LVO is in the bag & soup is still on the menu

[PiñaColada]

So by now I guess most people who have any sort of interest in competitve 40k know the results of LVO 2019. 
*Spoilers - I guess*

 

I know this topic will tread some familiar ground but considering 3 out of the top 4 players ran Imperial soup with a Castellan and the 4th ran space elf soup I think it's fair to say that soup is still on the menu. We're now no longer in a brand spanking new edition, in fact almost all codices have dropped but the problem with allies is still rearing its head, seemingly unchecked. Looking at the top LVO lists there are game balance issues other than soup, such as undercosted guardsmen and several fixes to the Castellan are needed. Furthermore the flyer battlefield role should probably be limited to max 3 per army. Doom should be limited to Asuryani etc. These are not the things I want to discuss however, I simply want to acknowledge the fact that the solution I purpose is not going to fix every instance of balance in the game and can in some cases maybe even make it worse. The point is this change would hopefully happen alongside other changes.

 

I guess my issue with soup comes down to the fact that there are no drawbacks with it whatsoever, just draw from a pool of 500 datasheets instead of 30. No compromises needed. A lot of this is to gain access to something like the Castellan but how many times do we have to see the loyal 32 popping up in lists? Those guys are there for cheap bodies on the ground, which I like, and generating CPs, something I dislike. So what I'm proposing is that we overhaul the CP system.

Instead of earning them from detachments let's just consider an even system based on the points you're allowed to bring. You always get your 3CP for being battleforged and you get an additional 2CP per 500 points you're allowed to bring. So it'd look like this:
 

500 points- 5CP 

1000 points - 7CP 

1500 points - 9CP 

2000 points - 11CP 

Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP.  It should also probabaly be specified that only your warlords detachment can regen CPs.

 

It's simple and still gives you an incentive to not go overboard with soup, 1 soup detachment would be a common occurence but you'd also get fewer CP to power up all the super powerful stratagems with. This would also get people out of the mindset of bringing 2 or 3 battalions with minimum sized troop units just filling up slots to get all those command points. Now you get to run that cool all bike list you really want to play without being penalised for it.

Anyways, what do y'all reckon, is it time to ditch the current system regarding earning CP?

 

[Rik Lightstar]

What if detachments reduced your command points for every Faction Keyword they don't share?

 

So with Marines and Guard those 2 Keywords aren't shared so -2, if you add a Chapter or Regiment it goes to -3 or -4 for both.

 

Add a Knight into the mix, with a particular Household and pretty soon you've eaten the Command Points that the Guard Battalion added anyway.

 

Rik

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Pretty much same result for number 1 at NOVA... GW really needs to get off their duff and fix the points for basic guardsmen and the Castellan .

[Scribe]

This is assuming its 

 

1. An issue.

2. An issue GW didnt want to happen.

 

I find both positions questionable at best. If you wish to play top tier competitive AT ANYTHING, you will kneel to the meta (Most Effective Tactic Available) and play along.

 

The fact this also 'forces' players to buy more, start more armies, that hopefully get updated and added to, is simply a net win for GW from their perspective.

[Biscuittzz]

GW know exactly what they are doing with soup. They know that if you buy a single model or unit to include as part of a soup list i.e. a Castellan or a Smash Captain, you are much more inclined to potentially fill out these units into fully-fledged mono armies themselves. More armies means more kits sold.

 

The number of people I know who have started Imperial Knight armies after initially just buying a dominus-class knight to add as an aux detachment is innumerable.

 

Edit: While GW may or may not introduce buffs to influence sales, you can sure as hell bet they won't introduce a nerf that will massively affect the sales of what I would guess is a top-seller at this time (Castellan knight).

[Tordeck]

Point costs are not the problem.

[Bulwyf]

They should ban soup lists completely. If tournies were mono codex it would force GW to finally make every army at least somewhat competitive with each other.

[chapter master 454]

Another question is how many are bringing the same list? Because you are saying 3/4 brought the same list (roughly I assume, not exactly) so whats the number on people taking the same list through the entire tournament? Because if 75% were bringing the same list then no wonder it would be top.

