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

[Panzer]

 

- Comparable infantry units are so much more capable than guardsmen: Kroot cost 5 ppm. They get -1 armor save, but +1 Strength, both in melee and shooting, +1 M, +1 WS and a scout move. Making guardsmen cost the same as a unit that much better is ridiculous.

 

What you forgot to mention about Kroot is that they get pretty much zero utility from their own Codex because they are just auxiliary. The +1WS is worthless as they suck in melee and don't really get there anyway with their T3 Sv6+. Kroot are definitely not better than Guardsmen.

[sairence]

 

 

 

 

If you take a SHA with a baneblade, and no other AM detachments, you are correct that you cannot use defensive fire or Crush em.

 

 

Which is why if you made IK SHA work the same way, even a freeblade Castellan is much less deadly and survivable.

So if I take a baneblade in a marine army the only strat I can use on the baneblade is Command Re-roll? Seems a bit off personally.

That's how it is, yeah.

I know this discussion went on for a while, but that's unfortunately (or fortunately) not correct. A SHA blocks one thing for a Guard superheavy: the regimental trait. So it would not get the benefit of rerolling 1s for born soldier or rerolling random shots for brutal strength, etc.

 

The thing would not lose its keywords though. It would be still be both Astra Militarum as well as Cadian or Catachan or whatever and therefore unlock access to the strategems that come with that.

[Slasher956]

Something said in the past... cut down the amount of force org charts (formation) that are in the main rule book to 2 or 3 CAS formations.

 

Then give several formation to each codex which is geared to the units & the background of the codex that gives differing CP ammounts!

 

eg Patrol, battalion & brigade stay in the rule book

 

IK /RK get a LoW formation (current super heavy detachment)

Marines get a demi-company formation that requires a captain, lt, 2-4 SM troops, and give X CP

 

etc etc

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

 

I absolutely think guardsmen should be 5ppm, there aren't that many arguments as to why they aren't deserving of a price hike IMO. 

 

Let me give you some then:

- Guardmen are capped to 10 men units. Which is a massive disadvantage compared to cultists. Quite a number of well performing lists at the lvo already had some much worse conscripts at the same price per model for that very reason. At 5 ppm regular guardsmen may disappear in favor of Valhallan conscript spam. At that point there will be even more crying. (By the way I'm not saying the Cultist nerf was correct. I would have preferred taking away VotlW and reducing the maximum unit size down to 20 or 30 like they did with conscripts.)

- Guardsmen don't do much without orders. Orders are often given as the reason for why guardsmen should cost 5 points. Well in fact they already do - 5.5 to be exact because 15 points is the (minimum) price for one order. If you really think orders are too strong, the right move would be increasing cost for officers, not guardsmen.

- Comparable infantry units are so much more capable than guardsmen: Kroot cost 5 ppm. They get -1 armor save, but +1 Strength, both in melee and shooting, +1 M, +1 WS and a scout move. Making guardsmen cost the same as a unit that much better is ridiculous. Or Kabalite Warriors: Better gun, +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 LD and +1 M. That is 5 points of improvement over a Guardsmen. Are you trying to tell me that is worth only a single point?

- By nerfing guarsmen you rip out the core of pure guard armies. Which is something you almost never see on tournaments, and when you do it isn't a problem. So don't punish what is isn't at fault.

- By making guardsmen 5 ppm you would see MORE loyal 32 detachments. Why? All the people who currently play larger guard armies with lots of guardsmen (which is what Guard armies should look like btw) will start to reduce their number of guarsmen to the bare minimum they need for the detachment. Therefore 5 point guardsmen don't solve anything. Castellans are just going to have different friends. 

- Veterans cost 5 points and are better than guardsmen. Yet no one is calling them overpowered, and almost no one is playing them. The reason is quite obvious of course, they aren't troops anymore. So are we now pricing units higher for being troops? If so lets make tactical marines more expensive too please.

 

Or to sum everything up: Don't punish the guard just because they happen to have the best synergy with some OTHER codex. The real issue is how factions with different strengths and weaknesses can be combined at exactly NO cost.

