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

[toaae]

-snip-

 

Nah, I like discussing possible balance changes, even if they are never the way GW goes. Like mock drafts for the NFL. The discussion alone is worth it.

 

You, however, seem to take this too seriously. Like I said on page 1, maybe consider not clicking on these threads?

[Volt]

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably. 

[H311fi5h]

We shouldn't forget however, that some factions are designe from to ground up to serve as allies, not pure armies. Especially for Knights and Custodes this is true, both having rules and strategems that only work specifically with other Imperium allies.

The challenge is striking a balance between forcing mono-codex armies (which GW won't to anyway out of fear of hurting their sales, but TO's could) and enabling allies in a sensible way.

[Cryptix]

 

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably. 

 

So you want to swing the usefulness of allies the other way, making them actively detrimental? Seems vindictive, I'd rather have allies be an option, just like you have to option of a dark apostle or chaos lord - you use them in the right situations.

[Volt]

 

 

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably. 

 

So you want to swing the usefulness of allies the other way, making them actively detrimental? Seems vindictive, I'd rather have allies be an option, just like you have to option of a dark apostle or chaos lord - you use them in the right situations.

 

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably.

So you want to swing the usefulness of allies the other way, making them actively detrimental? Seems vindictive, I'd rather have allies be an option, just like you have to option of a dark apostle or chaos lord - you use them in the right situations.

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

On one hand you’re saying the problem is they invalidate army design by letting you patch weaknesses; but then your solution is all about CP which, even if you gave allies 0 CP, wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem of them being able to patch weaknesses, unless that weakness was purely a CP one and no army in the game has a purely CP weakness.

 

Saying allies don’t belong in matched play is fundamentally opposed to the way GW have designed 8th. Allies need some downsides but trying to persuade GW to disincentivise them to the point where no one takes them is basically asking them to admit they completely screwed up one of the core parts of an edition. You’ve got more chance of persuading them to stop using tape measure and dice or of convincing them not to make Eldar overpowered for once.

[chapter master 454]

It seems one person is trying to logic out while someone is looking for target.

 

Allies are indeed a good thing for the game. In fact, they themselves have been balanced out a lot better than last edition because...well...do you at all remember Tau'Dar? You know, those big stompy stormsurges en mass getting psychic support from eldar dooms and all that with scatter bikes too? was kinda nutty.

 

 The bulk of the imperial soup list is "good stuff is good" just like how eldar do it as well (though they too are allying up with ynnari non-sense...seriously...you guys hate on imperial soup more than ynnari soul burst?). They use stratagems but really there isn't some clever string to it, if you look at it you could take away most of their stratagems all the way down to only allowing them to warlord the castellan and get extra relics and they still would do well with as little as 4 CP. 1 to warlord the castellan, 1 to give it the relic decimator and 1 to get an extra relic for the blood angels with 1 CP left for command re-roll. They would still do well because their list is good stuff is good...isn't that what we do with any army though? We take good stuff and put it in a list. I mean, if allies get adjusted we suddenly aren't going to see stalkers, hunters, assault centurions, assault marines and the like suddenly become important because the marine dexes themselves only have a few good units to put together.

 

 Remember, adjustments. Not Witch-hunts. Yes, some codexes are worse than others, we can agree on that without doubt but us astartes need to remember we all go to the same bar to air our greivance over the matter...heck...the grey knight players are already drunk on the floor gibbering.

[PeteySödes]

It seems one person is trying to logic out while someone is looking for target.

 

Allies are indeed a good thing for the game. In fact, they themselves have been balanced out a lot better than last edition because...well...do you at all remember Tau'Dar? You know, those big stompy stormsurges en mass getting psychic support from eldar dooms and all that with scatter bikes too? was kinda nutty.

