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

[Tyriks]

The new genestealer cult codex I think has a good way of mitigating soup. Allied detachments earn half cp, and cannot get a warlord trait or artifacts. That alone would fix a lot of problems.

Is there a picture of that rule?

[Panzer]

 

The new genestealer cult codex I think has a good way of mitigating soup. Allied detachments earn half cp, and cannot get a warlord trait or artifacts. That alone would fix a lot of problems.

Is there a picture of that rule?

 

 

It's not like the Codex isn't already released or something. We are past the rumours phase. :D

 

 

 

If your army is Battle-forged, you can only

include one ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment

(one in which every unit has the ASTRA

MILITARUM keyword) in your army for

each GENESTEALER CULTS Detachment

in that army. You cannot include ASTRA

MILITARUM named characters in these

Detachments, and these Detachments cannot

be Specialist Detachments. These ASTRA

MILITARUM Detachments are then known

as BROOD BROTHERS Detachments, and

every unit in them that has the <REGIMENT>

or MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword must

replace it in every instance on its datasheet

with BROOD BROTHERS (if a unit does not

have either of these keywords, it simply gains

the BROOD BROTHERS keyword).

 

BROOD BROTHERS Detachments do

not gain any of the Detachment abilities

listed in Codex: Astra Militarum, such as

Regimental Doctrines, nor can they use any

regiment-specific Stratagems, Orders etc.

Furthermore, INFANTRY models in BROOD

BROTHERS Detachments increase their

Leadership characteristic by 1 and they gain

the Unquestioning Loyalty ability (pg 78).

Units in BROOD BROTHERS Detachments

do not gain the Cult Ambush ability. Your

Warlord cannot be from a BROOD BROTHERS

Detachment, and you cannot give any Relics

to BROOD BROTHERS CHARACTERS. In

addition, the Command Benefits of all BROOD

BROTHERS Detachments included in your

army in this way are halved (rounding up).

This reflects that such Detachments are not a

Genestealer Cult’s primary fighting force, and

the acquisition of such military assets is costly

in terms of resource.

[USNCenturion]

Maybe it would help the discussion if we laid out what the lists and their components actually do to steamroll these tournaments. Then we can look at what seems to be the most egregious problem and bring it up as a community in the upcoming survey.

 

The Castellan is obviously the big standout of the Imperial list, but why? Is it the shooting it has? It’s stratagems? Any special rules? How was it a game decider in all the matches it was involved in? How effective are the three smash captains post nerf, and how important to the list are the IG forces?

 

I don’t know much about the Ynnari besides typical Eldar trickiness and rules. Soul blasts and out of turn abilities are the issues I hear of most.

 

So how do these lists actually work and what makes them so effective?

[NatBrannigan]

Can't we just scrap command points...? Please? They're painful :(

 

I end up dozens of the damn things for my Guard (Actual Guard, Mono Guard, not 3 Knights and a smattering of Guardsmen) and the Strategems are pretty meh for the most part. I guess I could take a Knight to use the Command points on, thus completing the hideous circle of command points.

[Panzer]

No, I like Command Points. Best addition we got this edition. ^^

[Tyriks]

I like CP but they are a problem as is. Some armies have terrible Stratagems and some have amazing ones. Plus the imbalances in getting CP. I don't like having a flat amount for every army but it's probably better than what we have now. That or the KT approach where you start with none but get some every turn.

[The Yncarne]

I see command points as a cool in game ‘cinematic moment’ rather than a means to balance units or factions. As such, I have no issues with everybody getting the same number of them, possibly doled by turn with the warlord adding 1 if he’s alive at the start of the turn.

 

That said, I suspect I’m in the minority and most people want to use command points for more extensive boosts throughout a game.

[Panzer]

I like CP but they are a problem as is. Some armies have terrible Stratagems and some have amazing ones. Plus the imbalances in getting CP. I don't like having a flat amount for every army but it's probably better than what we have now. That or the KT approach where you start with none but get some every turn.

Eh, that's like saying points are a problem. It's just a ressource. The mechanic itself is fine for the most part. What needs some adjustment is the CP generation due how allies work and the balance of some Stratagems the same way as some units need to get balanced by adjusting points or datasheets.

 

I like the KT/AoS approach but I also like my idea of giving CP per points spend instead of per FOC slots used due each slot costing a different amount of points for different armies (a Troop slot for AM is much cheaper than a Troop slot for Custodes but gives the same amount of CP etc).