 

 

I am going to pick you up on that Kroot comparison. Sure Kroot have a decent statline for the points but they get almost no synergy anywhere, hence why you only see the odd unit of Kroot as disposable screens expected to kill nothing before they die. If Kroot get their own codex with worthwhile synergies and stratagems that are not garbage-tier then we can talk about whether Kroot are comparable to Guard infantry and whether they should be more expensive. Right now they are not - and that is why you see Guard infantry all over the place in tournament lists while Kroot are a rarity. GW intentionally took away most synergies from Kroot in 8th and dropped their points cost to reflect this, the rarity of Kroot on tournament tables says all you need to know about how much most T'au players think that worked out. Oh and claiming that Kroot have better Strength than infantry in a competitive setting is just silly. Catachans exist and are seen everywhere for exactly this reason; whereas Kroot never benefit from Sept traits so they get no equivalent boost nor do they have any way to increase their numbers of attacks. Competitive list Catachans utterly wreck Kroot in the fight phase.

 

I honestly think that if there is going to be a fix for the Loyal 32 it should be handled differently, put back in some sort of platoon rule where there is a minimum number of infantry units before they function fully. That would not bother real guard players but it would be awkward for the min-maxing CP battery list build.

[Marshal Reinhard]

 

 

I absolutely think guardsmen should be 5ppm, there aren't that many arguments as to why they aren't deserving of a price hike IMO. 

 

Let me give you some then:

- Guardmen are capped to 10 men units. Which is a massive disadvantage compared to cultists. Quite a number of well performing lists at the lvo already had some much worse conscripts at the same price per model for that very reason. At 5 ppm regular guardsmen may disappear in favor of Valhallan conscript spam. At that point there will be even more crying. (By the way I'm not saying the Cultist nerf was correct. I would have preferred taking away VotlW and reducing the maximum unit size down to 20 or 30 like they did with conscripts.)

- Guardsmen don't do much without orders. Orders are often given as the reason for why guardsmen should cost 5 points. Well in fact they already do - 5.5 to be exact because 15 points is the (minimum) price for one order. If you really think orders are too strong, the right move would be increasing cost for officers, not guardsmen.

- Comparable infantry units are so much more capable than guardsmen: Kroot cost 5 ppm. They get -1 armor save, but +1 Strength, both in melee and shooting, +1 M, +1 WS and a scout move. Making guardsmen cost the same as a unit that much better is ridiculous. Or Kabalite Warriors: Better gun, +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 LD and +1 M. That is 5 points of improvement over a Guardsmen. Are you trying to tell me that is worth only a single point?

- By nerfing guarsmen you rip out the core of pure guard armies. Which is something you almost never see on tournaments, and when you do it isn't a problem. So don't punish what is isn't at fault.

- By making guardsmen 5 ppm you would see MORE loyal 32 detachments. Why? All the people who currently play larger guard armies with lots of guardsmen (which is what Guard armies should look like btw) will start to reduce their number of guarsmen to the bare minimum they need for the detachment. Therefore 5 point guardsmen don't solve anything. Castellans are just going to have different friends. 

- Veterans cost 5 points and are better than guardsmen. Yet no one is calling them overpowered, and almost no one is playing them. The reason is quite obvious of course, they aren't troops anymore. So are we now pricing units higher for being troops? If so lets make tactical marines more expensive too please.

 

Or to sum everything up: Don't punish the guard just because they happen to have the best synergy with some OTHER codex. The real issue is how factions with different strengths and weaknesses can be combined at exactly NO cost.

 

 

Oh hey, It's almost like it comes down to not punishing one faction, but instead adding a restriction to, say CP, when numerous different factions are combined, currently without downsides.

 

So it doesn't just make sense from a fluff point of view but in an ingame sense too? It's almost strange this solution doesn't have more traction

[Focslain]

 

 

 

If you take a SHA with a baneblade, and no other AM detachments, you are correct that you cannot use defensive fire or Crush em.

 

 

Which is why if you made IK SHA work the same way, even a freeblade Castellan is much less deadly and survivable.

So if I take a baneblade in a marine army the only strat I can use on the baneblade is Command Re-roll? Seems a bit off personally.

That's how it is, yeah.

I know this discussion went on for a while, but that's unfortunately (or fortunately) not correct. A SHA blocks one thing for a Guard superheavy: the regimental trait. So it would not get the benefit of rerolling 1s for born soldier or rerolling random shots for brutal strength, etc.