 

However I doubt that is the numbers but it is a thing to consider. Remember we had the match in white dwarf where the Aeldari beat out the Imperial Soup (though from what i hear from people it hinged on killing the castellan turn 1) so wouldn't that mean Aeldari would of had a surge from power gamers? By all rights, the Castellan is just a great overall unit whose main gun is outright devastating. To be honest I believe the issue if anyone wants to point fingers at the castellan is it being able to get a 3++. Just limit knights to never being able to have a 3++ and boom, helps the issue. Might not be perfect there is one idea for ya.

However I am a knight player and to be fair, the Castellan does hit like a dump truck firing dump trucks made of dump trucks.

 

All the talk of Mono-Dexing tournaments would be really bad btw. Seriously. You want Eldar being the top dog all day every day again? Seriously, those guys sneeze units onto an army list and they have made a competitive list! No it will not "make GW balance the codexes" because that is NOT how balance works. Big knee jerks at this problem will only lead to worse ones and while this is a problem "persisting" it is also something to question what other lists people were bringing. I want to see data on that, what were people bringing because if I don't see any actual effort put in I am chalking this up to players not wanting to adapt and counter nor willing to try new things out unless their list gets hit for some reason.

 

To be honest, I wonder why the Shadowsword doesn't see use? I mean, most folks bring the the Dominus knight for the Volcano lance so...why not bring the shadowsword? Gamewise it is easier to hide, you can give it +1 to its armour and even add -1 to hit it too with cheap psykers. I do suppose 4+ to hit does make a difference. But still, my point does stand.

 

Understand that balance is very VERY nefarious mistress of misfortune and malady and not a benevolent mother of freedom and frivolity.

Set your sights on the top, all you do is make 2nd place top dog and depending on how hard the kneecapping is, 3rd to 2nd while 1st possibly falls off the map into complete trash tier with us lamenting it as unviable anymore. You aim to raise someone else up and suddenly a new set of villains arise. No-one here will be happy with what they provide and they is a symptom of wanting what we like to be top dog.

Going to lay it out, kinda happy for Imperial Soup being top dog. Pretty good see. Knights and Marines doing work and that to me makes me happy. But to be fair I cheat, I like anyone winning really...except eldar. They deserve to be the butt of jokes for an edition or 3.

 

Real question of the hour: instead of wanting GW to "balance the books", who here wants to actually play some 40k? You see those mono-dexes ya got right there, start reading. Start thinking. Start Tinkering. Maybe if you want something to happen put in some good ol' midnight oil and build some lists that push your limits. Find those combos, find those little things people forget. Oh and don't forget, those indexes over yonder are still legal so don't hold back...unless you want the extra challenge!

Want Change? Be the change. Don't like Soup showing up? Then start figuring lists that beat it.

 

 

Sorry for the HEAVY and THICK dose of sarcastic overture of my input but by all that is holy in the Emperor's light we all take to this everytime a tournament appears and holy terra does it never stop! Who CARES? Seriously? Does it affect you that much that a group of players all get their rocks off going to a tournament with the same list because they all can't remember what the definition of game is?

 

Discussion is good...but this is a topic so beaten to a pulp I have half a mind to start a poll purely about which topic this forum feels is more beaten to death? "how to fix tactical marines/fix the marine codex" or "how to fix soup/tournament scene". COME ON.

 

Lemme summarise: Knights are good. Smash Captain is good. We smash 'em together, duct tape them together with some good ol' loyal 32 grade glue and what do you get? A top tier list that works. Do allies need nerfed? Meh, maybe. To be honest we likely do need some sort of incentive for mono-dexing more or de-centives for allies but to be honest the sum of the equation is the same really.

Good units = top tier lists. All allies allows is for codexes who only have a few good units to band together and make top tier without being hindered by their albatross units. We take that away Mono-dexing just boils down to which codex is best by itself and we all see the same dex over and over again and here we are again square numero zero!