[PiñaColada]

Well you have to allow people to start with CPs since a plethora of pre game stratagems exist. Tying CPs to detchments is just strange since those detachments are not going to be as easily achieable between factions and that's why we see these "CP battery" detachments, even after they nerfed the midgame CP generation. Another solution could be custom detachments for each faction, and try to balance CP that way. While that would be fluffy, it's also a lot more work and tougher to keep track of.

The whole why Castellans are so good is explained elsewhere and not really the point of the thread but in the quickest summation. They're T8 28Wounds with an easily achievable 3+ invuln save. Even if you strip them down to a singular wound they can pay 1CP to operate as if they're unhurt. So even ranged anti-tank weaponry is terrible at reliably bringing them down. Their offensive prowess is off the charts good, assuming you spend CP on them. A guard brigade plus one of them means a nigh unkillade murder machine plus a horde of capable bodies. It's just super tough to compete with. So that unit (alongside with the humble guardsman) need fixes but that's sort of the point of the thread. Even if you fix the Castellan, guardsmen and make "Doom" just work on Asuryani, you still haven't truly fixed the problem. Just merely removed the absolute worst offender. That's better than nothing but soup lists would still dominate without equal. 

That's why I'm looking at CP generation as the primary thing to fix. Not the only one, but bringing CP to an even level across the board means small CP costs will matter and can't be hand-waved away by "lol, I have brigades". It's the simplest solution in my eyes, and the fairest.

[Tyriks]

 

I like CP but they are a problem as is. Some armies have terrible Stratagems and some have amazing ones. Plus the imbalances in getting CP. I don't like having a flat amount for every army but it's probably better than what we have now. That or the KT approach where you start with none but get some every turn.

 

Eh, that's like saying points are a problem. It's just a ressource. The mechanic itself is fine for the most part. What needs some adjustment is the CP generation due how allies work and the balance of some Stratagems the same way as some units need to get balanced by adjusting points or datasheets.

 

I like the KT/AoS approach but I also like my idea of giving CP per points spend instead of per FOC slots used due each slot costing a different amount of points for different armies (a Troop slot for AM is much cheaper than a Troop slot for Custodes but gives the same amount of CP etc).

Points often are a problem. That's why some units never see the table even if they have utility.

[koran]

Im a bit mixed on my views here.  I get the issue with soup but looking at the top lists from LVO I much prefer the feel of them (with lots of troop bodies) than I have done in any other previous edition of the game.  So in many ways the want to generate CPs by using batalions is working and makes an army in most instances look like an army, not just a collection of super heavies.

I think my solution would be to look back to something like second edition and change how CPs are generated.  I want people to be rewarded for having armies that look like a proper fighting force and ballance should be reqarded.  So maybe change it to something like:

 

Battle forged +3CP

 

Batallion: +10CP

At least 40% of your army points are troops and no other battlefield roll (e.g. heavy support) can be more than 25% of the army points.

 

Brigade:  +12 CP

At least 50% of your army points are trooops and no other battlefield roll (e.g. heavy support) can be more than 15% of the army points.

 

Vanguard:  +5CP

At least 30% of your army points are troops and no other battlefield roll (e.g. heavy support) can be more than 40% of the army points.

 

etc.

 

That way it rewards ballanced armies, allows soup and importantly points become their own ballancing issues and that guard can get a batallion for so few points means that other codexs have a chance and mono-builds are more attractive.

 

This also solves the castalan issue.  At 600pts it would mean you could never take it and get more than 8CP (Vanguard plus battleforged) in a 2k game.

[Panzer]

 

 

I like CP but they are a problem as is. Some armies have terrible Stratagems and some have amazing ones. Plus the imbalances in getting CP. I don't like having a flat amount for every army but it's probably better than what we have now. That or the KT approach where you start with none but get some every turn.

Eh, that's like saying points are a problem. It's just a ressource. The mechanic itself is fine for the most part. What needs some adjustment is the CP generation due how allies work and the balance of some Stratagems the same way as some units need to get balanced by adjusting points or datasheets.

 

I like the KT/AoS approach but I also like my idea of giving CP per points spend instead of per FOC slots used due each slot costing a different amount of points for different armies (a Troop slot for AM is much cheaper than a Troop slot for Custodes but gives the same amount of CP etc).