 

The thing would not lose its keywords though. It would be still be both Astra Militarum as well as Cadian or Catachan or whatever and therefore unlock access to the strategems that come with that.

 

Actually the SHA for guard do lose access to the guard strats if they are not paired with a standard guard detachment. I checked the codex when i got home last night and it was right there at the top of the page for the guard strats. 

 

Mind you I was doing this wrong when I used a baneblade to support my marines during konor, luckily in the two tourny I did use the super heavy I was fielding a tank company of guard.

 

Also didn't realize leman russes got obsec if in a spearhead detachment. The things you learn by carefully reading your codex.

[Progenitor]

In AoS you only get a limited amount of allies points (400pts in a 2k army). There are some Warscroll Battalions that also include allies for specific benefits. While 40k currently enjoys more or less unrestricted allies adding in this limit (you Warlord determining your primary faction) would still allow allies lists, but also possibly remove the most egregious additions. It wouldn't require any tweaking of Codices, nerfing of points or CPs or Strategems. It also would have no effect on mono-armies so they'd not be unduly punished by changes. 

 

I'm not a tournament gamer though. 

[Schlitzaf]

Here what I think allies are non issue. Why? I have yet to here how they take away from the game. Beside on a “my gut tells me it shouldn’t.” It MonoDex elitism. Second?

 

Loyal 32 and Rusty 17. Are ‘bad’. To include those units simply for a CP. You are paying 165-180 points for 5CP. In other words you start the game down 150-200 point lists. Best variants on the loyal 32 are the Loyal Brigade, which is 700+ Points. And that is not something I am gonna be angry about.

 

Lists that are good and have the loyal 32, USE the loyal 32. They are core component of the armies tactical plan of engagement. And often it’s worth Speeding 200-400 more points for that investment. To create something that can do SOMETHING.

 

(Armies) + Loyal 32/Rusty 17 are playing down almost 200 points. How would I fix soup?

 

Simply put, I would say, “you can only have 1 other Detachment that doesn’t share your two or more keywords with your warlord (Chapter/Regiment).”

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Lucky 32 is great it is not bad .

[H311fi5h]

Here what I think allies are non issue. Why? I have yet to here how they take away from the game. Beside on a “my gut tells me it shouldn’t.” It MonoDex elitism. Second?

 

Loyal 32 and Rusty 17. Are ‘bad’. To include those units simply for a CP. You are paying 165-180 points for 5CP. In other words you start the game down 150-200 point lists. Best variants on the loyal 32 are the Loyal Brigade, which is 700+ Points. And that is not something I am gonna be angry about.

 

Lists that are good and have the loyal 32, USE the loyal 32. They are core component of the armies tactical plan of engagement. And often it’s worth Speeding 200-400 more points for that investment. To create something that can do SOMETHING.

 

(Armies) + Loyal 32/Rusty 17 are playing down almost 200 points. How would I fix soup?

 

Simply put, I would say, “you can only have 1 other Detachment that doesn’t share your two or more keywords with your warlord (Chapter/Regiment).”

 

It's an issue for two reasons:

1) You essentially cannot build an Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari (and probably soon Tyranid) army that draws from a single codex and doesn't put itself at a disadvantage. Ironically, having more choice results in having less choice. I cannot choose to only play Space Marines or only Knights or only Guard and be fully competitive at the same time. There are people who  don't want to collect multiple factions for any number of reasons. The current ally system takes something away from those people: It takes away the option to play the game the way they like to play. Myself, I don't mind - I play a Guard/Blood Angels/Knights mix on tournaments. Just as I don't want that taken away from me, I fully understand that other players don't want to play like this, and they should have that option without handicapping themselves.

 

2) The vast number of unit options available to the large alliances means that for every job there are always multiple units to pick from. As a result the sub-optimal units never get played. 

But sub-optimal units have a place in this game: They are a part of what creates a factions identity, it's strengths and weaknesses. Some factions have :cussty troops but great monsters and tanks. Other factions have great shooting but bad close combat options. The list continues.

It is both a challenge and one of the interesting aspects of creating and playing a competitive army to deal with weaknesses of your respective faction. Do you choose to live with the gap in your abilities and work around it? Or do you choose to use sub-optimal units and make the best of it?

