, mix it up. Give us some variance. Build some new lists and test yourself, even try and refine new lists and concepts because part of this game is actually doing that: refining a list. List building is as much part of the hobby as the model building, painting and...converting...though GW seem to disagree (MORE OPTIONS...ahem).

[N1SB]

Sorry for this late reply.  I just got back my White Dwarf to read this battle report for myself (as I had lent the magazine to a friend in the hospital prior).  It's amazing.

 

And my personal takeaway was: this is not an endorsement of the Loyal 32, but a rebuttal, showing its flaws and a reality check to those relying on netlists.

 

 

++ Rebuttal to the Loyal 32 (and maybe to soup lists in general) ++

 

 

Brother RobWrath already pointed out this was an almost archetypal Imperial soup list (Loyal 32, Slamguinius, 3 Knights) vs. an Eldar (including Dark Eldar and Harlequins) Flyer/Jetbike list.  A number of weaknesses in the Loyal 32 was exposed.

 

The Guardsmen...who aside forming the Detachment to give 5 Command Points, were also the only dedicated Objective takers, and got chewed through.  Their Commander who was the Warlord got outmaneuvered and mowed down.  Thus, while they gave Command Points, they also failed to get Victory Points and in fact gave them away a bit.

 

Now, I know it's easy in hindsight to be an armchair general to a far superior player to myself (but I guess that's part of the joy of reading battle reports), while looking at this I couldn't help but think "man, he should've taken some Chimeras or something."  That would've given extra mobility and at least something else to shoot at.  It might not have made a difference, I honestly dunno, but instead of taking something for the sake of min/maxing CP, he could've thought of the Guardsmen as Objective takers 1st and CP battery 2nd.  Another crazy idea...maybe instead of taking so much Imperial soup, actually use the Blood Angels Detachment to maybe get some Marines in Rhinos or infiltrating Scouts as Objective takers/holders?

 

I don't think the Imperial player was bad.  I think he's a good player who took on the role of a "WAAC guy who copied a netlist and relied on damage" possibly.

 

 

+++ What "Won" the Game (and shows the limitation of copying netlists) +++

 

 

The pivotal moment I think happened in the bottom of Turn 1, after the Eldars weathered being shot up initially and counter-attacked, taking out a Knight Castellan (and a main heavy hitter on the Imperial side).  It wasn't just his units...which he did maneuver well and he committed seriously to kill that Titan, it was like 2/3rds of his army (while also putting them in places that also score Objectives), but it was his use of Psychic Powers and Stratagems.

 

First he tried to Doom and Jink the Castellan (Doom failed).  Then the Imperial player responded by Rotate Ion Shields, which the Eldar player countered with the Dark Eldar Agents of Vect rule, which I'll paste here from an old Warhammer Community article:

 

 

Basically, the Eldar countered the counter-move.  Later, the White Dwarf staff commented on how this back & forth, before dice were even rolled, was one of their favourite moments.  The Imperial player himself advised others to Know Thy Stratagems, Know Thy Enemy's Stratagems.

 

This exchange genuinely impressed me because it sold me on this game mechanic of Stratagems.  I wasn't totally into it before, because as a tabletop game where we heavily invested in miniatures with time & money, I'd rather focus on what's on the table, not going through every quirky special rule a Formation (back in 7th) brought.  Now I totally appreciate why it exists as an extra depth to demonstrate a very experienced understanding of one's own army.  Psychic powers are like this, too.

 

Here's what I mean.  Anyone can copy just a netlist and we've all seen that happen.  People just buy a flavour of the month, basecoat it black, then play it and it's pretty intuitive, shooty units shoot, choppy units chop.  But Psychic Powers were never that obvious and take some effort to learn and use in the proper context, as they're situational.  A lesser player would basically use just Smite, then their faction's other Smite-like powers.  Buffs and debuffs take a little more thought.  Stratagems are like that, but even more so.