 

The bulk of the imperial soup list is "good stuff is good" just like how eldar do it as well (though they too are allying up with ynnari non-sense...seriously...you guys hate on imperial soup more than ynnari soul burst?). They use stratagems but really there isn't some clever string to it, if you look at it you could take away most of their stratagems all the way down to only allowing them to warlord the castellan and get extra relics and they still would do well with as little as 4 CP. 1 to warlord the castellan, 1 to give it the relic decimator and 1 to get an extra relic for the blood angels with 1 CP left for command re-roll. They would still do well because their list is good stuff is good...isn't that what we do with any army though? We take good stuff and put it in a list. I mean, if allies get adjusted we suddenly aren't going to see stalkers, hunters, assault centurions, assault marines and the like suddenly become important because the marine dexes themselves only have a few good units to put together.

 

Remember, adjustments. Not Witch-hunts. Yes, some codexes are worse than others, we can agree on that without doubt but us astartes need to remember we all go to the same bar to air our greivance over the matter...heck...the grey knight players are already drunk on the floor gibbering.

This is the third(?) time you’ve asserted that “you guys” hate imperial soup more than ynarri. Nobody like playing against ynarri, a lot of people clearly don’t like being forced to USE imperial soup. Being that this is primarily an imperial forum that’s what people are talking about.

 

I challenge you to write something less than a novel and one that’s not quite so condescending going forward.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I have to agree with FearPeteySodes I don't hate allies I hate that I'm putting myself at a severe disadvantage by not taking them. I don't think the core rules have to change but I think there should be formats for those of us that like playing single codex armies.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

 

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

On one hand you’re saying the problem is they invalidate army design by letting you patch weaknesses; but then your solution is all about CP which, even if you gave allies 0 CP, wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem of them being able to patch weaknesses, unless that weakness was purely a CP one and no army in the game has a purely CP weakness.

 

Saying allies don’t belong in matched play is fundamentally opposed to the way GW have designed 8th. Allies need some downsides but trying to persuade GW to disincentivise them to the point where no one takes them is basically asking them to admit they completely screwed up one of the core parts of an edition. You’ve got more chance of persuading them to stop using tape measure and dice or of convincing them not to make Eldar overpowered for once.

 

At the risk of putting words in Volt's mouth, that isn't what he's saying. The 'patch over weakness' issue is intrinsic to Allies, there's no getting around it (short of banning Allies, which I don't think anyone honestly expects). But the CP throttling is proposed as some form of downside to counter the inbuilt advantages allies can offer. The goal isn't to dis-incentivise allies to the point nobody takes them, it's to even out the Allies vs Mono-Dex choice so Mono isn't pure handicap.

 

Nobody's asking for GW to admit it, they just want the company to change it. Which has happened before, from assault rules (dominated in 3rd and 4th, nerfed for 5th) to formations (ruined 7th, gone for 8th) they have changes major aspects of the game over the years, and with the new FAQ/Chapter Approved update cycle, there's the opportunity to fix issues like this without the reboot of a new edition.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

On one hand you’re saying the problem is they invalidate army design by letting you patch weaknesses; but then your solution is all about CP which, even if you gave allies 0 CP, wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem of them being able to patch weaknesses, unless that weakness was purely a CP one and no army in the game has a purely CP weakness.

 

Saying allies don’t belong in matched play is fundamentally opposed to the way GW have designed 8th. Allies need some downsides but trying to persuade GW to disincentivise them to the point where no one takes them is basically asking them to admit they completely screwed up one of the core parts of an edition. You’ve got more chance of persuading them to stop using tape measure and dice or of convincing them not to make Eldar overpowered for once.

At the risk of putting words in Volt's mouth, that isn't what he's saying. The 'patch over weakness' issue is intrinsic to Allies, there's no getting around it (short of banning Allies, which I don't think anyone honestly expects). But the CP throttling is proposed as some form of downside to counter the inbuilt advantages allies can offer. The goal isn't to dis-incentivise allies to the point nobody takes them, it's to even out the Allies vs Mono-Dex choice so Mono isn't pure handicap.