With unlimited and free mixing of allies those questions never come up. For every task you can always just pick the optimal unit. Why should I ever play a Baneblade when I can take a Knight? Why run Reavers when there are Shining Spears? Why should I run CSM psykers when I can use the Thousand Sons variant? 

Again, more choice on paper results in less actual choice because for every job there is one optimal unit and 5 other that don't cut it.

 

Allies only create the illusion of choice, but they really take it away. Allowing allies but at some sort of cost would create real choice. 

[chapter master 454]

The question I think we can now FINALLY all agree on isn't what to nerf or buff in terms of the codexes but actually, how do we create a sense of choice with allies?

 

Well for one, remember folks a very simple thing: people always find the optimal load-out and will get that copy pasted ad infinitum at tournaments. We won't see an end to top tier lists being rampant. People seem to have an odd idea that tournaments need to be turbulent and outright random in results by what I can read from the room but sadly that isn't the case and in fact actually makes tournaments worse by having no predictable elements. Just remember, you are only fighting to rectify a very definite issue: Allies are a no brainer. This inherently means those factions who can are at an advantage so factions like Orks and Tau kind of get left in the dust.

 

So with that in mind why don't we think about what end of the stick we should be handling. Lets run it down.

If we go with dealing with factions that can ally, how does that work? We create a hypothetical fix that somehow makes allying less "viable", they are still really good but now you pay a fair price for it. The problem is you have only brought those options down however the mono-dex armies haven't changed in the slightest and thus don't really get anywhere because they didn't get any boost.

 

However if we work the other way round, we figure out a BONUS for mono-dexing then what happens is you create a much better scenario. All those involved in ally builds do suffer, they are losing out on the choice of having this super sweet buff. Now ofcourse that isn't to say this buff can't also be a nerf to allies in some capacity (for example, the buff could relate to stratagems and availability of them. Similarly to do with relics too) but if we work on the idea of creating an incentive for mono-dexing instead of trying to penalise allies (as the sole objective) then you actually achieve both of what I just said instead of just one as what is clear here is that mono-dexing needs some form of boost.

 

So how can we encourage mono-dexing? CP certainly seems to be one point of contention for it, though I feel it won't be the deciding factor as it also requires the factions to all have worthwhile stratagems though to be honest...only marines really suck at that point really, though to be fair some of our actual good ones are kind of greasy (+1 to wound for sternguard, we have a GENERIC double fight stratagem). However another benefit would be nice for mono-dexing other than just having a boat load of CP. As we have established, that tends to be easy enough to get and in terms of the game we could look at it as effectively giving a 2k army of mono-dex vs. an ally detachment only about a 50 point advantage or there abouts. Not exactly a deal breaker (though smaller games it could be). I pull that number from the air of vague thoughts of how much is a CP worth. That isn't going to even the playing fields.

Hows about I throw a curve ball idea for people out there which may seem a little bizarre: Give benefits instead for Mono-Detachment!

 

That's right, give benefits for an army who only brings 1 detachment. Naturally this would likely mean more Battalions or Brigades but really, Battalion is the new FOC standard of ye olde "Boss and Two Helpers" and the other FOCs are really more tailored to the idea of forgoing "weaker" troops for the option of bringing more elites raw instead of being addendum to a battalion so someone can bring even more of an elite/heavy/fast attack. That way people can't dance around faction keywords so easily by using detachments. What sort of benefits...well that would be up for debate. Technically at first I thought "Double the CP bonus" but that ends up the same place we're in now so likely it would require that bonus I just mentioned plus something else. Possibly access to something far more potent say like...a Stratagem! Maybe even certain relics and warlord traits! In relation to the stratagem, have each codex contain a set of 3 stratagems which are unique, you can only use them if you have 1 detachment of the corresponding army and make them something serious. Maybe even thematic, like "Angels of Death. Half your CP. Use before battle. You can call in reserves via "drop pod assault"  in the first battle round at the BEGINNING of your first movement phase".

Something impactful and really game changing. As for relics or traits, you could maybe work with the idea of allowing a free second warlord trait and relic for free but not sure how that would float.

 

Just throwing some crazy ideas out here. Have fun!

[Lexington]

Define “Codex” in game terms that don’t end up making a bunch of models/armies completely unusable in this scenario, and also doesn’t end up creating a bunch of weird gray areas.