 

Can we stop this. Not Soup. Not Allies. Just stop this. This cyclic discussion that leads nowhere. Because end of the day the game isn't broken at our game stores nor our clubs. If you regular tournaments then you signed the agreement because you KNOW what you are getting into. Does this stuff stop you enjoying the game? No. Until GW actually do something meaningful relating to this who thing, why bother discuss it because it is same story, different day!

 

A bit fed up of this coming up...can it just stop? please?  

[Kontakt]

All of the solo castellans in these lists are house raven with Cawl's wrath. I am also a knights player, but I have not been impressed by the castellan, probably due to running pure knight lists. Nerfing Cawl's wrath or just house raven in general might be a wise decision on GW's part, but that might be an overreaction.

All of the guard portions of the castellan lists were different. This is a good thing, though guard might not be as competitive without the more durable heavy support of a knight.

[toaae]

A bit fed up of this coming up...can it just stop? please?  

 

Have you considered not clicking on these threads?

 

To some of us, the fact that despite FAQs, chapter approved, and a major codex coming out since NOVA, the top lists are still the same archetypes, and we'd like to see some change to that.

[shandwen]

I personally wonder why knights get a household in an aux detachment when guard super heavies don't. If they fixed that one bit we would see either a drop in the amount of people who would take solo knights, or a slight rise in shadowswords.

[Huggtand]

If memory serves me, I think it was Winters SEO that called the Castellan a gate keeper. Right now it´s the only thing that keep the usual power lists in check. If it´s removed we will go back to the usual aeldari lists dominating the tournaments. Now at least there are one more faction in the top tier, so why do so many want to nerf one of the thing that keeps imperial soup competitive? 

 

For me the imperial soup-armies is just trying to bring what other codices already have. Chaos, Eldar, Tau, Necron, Orc, and Tyranids all have access to the full soup in one codex

• Guard infantry (cheap bodies) - guardians, cultist, fire warriors, grots, gants
• Marines (elite “power amour” units) - chaos marines, aspect warriors and tyranid warriors
• Tanks and flyers in all varieties
• Knights (super heavies) - wraith knights, riptides, gargants, renegade knights, Tyrannofex

It´s only for the imperium that GW have decided to split up the combined arms components in separate codices (I know the fluff reasons  and as a business standpoint they also can sell more as individual factions). Now, I don´t put any evaluation how good the different components are, just that as an army composition the imperial soup is just the same as the standard codices for almost any other faction.

[sairence]

If we know anything, it'a that GW doesn't consider these kinds of lists "soup". Their "soup is off the menu" comment when they limited fe the Imperium KW for detachments made that abudently clear.

 

So for one reason or another, they don't see this kind of list as a problem. I would wager, like others here, that it's intentional.

 

So the only thing you can expect to see is tweaks for more variance. As someone said, the Guard lists were all different, which I'm happy with.

 

Also, on the point of the Shadowsword. Our Guard superheavies don't see much competitive use anymore, because you have to sink 4-500 points into a giant model with no invun save. In a tournament list it's likely to get off one effective round of shots at best.

[PiñaColada]

And we've gotten slightly off track already, which I understand. Some people are really passionate about the topic. I just want to reiterate that while a large component of the current "problem lists" are specific undercosted units or interactions with stratagems that those issues are not the focal point of this thread.

My issue with soup I guess it more tied to the CP generation system GW introduced, if every army get CP the same way then every army does not get CP the same way (a custodes battalion and a guard battalion is not the same). Ridding ourselves of the current system which just incentivises MSU squads to fill out as many slots in the cheapest way possible and moving into detachments merely being the forces you're allowed to bring would in and out of itself be a betterment IMO. Making everyone start with the same amount of CP (see the first post explaining how that'd work) would in some part remove the need for the loyal 32 as an example. Those guys would still be good, because they're cheap and capable bodies but they're no longer also a CP battery (which was just dumb from a fluff standpoint anyways).

The whole point about GW doesn't want to remove soup because it makes them money, well yeah of course, but this wouldn't remove soup. The setup of this system would still easily allow one allied detachment without much of a drawback at all. I don't want soup to go away, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any sort of balancing element introduced to it at all. 