 

Nobody's asking for GW to admit it, they just want the company to change it. Which has happened before, from assault rules (dominated in 3rd and 4th, nerfed for 5th) to formations (ruined 7th, gone for 8th) they have changes major aspects of the game over the years, and with the new FAQ/Chapter Approved update cycle, there's the opportunity to fix issues like this without the reboot of a new edition.

To be honest, I think that is what he means. If you look at all the posts I quoted he says ‘they need to be designed so they don’t patch each other’s weakness’ which you yourself say is impossible. He also says they should only be in narrative/open play and that if they are in matched play they should be an extremely costly fluffy element. If that isn’t disincentivising them to the point they’re not taken I don’t know what is.

 

The other side is, which I’ve mentioned before but which people seem oblivious to, is that GW have repeatedly said they don’t want to go down the route of banning or penalising allies, they would rather give bonuses to monodex armies. They may have changed tack in the past but it’s always come with a new edition. I agree mono-dex armies need to be on a level playing field but it should be done with boosts to monodex forces. Boosts, incidentally that don’t have to revolve around CP. trying to use CP to balance things when CP itself isn’t even vaguely balanced is like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

[Indefragable]

I'd like to see "secondary chapter tactics*" unlocked if every model in your army has the same <(Chapter)*> keyword.

 

It could be as simple as using certain Strategems twice in the same Turn, getting bonus CP, or something like re-rolling x if y does z (I'm thinking x = charges for Assault Marines where y = devestators and z = causes unsaved wound on a target....you get the idea).



*/equivalent sub-faction naming conventions

[Panzer]

I'd like to see "secondary chapter tactics*" unlocked if every model in your army has the same <(Chapter)*> keyword.

 

It could be as simple as using certain Strategems twice in the same Turn, getting bonus CP, or something like re-rolling x if y does z (I'm thinking x = charges for Assault Marines where y = devestators and z = causes unsaved wound on a target....you get the idea).

 

 

 

*/equivalent sub-faction naming conventions

 

A second set of more powerful Stratagems if your whole army consists of the same Chapter/Legion/Sept/Craftworld/Dynasty/whatever keyword would be another idea I'd love.

[TheTrans]

Or what about costing of stratagems changes based on amount of secondary key words

Mono-Faction Cost x
2 Faction Cost X*2
3 Faction Cost X*3

Or something like that? 

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

CP generation does need a pass. A flat amount of CP based on the points of the game isn't a bad idea. Pair that with a game-wide re-evaluation of strategem costs, and we'd be golden. Sounds like a good Chapter Approved release. That would be enough to boost some of the stronger mono army lists, like Orks or Tau. It wouldn't really help SM or CSM, as they are suffering from first codex problems and are due for a second pass to patch them up. But it'd help make all of that easier to balance, so I'm for it.

 

Another way to boost mono armies is to give army wide boosts only applicable if every detachment in the army is from the same faction. Possibly even Sub Factions. So, an all Khorne detachment will get its mark of Khorne boost. But if the entire army is Khorne, it could unlock a bigger, better, stabbin' for the Blood God boost. Then, specialty legions like the Black Legion or certain ork WAAAGHs could give similar army wide bonuses if you take say, one of each chaos detachment. I believe Sigmar's battle lines are sort of like that. Either way, depending on how it is handled, this could buff mono armies just as well as fluffy mixed armies, while not hurting the current soup overmuch. Buffing rather than nurfing is a good policy in most cases. You should only pull out the nerf bat if things have really ran away from you, like CP has.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

((Shout out to Indefragable, who I just realized beat me to this idea, hahaha. Teaches me to read a whole thread before posting.))

[Marshal Reinhard]

Like most balancing problems, this essentially comes down to cost. Different stratagems from different armies are of different strength, yet the difference in strength isn't reflected enough in how many CP they cost. This works fine if all armies' CP pools were completely separate, but it breaks down when you can use the cheap CP of the guard to power the powerful stratagems of Knights.