 

This is The Problem.

[Biscuittzz]

My opinion of the problem is that GW have a balancing philosophy for Codexes that is different to their philosophy for balancing the game as it currently stands.

 

From what I can see all codexes are based around offence/defence/speed. If you have great offensive potential combined with speed, you're usually a glass cannon ala Drukhari. If you have great offensive power and great durability, you're usually quite slow ala Imperial Guard. This is what is balanced across every codex. Ideally, allies can be brought in to shore up some of the weaknesses but you should also imo lose some of your strengths by doing this.

 

That's where I think the problem is at the moment. There's not enough of a downside to bringing allies that should offset the incredible benefits. Guard have great firepower and durability but lack speed and melee offensive power. Allying in a Supreme Command of 3 dawneagle SCs completely negates the lack of speed and melee for the army, however there is barely a loss in the Guard strengths of firepower and durability.

 

I think there should be certain rules for when allying specific factions together to somewhat limit the CP generation and use, if GW don't want to completely redo the command point system. Ideally and oft recommended around here is the 'Can only use cp on the faction who's detachment has generated the cp' would be the greatest change but I think smaller ones are needed first to test the waters.

 

Faction specific things for factions like Custodes and IK:

 

Custodes

 

"By His Will - The Adeptus Custodes answer to the Master of Mankind Himself, and thus will not stand taking commands from lesser mortals." Adeptus Custodes units can only ever use command points generated from their own detachments.

 

IK

 

"Belligerent Machine Spirits - The machine spirits of the mighty war machines of Knight Houses are belligerent and temperamental anima, taking more care and diligence to maintain than simpler war vehicles." 

Imperial Knight detachments can utilise command points generated by faction detachments other than their own. When using a Knight strategem with allied command points, add 1 point to the cost of the strategem.

 

So my two cents, the last example would need command points to by separated by faction and detachments to have any effect. But it allows for no nerf to mono Knights or Knights using their own cps. It only affects them when they are allied in and are utilising batteries. Obviously this is a quick example and so the full pros and cons can be worked on.

[The Unseen]

If you want to keep allies in competetive 40k (and you shouldn't, but if you do) then CPs need to stop being generated on a unit basis and switch to a points basis, and allies shouldn't grant access to strats, relics, or warlord traits, those should be your warlords faction only.

 

It makes no sense that 1000 pts of marine troops and hqs produces fewer CP's than 1000 pts of guard, or whatever.

Points are how the system is supposedly balanced, so why is a key resource tied to raw unit count?

[Panzer]

My opinion of the problem is that GW have a balancing philosophy for Codexes that is different to their philosophy for balancing the game as it currently stands.

 

From what I can see all codexes are based around offence/defence/speed. If you have great offensive potential combined with speed, you're usually a glass cannon ala Drukhari. If you have great offensive power and great durability, you're usually quite slow ala Imperial Guard. This is what is balanced across every codex. Ideally, allies can be brought in to shore up some of the weaknesses but you should also imo lose some of your strengths by doing this.

 

AM isn't exactly slow though. They have deep striking infantry, transports and even flyers with transport capacity. Only thing they're missing are actual Jump Pack units and Bikes (though they do have Rough Riders with the Index rules). It's just that they don't need that speed to win games because. Same with T'au who have really mobile units but win games with a super boring castle list.

[chapter master 454]

If you want to keep allies in competetive 40k (and you shouldn't, but if you do) then CPs need to stop being generated on a unit basis and switch to a points basis, and allies shouldn't grant access to strats, relics, or warlord traits, those should be your warlords faction only.

 

It makes no sense that 1000 pts of marine troops and hqs produces fewer CP's than 1000 pts of guard, or whatever.

Points are how the system is supposedly balanced, so why is a key resource tied to raw unit count?

 

Ah...might wanna rain check your sentence. Here let me re-phrase the issue: "so why is key resource tied to DETACHMENT count".

 

After all, the objective of the loyal 32 and even the rusty 17 is to MINIMISE body count for that detachment and even for smash captain lists it isn't about unit count, but detachment count. If we did it based on unit count then AM and Tyranids would be drowning in CP while knights would be rubbing 2 CP together.