 

The Eldar player didn't just rely on a netlist, but the right Psychic Powers, then waited for his opponent to use his own Stratagem before saying "you've activated my trap card."  It wasn't rocket science and I think it was brilliant precisely because of how obvious it was afterwards.

 

It illustrates netlists are like kids who copied their homework from someone else.  They may bring the best answers to the table, but they never quite understood what it all means, and when they're tested like in an exam setting without an open book, they might not be able to reproduce the right results.

 

 

+++

 

 

I don't think White Dwarf should shirk away from using competitive tournament lists; yes, they can be boring and samey and toxic, but people know about them ANYWAY and will use them regardless if they wish to.  Yet I also agree with those of you that think "well...those players don't need any MORE encouragement," that's a fair point!

 

But for this specific White Dwarf battle report, I honestly felt it poked holes in those netlists.  Maybe this is an excellent ongoing theme, not about showing off netlists, but how to counter them with a much more Objective-centric force.

[PeteySödes]

Eh, that Eldar list is way more meta damaging and just as net-listy is the loyal 32 IMO. Citing the the most powerful strat in the game doesnt really change anything.

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah, the imperial guy can bring whatever waac list he likes but when you’re up against a faction like Eldar that are just so far beyond other armies in the game it’s kind of pointless. That doesn’t show any strengths or weaknesses of the loyal 32, all it shows is Eldar can deal with anything and can bring more cheese than even an imperial soup.

[Panzer]

It's not like Eldar win every single game tho. Especially the imperial soup can fight quite well against Eldar cheese.

[PeteySödes]

It's not like Eldar win every single game tho. Especially the imperial soup can fight quite well against Eldar cheese.

 

True, but ive found an all-comers eldar list will absolutely wreck an all comers imperial list.

[Panzer]

 

It's not like Eldar win every single game tho. Especially the imperial soup can fight quite well against Eldar cheese.

 

True, but ive found an all-comers eldar list will absolutely wreck an all comers imperial list.

 

 

Define all-comers list? Imperial soup isn't exactly specialised to fight only one type of enemy. I'd say it's the epitome of all-comers lists for imperial players. They only really have a problem in missions where Troops are extremely important tho I'd say replacing one Knight and invest the rest in more Guardsmen would easily fix that ... which would be fine in my eyes since then the AM detachment would actually serve a role more than to just providing CP for the Knights and BA Captain lol

[PeteySödes]

 

 

It's not like Eldar win every single game tho. Especially the imperial soup can fight quite well against Eldar cheese.

 

True, but ive found an all-comers eldar list will absolutely wreck an all comers imperial list.

 

 

Define all-comers list? Imperial soup isn't exactly specialised to fight only one type of enemy. I'd say it's the epitome of all-comers lists for imperial players. They only really have a problem in missions where Troops are extremely important tho I'd say replacing one Knight and invest the rest in more Guardsmen would easily fix that ... which would be fine in my eyes since then the AM detachment would actually serve a role more than to just providing CP for the Knights and BA Captain lol

 

 

Yea i mean AM i definitely think is up there in the best mono army to be sure. All-comers I meaning just that, a list you bring to a store not knowing the meta that theoretically would perform well. I know its a bit nebulous...

 

My point being that the options available to eldar soup will do well no almost matter what and really avoid dice swing. Hemlocks eat everything and are so fast it doesnt matter where you go (mostly). Harly jetbikes will take care of any vehicle rolls almost be damned. 

 

It was mentioned above that the L32 were diminished a bit by the players unfamiliarity with orders. Eldar in a lot of builds are point and click.

[MARK0SIAN]

It's not like Eldar win every single game tho. Especially the imperial soup can fight quite well against Eldar cheese.

Agreed but any list losing to Eldar doesn’t prove anything about the quality of the list as Eldar can destroy anything.

[chapter master 454]

Hmmm...I think we are once again starting to get a bit too into witch-hunting here (heh). Instead of looking for an icon to point at and shout about, we need to take away the lessons we can learn from what was shown.