 

You either need to make sure that there is consistent a CP-cost to Stratagem-utility ratio for all stratagems across all codices. Or as suggested earlier, simply limit the amount of CP available to soup armies would get rid of the problems.

[Indefragable]

((Shout out to Indefragable, who I just realized beat me to this idea, hahaha. Teaches me to read a whole thread before posting.))

 

No worries...if we have the same idea independently, then that means we're both smart (or crazy). :)

 

Like most balancing problems, this essentially comes down to cost. Different stratagems from different armies are of different strength, yet the difference in strength isn't reflected enough in how many CP they cost. This works fine if all armies' CP pools were completely separate, but it breaks down when you can use the cheap CP of the guard to power the powerful stratagems of Knights.

 

You either need to make sure that there is consistent a CP-cost to Stratagem-utility ratio for all stratagems across all codices. Or as suggested earlier, simply limit the amount of CP available to soup armies would get rid of the problems.

 

And that is the crux, in so many ways.

Custodes' power is limited by their abilitiy to bring enough CP to power themselves. Enter the Loyal 32 and voila! Problem solved! No mess! Only 19.95 plus S&H!

 

It works too well because it works so well that there is no game mechanic/crunch reason why you ever wouldn't want to do it. And that's my beef with it since it's no easy and reliable to do there's (aside from fluff) never a reason not to do it.

[GrinNfool]

 

It seems one person is trying to logic out while someone is looking for target.

 

Allies are indeed a good thing for the game. In fact, they themselves have been balanced out a lot better than last edition because...well...do you at all remember Tau'Dar? You know, those big stompy stormsurges en mass getting psychic support from eldar dooms and all that with scatter bikes too? was kinda nutty.

 

The bulk of the imperial soup list is "good stuff is good" just like how eldar do it as well (though they too are allying up with ynnari non-sense...seriously...you guys hate on imperial soup more than ynnari soul burst?). They use stratagems but really there isn't some clever string to it, if you look at it you could take away most of their stratagems all the way down to only allowing them to warlord the castellan and get extra relics and they still would do well with as little as 4 CP. 1 to warlord the castellan, 1 to give it the relic decimator and 1 to get an extra relic for the blood angels with 1 CP left for command re-roll. They would still do well because their list is good stuff is good...isn't that what we do with any army though? We take good stuff and put it in a list. I mean, if allies get adjusted we suddenly aren't going to see stalkers, hunters, assault centurions, assault marines and the like suddenly become important because the marine dexes themselves only have a few good units to put together.

 

Remember, adjustments. Not Witch-hunts. Yes, some codexes are worse than others, we can agree on that without doubt but us astartes need to remember we all go to the same bar to air our greivance over the matter...heck...the grey knight players are already drunk on the floor gibbering.

This is the third(?) time you’ve asserted that “you guys” hate imperial soup more than ynarri. Nobody like playing against ynarri, a lot of people clearly don’t like being forced to USE imperial soup. Being that this is primarily an imperial forum that’s what people are talking about.

 

I challenge you to write something less than a novel and one that’s not quite so condescending going forward.

 

I think this is pretty accurate, a lot of people play imperial soup because mono imperial is so bad if you aren't AM or able to spam custodes bikes.  Castellan Imperial rises even more to prominence because it is the only real answer to dealing with Ynnari, especially for imperium players.  But thats the issue with taking any game and trying to make it "competitive".  People will try to find the most broken thing out there and abuse it to every bit they can.  Result is as you see at LVO, castellans or ynnari otherwise you were lucky to go 4-2.  Both lists are insanely cancerous but removing 1 makes the other that much more dominant and even if you removed both some other BS would rise to the top.  Part of why friendly type games are sooooo much more enjoyable than being forced to build a hard core list.