 

Just remember, I will state it is an issue of detachments. It is a good system, like formations, however it does require a good bit of work to iron out as it does help us have some options in how to build lists outside of "ok so how do i minimise the cost of these albatross units of HQ and 2 troops" of prior years. Yea, Battalion is the mainstay detachment but I would argue that is intentional, it is MEANT to be the most common. However would be nice to see armies use the other ones other than for abuse cases.

[Biscuittzz]

 

My opinion of the problem is that GW have a balancing philosophy for Codexes that is different to their philosophy for balancing the game as it currently stands.

 

From what I can see all codexes are based around offence/defence/speed. If you have great offensive potential combined with speed, you're usually a glass cannon ala Drukhari. If you have great offensive power and great durability, you're usually quite slow ala Imperial Guard. This is what is balanced across every codex. Ideally, allies can be brought in to shore up some of the weaknesses but you should also imo lose some of your strengths by doing this.

 

AM isn't exactly slow though. They have deep striking infantry, transports and even flyers with transport capacity. Only thing they're missing are actual Jump Pack units and Bikes (though they do have Rough Riders with the Index rules). It's just that they don't need that speed to win games because. Same with T'au who have really mobile units but win games with a super boring castle list.

 

 

Ok yea, I think you're taking my example too literally using guard. I was just using them as the quickest example I could think. I want the emphasis to be on the point that bringing in allies hides weaknesses without any sort of trade-off.

[CaptainMarsh]

Boost monodex. Knights have their Lances which grant additional CP by filling out SH detachments in a specific manner. Do that for all codexes, then apply an additional non-CP benefit if the entire army is monodex. Which codexes fill out which detachments and get additional CP benefits and what benefits would armies get for being monodex would quite obviously need a lot of work, but it would help monodex, won't be a kneejerk 'screw off' to Allies, and can help flavor up armies. I dunno. I'd rather boost mono than cut soup, myself.

[Zodd1888]

Tie CP to points and be done with godawful diatribe. At least for Matched Play.

 

How can you balance Stratagems if you don't know how many CP a list will have? You can't.

 

Once that's done we can start looking at individual issues as a variable is made static.

[G8Keeper]

Maybe there's merit to the GSC style of allied guard detachments?  Half the CP you gain (rounding up) for non-main army allies?

[MARK0SIAN]

The thing to bear in mind with the GSC allies restriction is that they exist to ensure that GSC armies are predominantly made up of GSC models, not an imperial guard army with a few Genestealers thrown in for CC purposes.

 

I’m not saying that makes them bad or anything, just that balance and fairness wasn’t the main driving force in their design so that needs to be kept in mind.

[G8Keeper]

The thing to bear in mind with the GSC allies restriction is that they exist to ensure that GSC armies are predominantly made up of GSC models, not an imperial guard army with a few Genestealers thrown in for CC purposes.

 

I’m not saying that makes them bad or anything, just that balance and fairness wasn’t the main driving force in their design so that needs to be kept in mind.

 

Indeed, and perhaps my quoting of their rule skewed it a little.  I do think that limiting the benefits of stuff like the loyal 32 is a good thing to look at rather than hampering the main codex users of said units.

[Nova_Dew]

As a non competitive player (hell i haven't played since 2nd edition) my take is base games on points and command points, X points and Y command point battle, you want that mono Brigade it costs you only the base costs, you get the restrictions and drawbacks that, that mono army gets you, but you get more Command Points to spend to make up for that, you want the Battalion with the 2 Vanguard detachments with the air wing and super heavy detachments, you get the extra flexibility in unit form but you lose the command points because your warlord has to spend "time" aka command points to keep it all working as a functional force.

 

That fluff of entire IG regiments with only a few SM squads is now something you would see in competitive games with an IG Brigade and a SM Battalion for an X points 12 Command points game, you'd have no stratagems but you'd have the SM 3+ ness for more accurate firepower and CC strength, a single Brigade of IG would only have 3 Command Points to spend so they would have to become maybe stronger (units that give command points would also become auto includes though so something would have to be done with them).

 

GW gets to encourage sales with allowing soup, soup players get to soup for unit rewards, mono lists get a command point reward for mono-ing.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

Here what I think allies are non issue. Why? I have yet to here how they take away from the game. Beside on a “my gut tells me it shouldn’t.” It MonoDex elitism. Second?