 

First: It may be that the current Imperial Soup may of had popularity due to a confluence of events. Knights release + the recent success of a smash master list possibly lead to a surge in players taking to the list idea because it lets them field their new knights. In fact, you can see that in any card game where a new release just stomps because of numbers (doesn't matter if your eldar list can 100% take out those lists. Takes one bad game and you are done. Meanwhile there are 99 other smashmaster + knight lists against you. Good luck not flubbing rolls ONCE). It is effective and works but is the the tip top tier? Who knows, to be honest it might just be a slight tweak to the list and BOOM it covers the problem. After all, the Eldar list using the Agents of Vect stratagem will come down to a game where it might be who flubs their agent of vect strat first to lose and then we are back to square one.

 

Second: Good Players make Good Lists Great. Bad Players make Good Lists Mediocre. Not saying the players here are bad but I will comment to remind people that you can have the best army in the game but it doesn't help if you can't use it. However sadly a lot of the time bad players can ride the coat-tails of a successful list and at that point it is a lottery which baddy gets the trophy. It is however two sided, it is also on the good players side to know and anticipate the meta and create a list accordingly, bringing what would be good against it while maintaining good rates against whatever else may come it's way.

 

Third: Eldar are very good. It is a surprise people never really took to using them however I put that down to something relating to point 1: Eldar are old hat. They aren't new or exciting nor anything flashy. In fact they are so good, really people just don't find them fun to play against OR with (in fact I stopped collecting eldar because of their sucess...it is a little...dull...not enough challenge really...they really just have good EVERYTHING). They are still strong and it is just a side effect of how they are designed: first is the massive bias their creator gives them in power which needs toned down massively AND that each unit only has ONE objective to their design really, they don't have any points wasted on any Flex choice they have just all put into one thing. Fire dragons SUCK are anti-infantry duty but will make tanks disappear if they so much as glance at one with no room really to change that while striking scorpions could quite easily chew up entire blocks of infantry with no problem but would only be doing paint damage on tanks.

 

End of the day: A person is smart. People are stupid. The singulars among us who attempt to build lists and try and come up with things tend to be massively out-numbered by those who just want an easy win because they thing winning is everything.

[N1SB]

Yeah, you all raise good points.  I shared my impressions above because, until RobWrath mentioned it, this thread went 3 pages without looking at the opponent's army or what happened.  I didn't get to read the battle report carefully until I got my White Dwarf back, but those pieces of information seemed relevant.

[RobWrath]

Perhaps it's because a mixed Imperial army using the Loyal 32 to provide CPs for knights is more OBVIOUSLY optimised. The eldar soup list is similarly optimised, but then so could also be a chaos list with cultists and Abbadon. Or other options I'm not aware of.

 

But the Loyal 32 seems to get peoples goats more.

 

And as someone else pointed out, taking an optimised list is all well and good but you need the tactics to suit.

[Evil Eye]

I could post the usual rant about how the problem is that 40K is not meant for tournament play, how "matched play" is/should be really just narrative play with a bit more rigid costing for those who want it (which to be fair makes sense) and how "competitive" 40K is not something that should exist at all, but instead I'll try and be a bit more constructive.

 

From what I understand, Eldar are seriously overpowered at the moment. For "Garagehammer" where custom scenarios, house rules, narratives and the like are the norm (IMO the best way to play) this is easily nullified, but in casual pickup games in your FLGW I do agree something needs to be done, simply because there will always be that one guy who brings a WAAC netlist to the store regardless of who he's playing against. Exactly what that is I don't know- personally I'm of the opinion that nerfs need to be targeted precisely on offending factions (Eldar and IIRC Guard) rather than blanket bans on "soup" that cripples the more creative mixed armies and doesn't actually solve the problem. Obviously if they do target Eldar or whoever, then people are going to get upset, but people are going to get upset regardless of what they do- it's impossible to please everyone.

Whatever the solution is, however, it needs to be one that makes casual games powergamer-proof and not one that sucks out the fluffiness and fun for the sake of a tourney-environment the game wasn't designed for in the first place.  IMO, the tournament circuit should adopt its own set of rules and restrictions that should be kept strictly for that circuit and kept as far away from the main ruleset as possible, with anyone trying to inject those rules into casual games being blammed on the spot.