Also, if we're being completely crass and look at the situation from GWs financial point of view, this new model would put far less emphasis on battalions meaning you can fill out your army to a much higher degree with other stuff. That doesn't seem like a terrible situation for GW as I suspect it would result in quite a few new purchases for people, especially considering that this system wouldn't actually remove soup.

[sairence]

Well, on that point...no, I don't think giving everyone the exact same amount of CP would do any good. You would merely see the armies with high powered strategems dominating. The army design we have this edition is very much done so that some armies have expensive high-impact strategems that can change the entire game when used at the right time and others have cheap low-impact ones that need to be used over and over again for a similar result. Giving everyone absolutely equal access would massively skew things in favour of the game-changing ones, while everyone else would have little choice but to stand there and take it.

 

I don't disagree that some changes to the cp-system would be good, if only to stop people whining about Guard all the time. But this isn't it.

[Panzer]

If memory serves me, I think it was Winters SEO that called the Castellan a gate keeper. Right now it´s the only thing that keep the usual power lists in check. If it´s removed we will go back to the usual aeldari lists dominating the tournaments. Now at least there are one more faction in the top tier, so why do so many want to nerf one of the thing that keeps imperial soup competitive? 

 

For me the imperial soup-armies is just trying to bring what other codices already have. Chaos, Eldar, Tau, Necron, Orc, and Tyranids all have access to the full soup in one codex

• Guard infantry (cheap bodies) - guardians, cultist, fire warriors, grots, gants
• Marines (elite “power amour” units) - chaos marines, aspect warriors and tyranid warriors
• Tanks and flyers in all varieties
• Knights (super heavies) - wraith knights, riptides, gargants, renegade knights, Tyrannofex

Calling Riptides a Super Heavy and comparing it to something like Imperial Knights is kind of a stretch. About 200p cheaper, -1T -10W and much less damage output. It's a very strong elite choice but not even near Knight level lol

 

Also I really wouldn't call the Castellan a gatekeeper. Gatekeeper are tough units that prevent other lists from playing on the top tables but usually don't get there themselves. Daemon Primarchs are gatekeeper in that regard, but not the Castellan. The Castellan is simply a very competetive choice. ^^

 

Also also we don't necessarily want to nerf the one thing that makes imperial armies competetive. We want to make imperial armies competetive without being forced to take units from other Codexes.

[Marshal Reinhard]

CP represents command right? Like the army's ability to coordinate and function like a well oiled machine?

 

It'd make all the sense that you impose limits on the amount of CP an army gets the more differing factions that's included in it. The more different command structures involved, the more different factions, with different ways of communication, tradition & fighting styles should lead to the army having less opportunity to pull off CP actions of a well oiled machine. 

 

 

I do feel like I've made this argument before.

[PiñaColada]

Well, on that point...no, I don't think giving everyone the exact same amount of CP would do any good. You would merely see the armies with high powered strategems dominating. The army design we have this edition is very much done so that some armies have expensive high-impact strategems that can change the entire game when used at the right time and others have cheap low-impact ones that need to be used over and over again for a similar result. Giving everyone absolutely equal access would massively skew things in favour of the game-changing ones, while everyone else would have little choice but to stand there and take it.

 

I don't disagree that some changes to the cp-system would be good, if only to stop people whining about Guard all the time. But this isn't it.

I get what you're saying, but GW has changed the cost of stratagems before (look at many IK strats and Vect) so those things could be managed. Right now it feels like GW costed their stratagems based on how many they assume that army could realistically get, hence why the IK strats were so good. When you're allowed to ally in other armies to help generate CP that balance is just never going to work. Reworking the entire system of CP generation would obviously not be a completely clean process with no weird leftovers.

 

If you implemented my suggested system today, I'm guessing Eldar would rise to the top. But the whole point is that's fine, once we've put a limit to the insane levels of CP some armies can generate then any restrictions (even the really moderate ones I suggest) to allies will actually have an impact. This will help balance things, since you're no longer "as free" to choose any datasheet from whereever with zero practical drawbacks. 