Points often are a problem. That's why some units never see the table even if they have utility.

 

 

That's not the fault of points as a ressource though. That's the fault of giving those units the wrong points value.

[Tyriks]

Yes, which is exactly what I said about CP. I like them but they are a problem right now.

[Panzer]

But they aren't. The generation is a problem, not CP themselves.

[Tyriks]

That is a part of the system.

[PiñaColada]

Yeah, but CP generation is the main focal point of this thread. If we equalize that then we can also start to try and fix weird CP costs that it feels that GW weighted after how many CPs they assumed that army could get. I like CPs, I don't like how they were implemented..

Koran, I like your sugggestion! Something like that could easily work IMO. I just really feel like we need to get away from CP being generated from detachments that are super easy to fill out for some and almost impossible for others. So your roster archetypes based on overall points could be a solution as well.

[koran]

Koran, I like your sugggestion! Something like that could easily work IMO. I just really feel like we need to get away from CP being generated from detachments that are super easy to fill out for some and almost impossible for others. So your roster archetypes based on overall points could be a solution as well.

 

Thanks, I agree but also want it to be more complex than just saying you get a certain number of CP for a specific points limit.  That doesnt do what CP seemed designed for; rewarding ballanced army composition.

[Focslain]

Maybe it would help the discussion if we laid out what the lists and their components actually do to steamroll these tournaments. Then we can look at what seems to be the most egregious problem and bring it up as a community in the upcoming survey.

 

The Castellan is obviously the big standout of the Imperial list, but why? Is it the shooting it has? It’s stratagems? Any special rules? How was it a game decider in all the matches it was involved in? How effective are the three smash captains post nerf, and how important to the list are the IG forces?

 

I don’t know much about the Ynnari besides typical Eldar trickiness and rules. Soul blasts and out of turn abilities are the issues I hear of most.

 

So how do these lists actually work and what makes them so effective?

 

In answer to your Castellan question here's some food for thought. (From the guard forum)

 

 

 

Because they're not. Knights, to be competitive, need a few things: castellans, Rotate Ion Shields strategem, Ion Bullwark warlord trait, Cawl's Wrath, Order of Companions strategem, and machine spirit resurgent strategem.

 

Traitors only have 2/6 of those things. Perhaps the 2 most important, sure, but only 2. It's the whole package that makes the super Castellan genuinely super. Knights aren't good. Not on a genuinely competitive level. They're too few models that don't do enough and have too many counters. That is why all of the top 8 LVO lists that were "knight" lists had a castellan with access to 6/6 of the things listed above. The knight codex has just 1 truly competitive unit and that is it. It is AMAZINGLY good. Worth more than literally any other Lord of War, other knights included.

 

Granted when I field a Castellan I have 4/6 since i run house Taranis.

[MARK0SIAN]

Is there a case for making the battalion detachment harder to fill? Should it require some units in other slots? Of the allied detachments it seems to be the main offender, no one complains about allied brigades but the deifference between even two battalions and a Brigade is an absolutely massive leap but only 2 CP difference. I haven’t got easy access to the numbers on my phone but I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me ad-mech could field 3 battalions for less than the cost of a Brigade for them.

 

So does the battalion need to be brought closer to a Brigade requirement?

[Panzer]

Is there a case for making the battalion detachment harder to fill? Should it require some units in other slots? Of the allied detachments it seems to be the main offender, no one complains about allied brigades but the deifference between even two battalions and a Brigade is an absolutely massive leap but only 2 CP difference. I haven’t got easy access to the numbers on my phone but I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me ad-mech could field 3 battalions for less than the cost of a Brigade for them.

 

So does the battalion need to be brought closer to a Brigade requirement?

 

I'd include a minimum percentage of points spend on the Troop slots. Would be easier to fill for armies like Marines and require armies like AM or AdMech more Troops to satisfy the minimum requirement so overall it would equal out the CP generation across factions a bit.

[librisrouge]

 

Maybe it would help the discussion if we laid out what the lists and their components actually do to steamroll these tournaments. Then we can look at what seems to be the most egregious problem and bring it up as a community in the upcoming survey.

 

The Castellan is obviously the big standout of the Imperial list, but why? Is it the shooting it has? It’s stratagems? Any special rules? How was it a game decider in all the matches it was involved in? How effective are the three smash captains post nerf, and how important to the list are the IG forces?