TLDR: FAQs/Erratas/Updates for standard play, and purpose-made restrictions for tournament play, with very clear definitions between the two.

[Dracos]

Who says 40k isn’t meant for tournament play?

 

I’ve been attending 40k tournaments at local game stores since since the early 90s. I got out of the game about 10 years ago and am excited to see how much it has grown. Tournaments are bigger and more prolific than ever. Streaming internet coverage. GW game developers attending said games gauging the results of their product to better the game in a timely manner.

 

No . . . Tournaments are very much intended to be part of 40k

 

Strangely while I’d prefer tournament were limited to monodex, I find the L32 to be very fluffy and remind me of my 3rd edition Demonhunter Codex army. GW wants to sell models. I’m just surprised they didn’t plan on a truescale Guard army at the beginning of 8th. If they had it would be their hottest selling army right now. Guards always going to be a pretty popular army.

 

 

Lastly ... Please ... do NOT lump WAAC and Tournament players into the same pile of vitriol. One is just a jerk. The other is looking for healthy competition and a shared experience amongst equals in a balanced (0Matched Play) game. You’ll find jerks at your local game store and and at tournaments. You’re just as likely to see Tournament players complain about the WAAC netlist player not belonging on the Tournament circuit as much as you don’t want him in your game store.

 

 

Edit: because autocorrect hates my spelling

[chapter master 454]

..."X was never meant for tournaments" is a very silly thing to say. Any game involving two or more people in a competition of any form is suitable for a tournament. Poker is all completely random and so what skill can there be? Lots, despite it being more random than 40k. Monoply for goodness sake has tournaments! Any contest is suited to tournaments and while additional rules are required for tournament play (how do you determine a participant is "out" from the tournament, possibly limiting certain aspects of the game that aren't apparent from the outset. Happened in Rugby so don't you dare say it only happens in 40k and such like games).

 

I mean lets be real here, "not suitable for tournament" is just a silly notion to carry because for goodness sake we have made tournaments of EVERYTHING that can be a contest; arm wrestling, chess, poker, yugioh, magic the gathering, golf, football, rugby, gridiron football. FOR GOODNESS SAKE, we have drinking games. We literally have "tournamented" drinking...what can't be a tournament? We have competitions for sleeping and other silliness. There is even a game where people chase a wheel of cheese down a hill!

 

40k in comparison looks like it was modelled, developed and designed with tournament play in mind. Which is wasn't. Like every other game that now has a tournament scene.

 

Yes, there is issues. Eldar are ALWAYS the strawman that does have problems but we can't just keep pointing at the top of the mountain because then we have power drain instead of creep. We cannot just focus on bringing down the top because then 2nd place just takes their spot and then we nerf them and then original 1st place come back into fashion until we nerf those two so they fall below 3rd place and then we just cycle the top three ad infinitum. We need to look also at armies at the bottom of the pile and actually have a good discussion on what ones should be buffed and which shouldn't. Are some bottom tier the now purely because the current meta shuts them out? Then we need to be careful about buffing them as it could lead to a sling shot effect. Are some actually bad because of undertuning in the design stage because of over-costed stats that were done so because of fears from prior editions.

 One good sign we can draw from is that not every new codex is INSANE OMG IT IS SO OP. It does suck when you draw the short straw...it really does but it does mean there is an attempt at balance instead of full on "push the models". If we were being fully cynical then GW would just make every new codex the new hotness and thus be able to push whatever models they want.

 If they didn't care about the balance then the new SoB wouldn't get a new codex and instead to help push the new models would just being overtuned so that they would be top tier and everyone would buy them ether for popularity OR because they want to net-list the tournament winner.