 

11CP in a 2k army is not that much. Spending 1CP or 3CP to bring in allies would actually become decision that you have to weigh the pros and cons of, at least the 3CP variant. It removes some of the capabilities certain armies have to just spam stratagems over and over because CPs are now much more at a premium. But I also think that the you're not fully thinking about how a new system no longer tied to the detachments in quite the same way could switch up the current army compositions. The "tax" you take to fill certain slots will lower considerably thus allowing you to bring more of the things you want.

[Hantheman]

I have no idea how to fix soup, I'd imagine they never will, because what do they gain from it?

 

I think you need to separate competitive stuff from normal stuff. Competitive tournaments will always break the game and, to me, but absolutely boring as . For others it's great. 

 

I'd be more concern about the three people in top ten who have cheated in the past (one on camera!) being allowed to play at the biggest GT.

[sarabando]

just get rid of CP and stratagems.

[MARK0SIAN]

It is definitely time to ditch the current system but the designers have said, on more than one occasion, that they prefer the route of rewarding mono-armies rather than punishing allied ones so losing CP for taking allies is not going to gain much traction with GW.

 

We have to accept that taking allies is absolutely how they intended 8th edition to work. I’m not saying there aren’t problems with it but trying to get them to disincentivise a process they WANT to be there is not going to work. It needs to focus on more buffs for mono-dex armies.

[sairence]

I don't really want to see lists made up of just "what people want" for a balanced game. I'm honestly horrified at that concept.

 

And you'd need to do more than change the costs for a few strategems, you'd have to rebalance the whole lot of them. This isn't something an FAQ or CA could do, that's new edition territory. And honestly, if we're going that far, you have an "all restraints are off" situation

 

I think you need to separate competitive stuff from normal stuff. Competitive tournaments will always break the game and, to me, but absolutely boring as . For others it's great.

 

 

I mean...they tried to do just that? Most people simply decided they prefer playing matched for their regular games instead of narrative.

[Slasher956]

Easiest way of 'fixing it' without changing anything.... add the following statement in to the main rule book: If your army contains two or more factions then your warlords faction is your primary faction, All other factions in the army are counted as a secondary factions and half the CP generated (rounding up) per formation and add +1 to the cost of any strats used.  This includes if you use the command re-roll or auto pass moral on a unit belonging to a secondary faction.

[Panzer]

 

I think you need to separate competitive stuff from normal stuff. Competitive tournaments will always break the game and, to me, but absolutely boring as . For others it's great.

 

I mean...they tried to do just that? Most people simply decided they prefer playing matched for their regular games instead of narrative.

 

 

Matched play was always the normal way to play and never meant to be strictly for competetive play. They introduce suggested rules for tournaments for the competetive play that's separate from the regular matched play rules for a reason.

[PiñaColada]

I get that GW want to reward mono-lists rather than punish allies but honestly that's going to be tough in a system where allies bring so much potential to the table. Their design ethos isn't really contradicted here IMO, sure there's a small disadvantage to bringing allies but getting access to an allied detachment for a singular command point doesn't seem like some great big sacrifice to me. Getting rid of CP and stratagems in general I think we can agree on won't actually happen and all those stratagems would have to become abilities instead basically necessitating all new codices.

 

I don't really want to see lists made up of just "what people want" for a balanced game. I'm honestly horrified at that concept.

And you'd need to do more than change the costs for a few strategems, you'd have to rebalance the whole lot of them. This isn't something an FAQ or CA could do, that's new edition territory. And honestly, if we're going that far, you have an "all restraints are off" situation
 

Perhaps no man should have all that power? :P I can see how having no restrictions in the rosters might get tricky enough that the rule of three won't be able to handle it but you could just restructure the suggestion that I had to only grant the 3 battleforged CP if you have either a battalion or brigade.

I really don't think you'd have to restructure the entire stratagem system if you changed CP generation. Most people would end up with fewer CP but it'd also bring us back to basically what we had before battalions and brigades were upgraded in amount of CP. 2 Battalions used to be 9CP with battleforges, 3 (or a single brigade) were 12CP. This brings us back to that. The only restructuring we'd need in regards to stratagems are what we already need in terms of rebalancing.