 

I don’t know much about the Ynnari besides typical Eldar trickiness and rules. Soul blasts and out of turn abilities are the issues I hear of most.

 

So how do these lists actually work and what makes them so effective?

 

In answer to your Castellan question here's some food for thought. (From the guard forum)

 

 

 

Because they're not. Knights, to be competitive, need a few things: castellans, Rotate Ion Shields strategem, Ion Bullwark warlord trait, Cawl's Wrath, Order of Companions strategem, and machine spirit resurgent strategem.

 

Traitors only have 2/6 of those things. Perhaps the 2 most important, sure, but only 2. It's the whole package that makes the super Castellan genuinely super. Knights aren't good. Not on a genuinely competitive level. They're too few models that don't do enough and have too many counters. That is why all of the top 8 LVO lists that were "knight" lists had a castellan with access to 6/6 of the things listed above. The knight codex has just 1 truly competitive unit and that is it. It is AMAZINGLY good. Worth more than literally any other Lord of War, other knights included.

 

Granted when I field a Castellan I have 4/6 since i run house Taranis.

 

Yay, I got quoted saying the thing!

 

House Taranis, eh? Neat change of pace and still very effective since you'll have Cawl's Wrath.

 

I think GW both over and under realizes what invulnerable saves do to units. They seem determined to think that a +5 invul matters to terminators but don't seem to regard the ion shield of knights with the same emphasis. If IG super-heavies carried even just a +5 invul, they'd probably see their way into competitive events more often. As it stands, baneblades are kept alive far more by T8 than they are by a mere +3 armor, since 99% of the things that want to shoot them are lowering their save to a +6 anyway.

[PeteySödes]

I dig the % breakdown idea. My only hesitance is im an old WFB player where that was the norm and dont have a lot of faith the general populace would enjoy the "ermagerd maths".

[Panzer]

I dig the % breakdown idea. My only hesitance is im an old WFB player where that was the norm and dont have a lot of faith the general populace would enjoy the "ermagerd maths".

 

Yeah people are surprisingly incapable of doing basic percentage calculations. Though I guess GW could include the numbers for 500p, 750p, 1000p, 1500p, 1750p and 2000p somewhere. ^^

[Panzer]

I think GW both over and under realizes what invulnerable saves do to units. They seem determined to think that a +5 invul matters to terminators but don't seem to regard the ion shield of knights with the same emphasis. If IG super-heavies carried even just a +5 invul, they'd probably see their way into competitive events more often. As it stands, baneblades are kept alive far more by T8 than they are by a mere +3 armor, since 99% of the things that want to shoot them are lowering their save to a +6 anyway.

 

 

Hah, yeah that goes for basically any tank with Sv3+ or worse. Just take a look at Dreadnoughts. With a 5++ like the FW ones get they'd be so much more competetive. One of the reasons why I love the BA psychic power Shield of Sanguinius. 

[Focslain]

 

Yay, I got quoted saying the thing!

 

House Taranis, eh? Neat change of pace and still very effective since you'll have Cawl's Wrath.

 

I think GW both over and under realizes what invulnerable saves do to units. They seem determined to think that a +5 invul matters to terminators but don't seem to regard the ion shield of knights with the same emphasis. If IG super-heavies carried even just a +5 invul, they'd probably see their way into competitive events more often. As it stands, baneblades are kept alive far more by T8 than they are by a mere +3 armor, since 99% of the things that want to shoot them are lowering their save to a +6 anyway.

 

 

Honestly I chose house Taranis for fluff reasons. Only House I thought of taking for rules was House Vulker for the Adamantium Knight trait. Take that on my Stryix, give it Mark of the Omnissah and you have a T8 monster that can only be wounded on a 4+ with the option for a 3++(4++ in melee) and heals 1-4 wounds a turn. It just lacks the massive firepower of the castellan.

 

That is the farthest I'll power game.

 

Anyway, the Brood Brother rule from the GSC does give thought to a fix. That would take away most of the castellan's buffs while still allowing the standard guard super heavies their in codex buffs. Also would give a minor boost to Ad mech since they would be the only ones outside of pure knight lists that could buff the knight.

 

Also wouldn't the brood brother help nerf the Ynnari list? Not sure on their strat overlap.