 

Loyal 32 and Rusty 17. Are ‘bad’. To include those units simply for a CP. You are paying 165-180 points for 5CP. In other words you start the game down 150-200 point lists. Best variants on the loyal 32 are the Loyal Brigade, which is 700+ Points. And that is not something I am gonna be angry about.

 

Lists that are good and have the loyal 32, USE the loyal 32. They are core component of the armies tactical plan of engagement. And often it’s worth Speeding 200-400 more points for that investment. To create something that can do SOMETHING.

 

(Armies) + Loyal 32/Rusty 17 are playing down almost 200 points. How would I fix soup?

 

Simply put, I would say, “you can only have 1 other Detachment that doesn’t share your two or more keywords with your warlord (Chapter/Regiment).”

 

It's an issue for two reasons:

1) You essentially cannot build an Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari (and probably soon Tyranid) army that draws from a single codex and doesn't put itself at a disadvantage. Ironically, having more choice results in having less choice. I cannot choose to only play Space Marines or only Knights or only Guard and be fully competitive at the same time. There are people who  don't want to collect multiple factions for any number of reasons. The current ally system takes something away from those people: It takes away the option to play the game the way they like to play. Myself, I don't mind - I play a Guard/Blood Angels/Knights mix on tournaments. Just as I don't want that taken away from me, I fully understand that other players don't want to play like this, and they should have that option without handicapping themselves.

 

2) The vast number of unit options available to the large alliances means that for every job there are always multiple units to pick from. As a result the sub-optimal units never get played. 

But sub-optimal units have a place in this game: They are a part of what creates a factions identity, it's strengths and weaknesses. Some factions have :cussty troops but great monsters and tanks. Other factions have great shooting but bad close combat options. The list continues.

It is both a challenge and one of the interesting aspects of creating and playing a competitive army to deal with weaknesses of your respective faction. Do you choose to live with the gap in your abilities and work around it? Or do you choose to use sub-optimal units and make the best of it?

With unlimited and free mixing of allies those questions never come up. For every task you can always just pick the optimal unit. Why should I ever play a Baneblade when I can take a Knight? Why run Reavers when there are Shining Spears? Why should I run CSM psykers when I can use the Thousand Sons variant? 

Again, more choice on paper results in less actual choice because for every job there is one optimal unit and 5 other that don't cut it.

 

Allies only create the illusion of choice, but they really take it away. Allowing allies but at some sort of cost would create real choice. 

 

 

Another issue that allies create for the game relates to how GW 'balance' things. Current thought has them nerfing units, rather than the ally system (or real issue, as happened when they hiked the cost of Imperial weapons because Gulliman gunlines were doing well, but this also hit armies like GKs, who didn't need further nerfs). But that then hurts the nerfed unit in the parent dex, which often isn't the problem in the first place. IIRC the most recent example of this is the push (I know GW haven't done this yet, but it would be keeping with other adjustments since 8th dropped) to increase the cost of Guard Infantry because of the prevalence of the loyal 32. But if they do this, that has a far greater impact on pure Guard armies, while the allied soups only have to pay 30-odd points more, or will just move to the next best source of easy CPs/new meta hotness. Or how they nerfed Commissars and Conscripts into the ground, so they weren't worth taking, even in Guard armies (have they rolled back the nerfs since?), but the soupers just moved to loyal 32.

[chapter master 454]

-sigh- and here I was enjoying the visuals people have of me being some monocled villain swilling a fine bourbon in my novelty team rocket mug. 

 

Alright let me spell some things out for people by asking people some questions.

 

Do you want to be a tournament player? Answer me.

If yes. Suck it up. You get two options, ether try and be creative and actually work on lists to overcome the top but don't expect to find some miraculous counter list that beats all that comes before it because at that point: well done, you have just become the villain. If you answer yes to this question you cannot become the hero, you only become the villain.

If no then you have remembered this is a game and you can play whatever you like. Why play a baneblade? BECAUSE IT IS A BIG MOTHER-TRUCKING TANK! I play knights because giant robots. I even started Tau because giant robots.

 

Let me put it on the table and point you to other games. Just have a tour of other games with list building as a tournament. I pull on my card game history often here because by all it is so similar to the complaints leveled here. I have seen it over. and over. and over.