 

Yes, there are WAAC players but they aren't unique to 40k. Trust me. They really aren't. I played 3 different card games and over all three, I saw many WAAC players (and WAAC players tend to be a constant, WAAC in one. WAAC in all). They are the same over all games, mindlessly copying lists and just doing the steps they found in a youtube video or some article they found. Other players I faced in a competitive environment were bringing their own form of heat like I was and while they did often get hammered by the WAAC players, I often made sure to dance circles around WAAC players because they don't remember anything outside their own deck and top 3 decks. Very easy to blind side with old hotness that still holds its edge very well and was only discarded because of new hotness and minor nerfs.

 

To be honest, WAAC players are a good thing for the game. Means that the most "problematic" lists become common place and thus easy to find and play against if you are attempting to crack their design. It runs out the power of the top tier as now their secrets are no longer secret. Happens in fighting games alot. One player wins a tournament, then everyone watches EVERYTHING they do, figure them out and suddenly they are destroyed if they got lazy.

 

Balance is an eternal goal but if ever achieved would be meaningless. It is something we can strive for but never achieve.

[Lexington]

Basically, the Eldar countered the counter-move.  Later, the White Dwarf staff commented on how this back & forth, before dice were even rolled, was one of their favourite moments.  The Imperial player himself advised others to Know Thy Stratagems, Know Thy Enemy's Stratagems.

 

This exchange genuinely impressed me because it sold me on this game mechanic of Stratagems.  I wasn't totally into it before, because as a tabletop game where we heavily invested in miniatures with time & money, I'd rather focus on what's on the table, not going through every quirky special rule a Formation (back in 7th) brought.  Now I totally appreciate why it exists as an extra depth to demonstrate a very experienced understanding of one's own army.  Psychic powers are like this, too.

 

While I can appreciate this as an observation, I think it needs a bit of context, since this isn't usually how it works out. Some stratagems are just so much better than the rest, and these are two of the more powerful examples in the whole game. Agents of Vect is also unique (I think?) in its ability to counter a counter. It tends to play out that an army engineered to maximize CP and the use of the most powerful stratagems can simply steamroll one that isn't. I think that's evidence of a big problem with the system.

 

Who says 40k isn’t meant for tournament play?

 

Me! Oh, man, me. Definitely me.

 

40K is barely suitable for casual play, all told. t's less frustrating now than it was in 8th, perhaps, but we're still talking about a game that essentially requires players to put the same amount of lean on it - ie. an agreement to abuse or not abuse the ruleset's obvious imbalances and loopholes - to have an enjoyable play experience. At the highest level of play, 90% of the game's units are simply not viable for the tabletop, and so much of the actual decision-making and gameplay is superfluous. Hell, the top table in one of the first major 8th Edition tournaments ended after the roll for who went first. The player who lost the roll conceded immediately, because there simply wasn't any point to playing it out.

 

Sure, you can play 40K in a tournament setting, and lots of people do, but the idea that it's compatible with the generally-held concepts of what a tournament is for is a complete non-starter. 40K can be a fun game, but it is not a good game, and in no way is it usefully designed for tournament play.

[Wayniac]

Agreed. I think 40k is a perfect example of a game that you CAN play as a competitive tournament game (because people obviously do), but it's pretty clear it's not the real intent and just because you can play it like a tournament game doesn't mean it actually is.

 

Especially when tournament 40k invalidates 90% or more of the game and the most popular style houserules the missions to increase the emphasis on listbuilding.

[Panzer]

I'd argue GW asking tournament players for advice, attending tournaments themselves, giving out tournament packs and writing 'rules' for tournaments means it's intended for tournaments as well. It might not have started out as such but it clearly is by now.

[Dracos]

To come back around to our OP. I would find a discussion on why we don’t talk about Eldar and focus on the 32 when both are top tier (Eldar the edge I believe). I appreciate GW taking this approach on a BatRep after years of fun but less useful Narrative ones.