 

Let me just point to the wealth of lists, armies and compositions you can build, play and enjoy. Let allies be your ally. Build compositions of armies that are to your liking and have fun. These results of LVO mean nothing to us who PLAY the game. Who take part in the HOBBY. I mean...seriously. People are complaining here as if the results of this tournament are a mandated law of heaven, past by the combined divine power of the emperor and the chaos gods to never play anything other than the lists presented in the tournaments.

 

Like I said in my first post. Just stop. Not for my sake but it was for your sake. You can never enjoy this hobby if all you do is obsess over "what is best". If you want to be competitive, then go for. I try to be but when I look at these lists I like to see what makes them tick and think "huh, cool". I never let them dictate my list building as I continue to tinker with my own lists, seeing how far I can get them to go and taking pride in it. I often like to see how much I can make those top tier lists work, knocking their "infallible" power by running some simple gimmicks. I may not win but I do enjoy blind-siding opponents who don't pay attention with units and rules they dismissed purely because it wasn't "top tier". That's me. I play to have fun and at the same time I try to win. I know, how can this be. Someone who is having fun but trying to win? yet he isn't a WAAC player? What is this myterious power I have? Oh right...it's called playing the game and not boiling it down to just whatever some sum of 8 others played to get top 8 at a tournament. I actually read my codexes regularly and try and look at units and see where they may have a place. May not be top tier but I certainly get people to enjoy a game when an underused unit does some real work.

 

Tournaments help breed competition. However you mustn't get lost in winning. Part of the game is the process. I assure you, there are those who went to that tournament with lists that didn't get near the top but will be brimming with joy because the list did well and performed and there will be those who played and won purely because to them, the game was fun! Tournaments are gatherings. Yes, we will announce the winner. There will be someone who came to win, we need that. Keeps us from having a game where balance is dictated by beer and pretzels but never forget. It is a hobby. Not a job. It is a past-time. Not a torture.

It is fine to discuss this for balance sake but do so for balance sake and consider what it means for other units yes but do not go on witch-hunts. My witch-hunt is against those who do this. It is an irony to witch-hunt witch-hunts and will, just like those I seek to stop, never find closure.

 

Just remember. When GW eventually make a balance change that does what you want and removes the current top dog of imperial soup. Just remember what you wanted. It wasn't what you thought it was.

 

Edit:

 For Toaae below me as to not clog the thread with a rebuttal. I too like discussing balance but really this thread devolved into witch-hunting units and various other things instead of trying to actually go into the issue at hand as many were really looking for their own agenda. Some were clearly not happy with castellans, some are just not happy about the loyal 32. No-one seems to mind smash master which is nice though I personally have a minor gripe with how it is always the same load-out but then again smash masters always exist. Always has, captain with a storm shield plus good melee gets work done!

 People here came in, literally went on a lynching and didn't actually offer ideas while some actually did. Personally I actually found a good few quite clever and I still think there may be design space in a the concept of giving a benefit for a single detactment list. What I was getting tired of is the straight up attacks on raw units purely in the Imperial Soup camp, MEANWHILE shining spears are just doing everything with ynnari backing and no-one bats an eye and eldar rangers with alaitoc still dominate objectives as the premium "exiled 15" for the eldar forces but somehow people find the castellan more outrageous. Suppose it is because Imperial soup did win out, easy to target.

 Just remember, I do enjoy discussion and I find that these threads can come up with some very clever ideas that I enjoy greatly. What I don't enjoy is the dredging through those who just want to see kneecaps removed from 1st place.

 And Naturally I take balance discussion seriously. How else do we progress? I take having fun as serious business, no laughing matter about joyous times! I want to see people improve. In relation to this topic, would you agree that the idea of taking away the 3CP boost for battle-forged if you use various different factions would be a simple change that could shift things towards mono-dex having options. Not a massive boost and I would suspect the current lists would still hold top dog but yet we would see more mono-dex lists coming up from below and even putting in a fairly good showing. 3CP is a fair chunk, as it is a rotate ion shields for the castellen (since people like to pick on it) it may just shift things in a good direction. I however would also like to push for armies to have unique benefits for certain detachments or even have their own unique versions (sort of like what knights have with how they modify a detachments CP boost).