 

Though both are Soup as we know it, they are very different beast in the mechanics of the game. Both of which are productive but most of us concede the 32 depend upon the advantage of the Soup to be effective. Is it’s Eldars mono capabilities that shield it from scrutiny? I’m not looking to diminish Eldar. Although always an a Astartes player first foremost I’ve been an Eldar and Guard player in the past. Which is why I plan on being an owner of the 32 in the future (and maybe Tau this time. Can you still mid Guard and Tau? I digress)

 

The real culprit is the core game mechanics. ... by design or accident I really have no idea, Power Armor armies are almost incapable of operating among the Top Tiers without Soup. Unless there is a change that can be made in the next round of Codexes that can bring those armies up a tier it looks like monodex Power Armor armies are going to continue to need an ally.

 

Which really blows for Necrons. I look forward to the Sisters true Codex to see if there are any answers there that we might see for future PA armies that don’t require the 32 to be as competitive as including the 32 does. This way we can play fluffy ... whatever that means to each individual.

[Dracos]

 

Who says 40k isn’t meant for tournament play?

 

Me! Oh, man, me. Definitely me.

 

40K is barely suitable for casual play, all told. t's less frustrating now than it was in 8th, perhaps, but we're still talking about a game that essentially requires players to put the same amount of lean on it - ie. an agreement to abuse or not abuse the ruleset's obvious imbalances and loopholes - to have an enjoyable play experience. At the highest level of play, 90% of the game's units are simply not viable for the tabletop, and so much of the actual decision-making and gameplay is superfluous. Hell, the top table in one of the first major 8th Edition tournaments ended after the roll for who went first. The player who lost the roll conceded immediately, because there simply wasn't any point to playing it out.

 

Sure, you can play 40K in a tournament setting, and lots of people do, but the idea that it's compatible with the generally-held concepts of what a tournament is for is a complete non-starter. 40K can be a fun game, but it is not a good game, and in no way is it usefully designed for tournament play.

With all due respect I sense a lot of personal negativity on your part rather that objective analysis. Barely suitable ... less frustrating ... absue the rule set, etc. Does your assertion that “90% of the game units simply not viable” have any statistical viability? My question would be ... Do you even play the game feeling that there is no place for Tournament play and that even a fun game can’t be a good game? If so why? What is it that you find in the game that you get a positive experience out of? And is it really damaged by others, in their own games, in their own environments in their own manner, that GW clearly supports.

 

I strongly hold the game supports both casual and competitive play. If the casual players could accept that competitive play actually is a tool that improves game balance in the long run and avoid the competitive environment (that they often claim is not the community’s norm) and stay in their casual environment (just politely decline to play that guy who brings a style of game you don’t enjoy) there would be a lot less angst and less feeling exclusion. Personally I find it sad that one part of the community often feels the need to shame the other.

[Panzer]

To come back around to our OP. I would find a discussion on why we don’t talk about Eldar and focus on the 32 when both are top tier (Eldar the edge I believe). I appreciate GW taking this approach on a BatRep after years of fun but less useful Narrative ones.

 

Though both are Soup as we know it, they are very different beast in the mechanics of the game. Both of which are productive but most of us concede the 32 depend upon the advantage of the Soup to be effective. Is it’s Eldars mono capabilities that shield it from scrutiny? I’m not looking to diminish Eldar. Although always an a Astartes player first foremost I’ve been an Eldar and Guard player in the past. Which is why I plan on being an owner of the 32 in the future (and maybe Tau this time. Can you still mid Guard and Tau? I digress)

 

The real culprit is the core game mechanics. ... by design or accident I really have no idea, Power Armor armies are almost incapable of operating among the Top Tiers without Soup. Unless there is a change that can be made in the next round of Codexes that can bring those armies up a tier it looks like monodex Power Armor armies are going to continue to need an ally.

 

Which really blows for Necrons. I look forward to the Sisters true Codex to see if there are any answers there that we might see for future PA armies that don’t require the 32 to be as competitive as including the 32 does. This way we can play fluffy ... whatever that means to each individual.

I thought that's obvious.

People don't dislike soups in general. They dislike soups when it creates a huge power gap between the mono armies of that metafaction (imperium/chaos/etc). Marine players are the biggest part of the 40k community (as far as I can tell) and the biggest power gap exists between 'the' imperial soup army and mono Marine armies. Most people would be perfectly fine with soup armies if their mono armies would be on about the same level competetive-wise.

 

Additionally People dislike the loyal32 because of how it achieves that level of competetiveness. While Eldar are just as strong or stronger it's because all the units included pull their weight. However with the loyal32 you have a list that exploits/abuses the way CP generation and allies interact just so you can pump your actual beatsticks in your army full with CP. If the Guardsmen would actually properly contribute to the fight instead of just being there and cheer for the Knights and BA Captains it wouldn't feel as cheesy (tho it wouldn't help with what I mentioned above).

 

That being said, in defense of the Eldar players, not every Eldar unit is top tier material. There are lots of units that never get picked for serious games (at least that was the case before CA18).

 

Lastly, I'll say it again. Equalize CP generation between all factions (there are multiple ways to do it but my favourite by far is switching the detachment requirements from slots to points) and something like the loyal32 wouldn't even exist anymore.

Would that nerf imperial armies in tournaments? Well yeah big time. At least the loyal32 lists. However it's not supposed to achieve perfect balance in one go. It's rather a necessary first step to be able to start properly balancing things imo. Once that's done the power level of Stratagems and units can be better adjusted and people who actually like to play soup armies would be perfectly fine to do so for various reasons that don't include "so I get enough CP to feed my Knights and BA Captains". It would also probably increase the amount of Troops we'll see which is going to happen with the new missions anyway I think. Just imagine if a Battalion would require 250p of your 2000p invested in Troops. Astra Militarum would have to take ~60 Guardsmen now and Marines would have to take ~15 Intercessors and both would get the same amount of CP for their points instead of being able to cheese it by just taking 30 Guardsmen. Sounds much more fair to me and 60 Guardsmen are also able to do much more in games so they'd be actual allies instead of a cheering squad.

[Finkmilkana]

 

Lastly, I'll say it again. Equalize CP generation between all factions (there are multiple ways to do it but my favourite by far is switching the detachment requirements from slots to points) and something like the loyal32 wouldn't even exist anymore.

Would that nerf imperial armies in tournaments? Well yeah big time. At least the loyal32 lists. However it's not supposed to achieve perfect balance in one go. It's rather a necessary first step to be able to start properly balancing things imo. Once that's done the power level of Stratagems and units can be better adjusted and people who actually like to play soup armies would be perfectly fine to do so for various reasons that don't include "so I get enough CP to feed my Knights and BA Captains". It would also probably increase the amount of Troops we'll see which is going to happen with the new missions anyway I think. Just imagine if a Battalion would require 250p of your 2000p invested in Troops. Astra Militarum would have to take ~60 Guardsmen now and Marines would have to take ~15 Intercessors and both would get the same amount of CP for their points instead of being able to cheese it by just taking 30 Guardsmen. Sounds much more fair to me and 60 Guardsmen are also able to do much more in games so they'd be actual allies instead of a cheering squad.

 

 I dont think thats a good idea. Not because of it nerfing certain lists, but because it would force at least guard to play infantry heavy to some degree. Would that be weaker? Not really. But all actual AM lists suddenly playing with 120+ models of guardsmen does really bog down the game. It would also not really remove the loyal 32, but instead simply turn it into the loyal 72, at least for the currently typical imperial soup lists with knights and smash captain.

The problem with troops is, they are a tax that for most factions is only useful for CP and board/objective control. Troops like tacticals do not really pull their own weight compared to other, more specialised units. And at the end of the day, guardsmen are still one of the most universally useful troops in the game if you mainly care about their CP and board control (while still being outclassed at most other tasks by specialised units).

The only thing that can actually change this loopsidedness is if all troops are made useful in their own right, which cannot really be done through points alone. Troops in general need to be reevaluated on their rules, such that they actually fill a role in every codex beyond 'tax'.

 

As long as most 'elite' troops are as bad as they are, guard allies wont disappear, even if CP are completely normalized. GW 'endorsing' the loyal 32 as the currently competetive option shows that they hopefully are at least aware of the problem, and as such should be celebrated, no matter what stance one has about soup in general.

[Panzer]

 

 

Lastly, I'll say it again. Equalize CP generation between all factions (there are multiple ways to do it but my favourite by far is switching the detachment requirements from slots to points) and something like the loyal32 wouldn't even exist anymore.

Would that nerf imperial armies in tournaments? Well yeah big time. At least the loyal32 lists. However it's not supposed to achieve perfect balance in one go. It's rather a necessary first step to be able to start properly balancing things imo. Once that's done the power level of Stratagems and units can be better adjusted and people who actually like to play soup armies would be perfectly fine to do so for various reasons that don't include "so I get enough CP to feed my Knights and BA Captains". It would also probably increase the amount of Troops we'll see which is going to happen with the new missions anyway I think. Just imagine if a Battalion would require 250p of your 2000p invested in Troops. Astra Militarum would have to take ~60 Guardsmen now and Marines would have to take ~15 Intercessors and both would get the same amount of CP for their points instead of being able to cheese it by just taking 30 Guardsmen. Sounds much more fair to me and 60 Guardsmen are also able to do much more in games so they'd be actual allies instead of a cheering squad.

 

 I dont think thats a good idea. Not because of it nerfing certain lists, but because it would force at least guard to play infantry heavy to some degree. Would that be weaker? Not really. But all actual AM lists suddenly playing with 120+ models of guardsmen does really bog down the game. It would also not really remove the loyal 32, but instead simply turn it into the loyal 72, at least for the currently typical imperial soup lists with knights and smash captain.

The problem with troops is, they are a tax that for most factions is only useful for CP and board/objective control. Troops like tacticals do not really pull their own weight compared to other, more specialised units. And at the end of the day, guardsmen are still one of the most universally useful troops in the game if you mainly care about their CP and board control (while still being outclassed at most other tasks by specialised units).

The only thing that can actually change this loopsidedness is if all troops are made useful in their own right, which cannot really be done through points alone. Troops in general need to be reevaluated on their rules, such that they actually fill a role in every codex beyond 'tax'.

 

As long as most 'elite' troops are as bad as they are, guard allies wont disappear, even if CP are completely normalized. GW 'endorsing' the loyal 32 as the currently competetive option shows that they hopefully are at least aware of the problem, and as such should be celebrated, no matter what stance one has about soup in general.

 

 

But Astra Militarum IS an infantry heavy faction and if you don't want that you can always use one of the other detachments. That's how they are designed. That's like complaining about Orks or Daemons being horde armies.

 

As for not removing the loyalr32 but instead turning it into loyal72. Possible but not necessarily true. The main reason to take AM currently is for CP. If Marines would give the same amount of CP for the same amount of points that reason would be gone and what's left would be the actual worth of the unit and faction itself. From there on things can start to get properly balanced.

 

Troops being useful for only CP and board/objective control? Perfect, that's their job. Heavy Support is also only useful for killing things. It depends on the mission which is more important. There are some armies with Troops that are more capable of killing things (Custodes, Deathwatch Veterans etc) but those factions are usually also weaker at the whole objective game so it's a tradeoff.

 

Tacticals not being able to pull their weight is a whole different topic. We know they are too expensive for what they do and that they need some love. Assault Marines and Drop Pods are in the same boat as are many others.

[Dracos]

I might not be all in on CP for Points (I'd like to see it plytested though) but making Troops more a focus of army builds is a bump in the right direction (imo). I love Elite and Heavy as much as anyone but they would feel more "realistic" if they were really Support units and not the game winning units.

 

Maybe if Objectives were bumped up in points? 2vp for your own deployment zone, 4vp for the mid/neutral field, and 6vp for capturing Objectives in your opponents deployment zone? 

 

 

Edit: that's one of the sweet thing about Guard they can be so many different things in warfare style and all of them can be narratively correct.